With Election Day only a year away, it’s more important than ever for you to speak up for the things you believe in. This can mean waiting to vote in the next election, or it can mean using your voice now.
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has set us up for failure.
Memorial Day weekend marks the beginning of the summer driving season, and as this year’s estimated 37.2 million road trippers hit the highway, they have great expectations to get the most out of every dollar and every mile.
You may not know it, but a government mandate exists that dictates the kind of fuel that goes into your car’s gas tank and you’re not only paying for it at the pump, but also in the grocery store and on tax day.
Swelling gas tanks, fewer miles to the gallon and “green sticky crap” in the carburetor… ethanol in our gasoline is causing all kinds of problems for motorcyclists, boaters and owners of other types of small engines like snow blowers and lawn mowers.
Reforming the RFS already has bipartisan support in Congress because policymakers on both sides of the aisle have seen the negative impact it has had in their home states.
Despite overwhelming evidence that the ethanol mandate is a failed policy, in 2014 the ethanol lobby continued to prove they are divorced from reality by declaring the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) an “unmitigated success.”
As the Office of Management and Budget continues to sit on the 2014 ethanol mandate, which is more than 10 months late, advance biofuels sweetheart KiOR files for bankruptcy and EWG and AAA expose the problems with corn ethanol.
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.
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.
In its zeal to impose the ethanol boondoggle, Congress has mandated it, subsidized it, and protected it from competitors. Now some Senators are siccing prosecutors on those who still won't get on their ethanol corn-wagon.
The scientific and economic reality is that ethanol is much more costly to produce than gasoline, while providing 27 percent lower fuel economy than gasoline on an energy equivalent basis. Hence consumers have to purchase more fuel to drive the same distances.
There are reports that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor may introduce legislation to reform the ethanol mandate. Cantor’s comments were made during a meeting with top oil industry executives and lobbyists from organizations, including Valero, Phillips 66, Chevron, and ExxonMobil.
Ethanol may help keep corn demand and prices high to support our farmers, but there are a number of downsides to corn ethanol. It supports a system that over-relies on corn, drives up food prices and it contains less energy per volume than gasoline.
The 2007 federal law mandating ever-greater ethanol consumption remains on the books, and it is starting to create the economic equivalent of a multi-car freeway pileup.
U.S. regulators said they would propose for the first time lowering the mandated consumption of corn ethanol used in motor fuel, a reversal in policy that puts a powerful industry on the defense.
Cars and fuel pumps in the United States can easily handle gasoline with 10 percent ethanol or less, a blend known as “E10.” But if we started mixing even more ethanol in that gasoline — say, moving up to 15 percent, or E15 — it gets trickier.
The Energy and Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives has been holding hearings this week on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). These hearings are timely, since at least two bills have been introduced to reform or repeal the RFS.
For the RFS to succeed, two things have to happen in a relatively short span of time. First, retailers must be able to legally and affordably sell new fuels. Second, consumers need to accept and use the new fuels that will be required by the program.