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.
In addition to discussing individual concerns, the SFF coalition presented OMB with a petition from nearly 13,000 SFF advocates calling for a lowered ethanol mandate.
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.
In order to prevent Americans from hitting the blend wall, the EPA proposed lowering the 2014 mandate. With this proposal came major political pressure from ethanol makers and now the EPA is considering backing down.
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…
World Hunger Day seems like an appropriate time to discuss what the EPA and Congress can do to positively impact those living in extreme poverty. In a discussion hosted by FoodPolicy.Us, panelists discussed the effects the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is having on hunger domestically and abroad.
This year, the price of ethanol soared above gasoline prices, and each year, more corn is diverted away from animal feed and our food supply and into our fuel. The UN stated in a report that the cost of corn, wheat, rice and soybeans could go up as much as 20 percent thanks to biofuels mandates.
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.
What happens when you use the world’s breadbasket to feed cars, not people? No surprise here: Less land for food means higher prices for you.
The UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Environmental Working Group, the Associated Press, Congressmen from both sides and others have revealed corn ethanol produces more GHGs than gasoline, is immensely water-intensive, zaps the land of essential nutrients and demolishes animal habitats.
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.
Oil refiners do oppose the ethanol mandate, but they are hardly the only ones who take issue with the policy. Environmentalists, taxpayers, food producers, consumer protection groups of all types, anti-hunger advocates and even farmers have all spoken out against the RFS.
A bill known as the EXPIRE Act came out of the Senate Finance Committee. If passed, the EXPIRE Act would renew energy tax credits slated to expire, including the extension of the $1.01 tax credit for any cellulosic biofuel produced through 2015 — a measure that could cost taxpayers $55 million.
The IPCC stunned many when it reversed its stance on global biofuels policies finding that the use of biofuels has sweeping consequences for the environment, global food security and the health of developing nations.
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.
Ethanol proponents have long claimed that advanced (cellulosic) biofuels will replace corn ethanol, resolving the emissions and hunger problems that corn ethanol causes. And yet, despite government mandates and subsidies, cellulosic biofuels are still not produced at any commercial scale.
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.
Today, we divert more than 40 percent of our corn crops to ethanol. Further, government has been subsidizing “gasohol” for years. In 1979, the going rate was 40 cents per gallon of E10. And the final lesson is this: we’ve been hoping for cellulosic biofuels forever.
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.