After taking a few days to review the letter Senators Markey (D-NH) and Boxer (D-CA) sent you regarding the EPA’s recommendation to lower the Renewable Fuel Standard, we’ve taken the liberty of making sure you had a version that aligns with reality.
Higher gas prices and plowing over natural conservation land should be cause enough for Congress to revisit the ethanol mandate, but the fundamental problem with policy is simply a disconnect with economic basics.
Proponents of the ethanol mandate promised Americans that their plan would save the environment; but 10 years later, America’s premier “environmental” policy is actually doing more harm to the environment than good.
In theory, the government mandate requiring that ethanol fuel be blended into America’s gasoline supply was intended to spur energy independence, reduce emissions and jumpstart rural economic development. Unfortunately, the RFS has failed to deliver on its environmental goals.
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), despite its original intentions to protect our environment and increase corn prices, has become just another form of corporate welfare, benefiting ethanol producers while average farms struggle to remain competitive.
For the first time since the ethanol mandate was enacted, a government agency has confirmed what the refining industry has said for years…forcing ethanol into our fuel supply will increase gas prices.
In an unprecedented moment of clarity, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a reduction to the 2014 ethanol mandate. Environmental Working Group did an analysis of how that reduction would affect the environment and the results might surprise you…
Yesterday 17 people from across the country flew to DC to share the varied reasons why ethanol mandates are failing them and the people they represent.
On Thursday, April 10, several diverse voices—including chain restaurants and environmentalists—participated in a panel with The Hill Magazine to discuss why the need to reform the government’s ethanol mandate is at critical mass.
As we wait for the Environmental Protection Agency to make the final ruling on the 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reversed its stance on biofuels development in a report released this week.
Agrichemical companies mint fortunes by selling seeds and chemicals to farmers, and grain processors reap billions from buying crops cheap and turning them into pricey stuff like livestock feed, sweetener, cooking oil, and ethanol. But the great bulk of US farms are run by independent operators.
The ethanol lobby is fighting hard for to defeat EPA’s proposal and maintain the status quo. The industry threatened to sue the EPA if they scaled back the RFS — a power that is well within their right, rarely used and the foundation of the much-touted “flexibility” of the policy.
While ethanol does, admittedly, curb emissions from an automobile’s tailpipe, getting it to that point actually increases GHG emissions and diverts more than 40 percent of our corn crops into our fuel supply.
While ethanol producers are bringing in record profits, dairy and poultry farmers have been forced to close up shop, unable to afford feed for animals.
As conservation lands disappear, animal habitats vanish with them. Since the ethanol mandate went into effect, in 2005, the Corn Belt states alone have lost 2.8 million acres from the conservation reserve program. Over the same period, pheasant harvests in those six states dropped by 44 percent.
While we await the announcement of 2014 ethanol blending levels by the EPA, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) filed a letter to Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA calling for adjustments to the Renewable Fuel Standard, with the support of 168 other members of Congress from both sides of the aisle.
Sportsmen and their congressional backers say federal ethanol policy is destroying wildlife habitat and contributing to water quality problems.
Governments must put people’s right to food before short term commercial interests, said Oxfam before the opening of the Committee on Food Security’s annual meeting. Oxfam is calling for Governments to ensure that biofuel policies do not force poor farmers off their land and fuel food price spikes.
North Dakota is going to have a red hot debate over conservation as signatures are collected for a second statewide conservation fund fueled with millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars.
A Congress Blog post explained how the RFS effectively established corn ethanol as the “practical” fuel of choice for RFS compliance, and then proceeded to slam those who coped with the policy as best they could by making that very choice.
While the biofuel industry has grown over the past decade, ethanol and other biofuels have come under increased criticism in recent years, with some questioning their long-term environmental benefits, and others linking them to more urgent disasters: food shortages in the world's poorest countries.