E85 Sales Would Soar If Fuel Was Priced On Parity With E10 And Had Full Access To Flex Vehicle Market, According To CARD Economists (via PR Newswire)
Meeting demand is key to achieving federal renewable fuel volume mandates WASHINGTON, Nov. 6, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — A new paper by Iowa State University economists Bruce A. Babcock and Sebastien Pouliot identifies a bottleneck of too few fuel stations…
From the nonsensical claims of the blend wall to bogus quotes from AAA to fraudulent claims that increased ethanol production will increase the cost of food, big oil hasn’t stopped fighting the Renewable Fuels Standard since day 1- and it’s becoming obvious why. A recently “leaked” draft of new legislation suggests the EPA is being pressured to reduce the “renewable fuel” requirement from the statutory level of 14.4 billion gallons to as little as 12.36- a move which would lead to a windfall for Big Oil in 2014— big to the tune of $9-$15 billion!
Despite what many would like you to believe, the oil industry’s crusade against the RFS (and, by extension, ethanol) isn’t about the interests of the American consumer. It is, as Geoff Cooper puts it, “about money, market share, and (illegally) snuffing out competition”.
Former US Secretary of Agriculture John Block seems to agree with Cooper’s take on the push for an RSF reduction. He recently wrote, “Refiners have already lost 10 percent of the gasoline market to ethanol, and they are leaving no stone unturned in their effort to block cleaner, cheaper biofuels from taking more of their market share.” That “leaving no stone unturned” apparently includes price-gouging, illegally dumping waste into drinking water supplies, poisoning the air in small towns, and refusing to pay court-ordered damages– but that’s another article. Probably.
This article is about profits and motives, then, so take a look at the numbers Mr. Cooper put together to outline the winners and losers in a variety of RFS reduction circumstances, take it all in, and let us know what you plan to do about it- from writing your Congressman to buying an electric car- in the comments, at bottom.
Source: Renewable Fuels America.
When the words “Big Oil hasn’t let the facts get in the way of its attacks on renewable fuels.” showed up on my Twitter feed this morning, I actually laughed out loud. Despite significant legal reviews, health benefits touted by the American Lung Association, lower prices, and multiple debunkings of that whole “no food for fuel” nonsense, people still buy into ads like the one I literally just heard on Pandora. Big oil-funded ads that mis-quote the AAA and warn that warranties could be void if the EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard stays in effect.
Ads that are full of big oil lies, in other words.
So, besides improving your health, improving your life expectancy, generating high-paying jobs, saving the country billions, and making your car run stronger than ever, what has the Renewable Fuels Standard done for you, lately? That’s exactly what the article referenced in this tweet …
“Big Oil hasn’t let the facts get in the way of its attacks on renewable fuels.” – Tom Haag of @mncorn. http://t.co/z0S9DkAlfB
— Fuels America (@FuelsAmerica) September 12, 2013
… is all about. It was published in the Minnesota Farm Guide and written by Tom Haag, who does a much better job of not calling the sanity and intelligence of anti-ethanol hysterics into question than I’m capable of. Read it. Digest it. Then let us know what you think. Enjoy!
If I told you there was a piece of legislation that has reduced America’s dependence on foreign oil by 20 percent, supports 400,000 jobs, adds $43 billion to our gross domestic product, reduces greenhouse gas emissions by at least 34 percent and saves the typical motorist $1,200 per year, would you call for that legislation to be scaled back or repealed?
It sounds like a silly question, doesn’t it? Why would anyone want to repeal a piece of legislation that is doing all of those things?
But that’s exactly what Big Oil companies and their highly paid executives, lobbyists and public relations teams are trying to do to a piece of legislation called the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).
The RFS was enacted in 2005, updated in 2007, and is one of our country’s most successful energy policies ever. Thanks to the RFS — legislation that sets market-based goals for blending renewable fuels with gasoline – Big Oil’s monopoly on transportation fuels is loosening, which allows alternatives like ethanol to compete fairly in the marketplace.
Unfortunately, Big Oil isn’t a fan of the free market and competition. It’s attacking the RFS and ethanol so it can continue gouging Americans at the pump and limit fuel choices.
