The Renewable Fuel Standard was supposed to be better for the environment than traditional gasoline. But in fact it actually does more harm than good to the environment and the rural economies it was supposed to bolster.
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.
Increased fertilizer runoff is just another unintended consequence of the Renewable Fuel Standard that’s doing more harm to the environment that good. As the level of ethanol mandated grows each year, more land acreage is devoted to grow corn to make it.
Advocates for Smarter Fuel Future design warning label that show the horrors of ethanol.
Sportsmen and their congressional backers say federal ethanol policy is destroying wildlife habitat and contributing to water quality problems.
What is the single biggest misconception people have about renewable energy in the U.S.? And why do you think they have this misconception? Robert Rapier answers:
We can’t have a conversation about greenhouse gas emissions and the environment without first addressing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Why? Because not only is the current generation of biofuels failing to deliver promised environmental benefits, it’s actually working against those goals.
The chemical energy added to soil by intensive ammonia-based fertilization has been directly responsible for increasing Iowa corn yields by a factor of 6 since the 1930s.
Ethanol benefits only those groups that sell the raw material comprising it and the politicians who receive their donations while wreaking immeasurable harm on the world’s most economically vulnerable and providing little to no environmental advantages.
Farming is not for the arithmetically challenged. There are costs of equipment to be factored into the reoccurring costs of fertilizer, seed and pesticides; veterinary care for the animals; and then, for those who do not grow enough to feed their animals, feed.
Fossil fuels are killing our climate and we need to find alternatives. It’s a simple message that most people get, but what happens when one of the supposed alternatives also becomes not just a climate killer, but a driver of hunger?