Ethanol Ruling a Test for Obama Administration
A new EPA proposal has sparked debate over measuring greenhouse gas emissions
In his inaugural address, President Obama promised "to restore science to its rightful place." Last week, in arguably one of the toughest tests of that pledge yet, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules for calculating greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol.
The underlying question: Does ethanol help or hurt the environment? In 2007, when Congress passed the law that lit up the U.S. biofuel industry by mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol annually by 2022, it also said that corn-based ethanol's greenhouse gas emissions must be 20 percent lower than gasoline's.
But, as the EPA has learned, calculating those values isn't easy. One of the biggest sources of debate has been over changes in land use, particularly abroad. If corn is taken out of the food supply to make biofuel, global food prices can rise, which can prompt farmers in other countries to clear forests for new crops. And that releases CO2.
Many researchers say the EPA's analyses must count these emissions; biofuel makers argue that the scientific understanding of how to calculate them is still poor.
Offering one of the first looks at how the administration intends to navigate tough scientific debates, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson tried to strike something of a middle ground as the proposal was unveiled. Yes, she said, land-use changes should be considered, because that's what the scientific community has recommended. But in a nod to biofuel makers, the EPA also admitted it's not totally comfortable with the "best science available."
As the EPA's 600-page proposal explains, the "best science available" relies heavily on sophisticated computer models that try to account for everything from land changes to commodity markets. In the EPA's proposal, it chose to combine at least six separate models, as well as satellite imagery documenting global land-use changes, to try to paint a complete picture of biofuel emissions.
But because this sort of approach is so complicated and has no real precedent, Jackson is also calling for a special "peer review." The EPA is currently assembling four panels, each with five outside experts, to examine the agency's concerns about its proposal.
Within the biofuel industry, which has long decried these models, the immediate reaction was mixed. "EPA is trying to put its best foot forward," Bob Dineen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, says. "There is a great deal of uncertainty, which is why the administration wisely chose to subject those international effects to peer review."
In Congress, however, tempers flared. "Why would you rush to judgment?" charged GOP Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, regarding the rule. "We are not getting a look into how you came up with this novel methodology." In response, the EPA reminded the members of Congress that its proposal is just that: a proposal, not a final rule, subject to feedback and review.
They can expect a lot of it. Already, several perturbed members of Congress have called for tripling the public comment period for the proposal, from 60 to 180 days.
- Read more about Obama's commitment to science.
- Read more about a global treaty for handling climate change .
Reader Comments
Re: ignorance of ethanol opposition
Craig Ripplinger made a comment on the ignorance of those who oppose ethanol blended fuels. Please do your research before opening your mouth. It is proposed that ethanol lowers emissions, however the EPA hasn't fully confirmed the impact. The fact is, ethanol enriched fuels result in a loss in fuel economy. A loss of 10% or better in some cases, which causes the consumer to buy at least the equivalent percentage more fuel. Also, this fuel can hold a large quantity of water introdeced by vapor in the air. At certain ambiant temperatures, this water separates and can freeze. Not only can it cause detonation problems in internal combustion engines, it also clogs fuel filters which can ruin fuel pumps. Ethanol enriched fuels also cause problems in the aviation industry. Many general aviation owners that can use autogas, do. Not only is it less expensive, it also doesn't contain lead that is produced only in brittain, that poses issues with the EPA. Ethanol gas cannot be used in aircraft due to the freezing/water contamination issues, as well as the rubber deterioration quality of the ethanol.
I live in Indiana and can appreciate the effective use and it's effect on the farming industry, however, it also causes the price of all corn bi-products to increase. It is a simple supply/demand curve from Econ 101. Also, as production has to increase, more carbon dioxide filtering trees have to be cut down, so emmission saving ethanol is less effective on the environment. Everyone should be fully educated. Please do you homework. As for Craig Ripplinger, the gentleman who said that opposers to ethanol were ignorant, basing his argument on the discovery of a visionary from 100 years ago, it isn't 1910. Times and technology, as well as research are advancing daily. You should keep your poor opinions and assumptions to yourself.
ethanol in Hybrids?
My Camry Hybrid calls for 100% gasoline. I found a exxon in Knoxville, TN that bought his gas without ethanol until last week. Now he says they won't let him buy it that way. He stated he could have used ethanol all along, but it would cut your mpg by 1-3% depending on your car. He also stated you had more power with regular 100% gas. I started using his gas and even took a trip down to Florida and did find my car felt like it had more power and I got 39.9 mpg down and only 37.7 on the way home. Ethanol was the reason it was lower. If i get less mileage then I will have to buy more gas to make up the difference; not to mention engine wear and higher food prices. Looks like a no brainer to me. Unless our cars are modified and we use a non food product to make ehanol we will lose any gains made.
Ethanol
Ethanol is a great motor fuel and was used by Henry Ford in the early 1900's. It is unfortunate that so many people are ignorant regarding motor fuels; gasoine itself had many problems that had to be overcome and even today ethanol is superior in almost every respect. The days of cheap gas are over.
Even many environmentalists are ignorant regarding energy production and use, they think that we can simply revert back to 1700 and grow wheat in our backyards and walk to the hospital.
The fact is that ethanol can enable the use of exisisting infrastructure, enable the use of millions of existing vehicles, energize the farm economy instead of shipping cubic money to the middle east, go a long way to cleaning our air and make a real dent in our CO2 emissions. The only people that are against ethanol are people that are ignorant, unfortunatly there has never been a shortage of ignorance or turmoil.
advertisement