I believe that America was founded on free-market principles. Businesses should compete fairly in the marketplace and consumers should be protected against monopolies like Big Oil that unfairly manipulate prices.
Consider this: A barrel of oil cost $23 in 2001. Today, oil is over $100 per barrel — a 335 percent increase – despite the fact that demand for gasoline is down and we’re drilling for more oil in places like North Dakota.
In Minnesota, the price of a gallon of gas has gone from under $1.50 to around $4 (sometimes more) over the last 11 years.
These unexplainable and unjustified price increases are not sustainable. We need legislation like the RFS to ensure fairness in the marketplace and give alternatives like ethanol a shot to compete. Because the price of ethanol is less than gasoline, it’s already saving Americans about $1.09 per gallon.
Of course, Big Oil hasn’t let the facts get in the way of its attacks on renewable fuels. It’s gotten so bad that Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) recently urged the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate possibly anti-competitive practices (such as intimidating franchisees) by oil companies that may block market access for renewable fuels.
Minnesota’s corn farmers appreciate the bi-partisan efforts of both senators to protect consumers and build a transportation fuels market that is competitive. Now it’s time for other leaders in Washington to follow suit and defend the RFS.
Source: Minnesota Farm Guide, via Fuels America.
Are ethanol blend fuels better than traditional petroleum fuels? According to the American Lung Association (ALA), that answer is an unequivocal “yes.” “Using E85 in a flex fuel vehicle significantly reduces tailpipe emissions as well as lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions,” explains the ALA. “The 10 percent ethanol added as an oxygenate in our gasoline helps the fuel burn cleaner and reduces the amount of oil we need to import from other states and other countries.”
The ALA writer goes on to point out that gasoline has net-negative energy balance, citing US Dept. of Energy reports that, “for every unit of energy expended in gasoline production, just 0.81 units of energy are delivered in the final product. On the other hand, for every unit of energy used to make ethanol and its co-products, 1.87 units of energy are yielded.”
That’s just part of the American Lung Association’s ringing endorsement for ethanol – and, yet, I already know some people will be frothing at the mouth to dispute their findings.
Despite the overwhelming evidence to contrary of almost every argument they’ve ever made about ethanol being bad for engine performance or ethanol raising food prices, however, anti-ethanol hysterics who believe big oil’s lies and twisted are still a thing. People who think the Earth was created about 6,000 years ago are still a thing, too, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. Here’s the full article, then, written by the American Lung Association’s communications director, Robert Moffitt. If you have a problem with ALL the facts pointing to ethanol being better (and cheaper!) than gasoline, please check into your local loony bin for a few days of “observation” before posting anything in the comments, below. Enjoy!
In response to “Ethanol is a not long term solution,” I’ll begin by saying the author made some valid points. No, ethanol is not an environmental, economic and political cure-all, nor is it the sole solution to our nation’s fossil fuel addiction. However, the post did fail to address one key question that should be asked of all alternatives to traditional petroleum fuels: “are ethanol blend fuels better than traditional petroleum fuels?”
The American Lung Association in Minnesota believes the answer to that question is “yes.” Using E85 in a flex fuel vehicle significantly reduces tailpipe emissions as well as lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions; the 10 percent ethanol added as an oxygenate in our gasoline helps the fuel burn cleaner and reduces the amount of oil we need to import from other states and other countries.
Before we critique ethanol, let’s take a closer look at the traditional transportation fuels most of us still use every day. A large percent of the gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels consumed in Minnesota are derived from the Tar Sands region of Alberta, Canada. The partially degraded bitumen used to make our fuels is strip-mined or steamed out of the soil, using processes that require enormous amounts of water and fossil fuels. After the thick sludge arrives in Minnesota via pipeline or rail, more energy and water is used to refine the fuels that power our vehicles, boats and aircraft. This carbon and water intensive oil produces more greenhouse gases than sweet light crude, and unlike ethanol, it is not renewable or cleaner-burning.
Few people realize that gasoline actually has a negative energy balance. The U.S. Department of Energy reports that for every unit of energy expended in gasoline production, just 0.81 units of energy are delivered in the final product. On the other hand, for every unit of energy used to make ethanol and its co-products, 1.87 units of energy are yielded.
