Countdown to Crawford: Tracking the final days of the Bush administration

| Main |

EPA refuses to cut ethanol requirement

12:02 PM PT, Aug 7 2008

EPA keeps ethanol requirement

Increased ethanol in U.S. gasoline has been blamed for a wide swath of global ills -- not the least of them global warming and escalating food prices. Efforts to lower the amount of ethanol blended into the fuel supply brought the conservative Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry, and several environmental groups into the same camp as they tried to persuade the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency to relax the ethanol-to-gasoline ratio.

That effort came to naught today. The EPA announced that it would not lower the so-called Renewable Fuel Standard, despite concerns about emissions and food prices.

Perry, who succeeded President Bush as governor of Texas, had asked the environmental agency in April to waive a requirement that 9 million gallons of ethanol and other renewable fuels be blended into gasoline this year. He said that by putting increasing demands on the supply of corn, the mandate was pushing up the cost of food and animal feed.

He was responding to a requirement imposed last December by Congress in an effort to lower fuel costs and make the United States less dependent on foreign oil.

But EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said this afternoon: "After reviewing the facts, it was clear this request did not meet the criteria in the law."

Perry had sought a 50% cut in the amount of ethanol to be blended into the gasoline supply.

The EPA said this couldn't be done in time to have an impact this year on corn, food or fuel prices.

Response to the decision fell along predictable lines:

The Environmental Working Group's director of government affairs, Sandra Schubert, called the mandate "misguided" and said it was "forcing farmers to plow up marginal land and wildlife habitat while increasing global warming and dumping toxic fertilizers and pesticides into our precious water sources."

"America should be focusing on viable clean energy solutions like conservation, solar and wind," she said.

The president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Jim Greenwood, said the decision sent "a strong message that we must continue moving forward toward sustainable production of advanced biofuels" to cut dependence on important oil and to increase biofuel production from non-food sources.

His organization represents biotech companies, among others involved in expanding the use of biofuels.

-- James Gerstenzang

Photo: Craig Hartley / Bloomberg News

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c630a53ef00e553f052508834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference EPA refuses to cut ethanol requirement:

Comments
Russ Miller, Ft. Worth, Tx.

Bad decision. While the investors in ethanol continue to reap the financial gains of tax incentives (paid for by the tax payer) the rancher is looking at feed, fertilizer, and diesel prices skyrocketing which will mean higher food prices for; guess who?; the taxpayer. I am paying $20.00 per bale mowing and baling costs this year versus $13.00 last year. Corn at $9.50 per bag versus $6.00 per bag last year. Do we want to continue to to break the backs of the tax payers to benefit the investors in this foolhardy endeavor?

Randy Dutton

Ethanol also destroys fuel systems. It deteriorates rubber fuel lines, corrodes some metals, dissolves older fiberglass resin in fuel tanks, and soaks up water. It separates from petroleum fuel and overheats two-cycle engines. An MSNBC poll found that 40% of small enginer repairs were because of ethanol damage. Ethanol increases ozone formation to the point the Washington State Dept of Ecology will recommend next month that no more than 2% ethanol be included in fuel in Seattle because they can't meet ozone attainment. Ethanol increases formaldehyde emissions. Destruction of legacy gas-powered equipment because of ethanol damage will force homeowners, businesses, and governemnt to buy replacement generators, power tools, etc. from.........China. Legislators who foisted this horrible fuel additive on us and won't reverse the trend should be fired - Tuesday. There are better fuel additives: propanol, butanol, and newer ones in research. Stop this madness that is draining what little money we have left and let's put common sense back into government.

Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In






Our Bloggers
James Gerstenzang, Johanna Neuman
Jim
Jo

James Gerstenzang and Johanna Neuman are reporters in The Times' Washington bureau. Between the two of them, they have covered the White House, diplomacy, military affairs, the environment, international economics, trade and Congress. They have both spent time in Crawford, Texas.