There are more than 300,000 flex fuel vehicles that can use E85 and other high-ethanol blend fuels registered in Minnesota. Minnesotans buy millions of gallons of E85 from more than 350 retail outlets statewide each year. This cleaner-burning fuel is not mandated, but is the fuel of choice for many Minnesotans drivers who want a fuel that is made close to home, reduces air pollution and (almost always) costs less than regular unleaded.
It is true that E85 contains less energy per volume than gasoline. However, the current price of E85 more than offsets any reduction in miles per gallon, plus E85 is largely renewable, gasoline is not. The closer you compare E85 to gasoline, the better the homegrown fuel looks.
Slowly but surely, we are breaking our addiction to oil. For the first time in decades, our consumption of gasoline has declined. We’re driving less, driving smarter, and conserving more. Here in Minnesota, walking and biking are booming, our mass transit options are growing, and we have seen steady growth in E85, biodiesel, electric, natural gas and propane powered vehicles.
As the MN 2020 post concluded, we still have a ways to go before we reach the full potential of many renewable energy sources available to us. Vehicle emissions are still the single largest source of air pollution in Minnesota, and we should not allow the search for a “perfect solution” get in the way of some of the better choices we have available to us right now. Research on promising new fuels and technologies must move forward. In the meanwhile, the American Lung Association in Minnesota will continue to fight for cleaner air, cleaner vehicles, and cleaner fuels, like E85 and biodiesel.
Source | Photos: American Lung Association, via Twin Cities Daily Planet.
E15 is coming, and federal courts think that is just fine according to a federal appeals court decision rendered Tuesday that denied a request by food and oil lobbyists that it reconsider a decision upholding a federal measure allowing gasoline to be mixed with a higher percentage of ethanol. Known as E15, the ethanol/gasoline mix is expected to reduce dependence on foreign oil while encouraging the development of ethanol-friendly fuel systems and modern, turbocharged engines that can benefit from the increased octane available from ethanol fuels.
The petitioners, led by lobbyists from the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Petroleum Institute, requested a rehearing after courts OK’ed the EPA’s approval of E15 (current US fuels are E10). The lobbying groups’ claim that ethanol in gasoline could cause damage to older car engines and fuel systems and result in costly repairs for consumers, which seemes largely debatable – especially if you’re a right-wing nutjob who has no direct experience with ethanol, engines, or the scientific method (note: the previous, dead-nuts accurate comment was not present in the court’s records).
Some legal experts believe that the denial of a rehearing in the appeals court may give petitioners a chance to bring their case against the EPA case to the Supreme Court. Here’s hoping the court has the good sense to ignore them.
You can read the full report, by Valerie Volcovici, below.
Federal Court Upholds Decision to Allow Higher Ethanol Blends
WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (Reuters) – A U.S. federal appeals court on Tuesday denied a request by food and oil groups that it reconsider a decision upholding a federal measure allowing gasoline to be mixed with a higher percentage of ethanol, producing a blend known as E15.
The petitioners, led by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Petroleum Institute, requested a rehearing after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit in August backed the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the 15 percent mix, an increase from the previous maximum ethanol blend of 10 percent.
The lobbying groups said that the higher ethanol blend in gasoline could cause damage to car engines and fuel systems, resulting in costly repairs for consumers.
The court upheld the 2-1 opinion handed down in August that the trade groups’ claims of harm were speculative.
But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the lone dissenter, said the law does not allow the EPA to grant a waiver for a higher blend, suggesting that the case might continue.
“The evidence is undisputed that this E15 waiver would cause failure of emissions standards in cars manufactured through 2000. Yet EPA still granted the waiver. EPA’s action simply cannot be squared with the statutory text,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Ethanol trade groups applauded the court’s decision.
“This is a major victory for the renewable fuels industry and opens the door for further investment in new fueling technology to offer E15 to consumers,” said Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, which represents ethanol producers.
The sale of E15 is not widespread yet and faces barriers including the cost of installing special pumps that can dispense various blends at service stations. States must also give approval for the local sale of E15.
The API said it has not yet decided how to continue to challenge the EPA on this issue in the courts.
“We’re disappointed in the court’s decision not to hear the case and are weighing our legal options,” said Carlton Carroll, a spokesman for the API.
“EPA approved E15 even though research by automakers, the oil industry and the government showed potential mechanical and infrastructure problems with E15 that could also lead to serious safety and environmental problems.
A report by the Automobile Association of America in December said there is insufficient evidence that E15 is safe to use in most vehicles and that most cars were never designed to use E15 as a fuel.
“AAA believes the EPA and retailers should suspend the sale of E15 until more is done to protect consumers from the potential for costly auto damage and voided warranties,” an AAA spokesman said on Tuesday.
But some legal experts said that, despite the denial of a rehearing in the appeals court, petitioners may have a shot at bringing the case to the Supreme Court.
Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western University’s law school, said the case would clear the way to address the issue of “standing” in the high court.
Several cases handled by the D.C. appeals court, including a high-profile case in which the court upheld the EPA’s rules governing greenhouse gas emissions, raise concerns that plaintiffs did not have the standing, or right, to sue, Adler said.
To bring a lawsuit, the trade groups must have shown that they had standing – specific interest in the case and or evidence they were directly hurt.
“This case would seem to be a fairly clean shot at clarifying some aspects of standing,” he said. “There is some concern that in some of the recent decisions, its stinginess on standing has come at the expense of analytical consistency.”
“It would seem to be a case that for some good reasons has been flagged and may get serious attention by (the Supreme Court).”
Source: Reuters.
When writing about alternative fuels, there is often this sense of deja vu; like I’ve been here and done that. So it is not surprising in the least that I find myself once again writing that Congress is kick the ethanol industry while its down, and moving to block the sale of E15 gasoline at gas stations across the nation.
The move was spearheaded by Republican James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin on the House Science Committee as a response by an outcry of 31 automakers, pig farmers, and petroluem companies. The bill drew a 19-7 vote along party lines to block the sale of E15 without further scientific assessment.
E15 has already been exhaustively studied though, and the EPA has already approved it for use in 2001 and up model year cars. Furthermore, independent studies have confirmed that the use of E15 has no impact on fuel economy or engine reliability on cars dating back almost 20 years.
But that hasn’t stopped Congress from again blocking the sale of E15, which it did for the first time almost a year ago to the day. It is important to note that the EPA is not mandating all gas stations use E15; it is merely giving station owners the option of selling E15 at clearly-marked pumps. Yet House Republicans won’t even allow that, instead demanding further and further study.
It’s not another roadblock to ethanol industry which saw its Federal subsidies end last year as well has becoming a whipping boy for right-wing pundits to blast as an example of a failed alternative fuel. But studies suggest that ethanol use saves consumers almost 89-cents a gallon at the pump.
I just find it so deliciously ironic that the same Republican party calling for less interference from government is always standing in the way of the ethanol industry. Ironic, but not surprising, that’s for sure.
Source: The Detroit News
The American Le Mans Series is one of the greenest racing series in the world, with competitors running E10, E85, isobutonal, diesel, and even hybrid systems from Porsche. Next up for the ALMS? Compressed natural gas (CNG) and electric cars…eventually.
Scott Atherton, CEO of the ALMS, was interviewed by Fox Car Reports over this weekend at the races at Lime Rock (I can’t believe I missed it this year, doh!) During the interview, he was asked what alternative fuels he thought would be coming to the series next, and Mr. Atherton would like to see CNG cars hitting the track soon. There has been a lot of interest from both sides of the political spectrum regarding natural gas vehicles as a replacement for petroleum, but I maintain the best way to reach people is via racing. Racing would give CNG vehicles a chance to demonstrate their power and ability compared to other cars, and give us alt-fuel fans another vehicle to cheer for.
Atherton also says that, eventually, he’d like to integrate all-electric race cars into the ALMS, but right now they can’t compete due to the limited range of the batteries. However, he is looking to adding a separate EV racing series to the ALMS racing weekend, and has said that several manufacturers have expressed interest in such an event (cough cough Nissan cough.) I’d like to see a racing series that features all of the alternative fuels competing against each other, including biodiesel, propane, and whatever else you can use to make a car go fast and clean. The ALMS is really sticking to its guns, and the upcoming Baltimore Grand Prix is being touted as the “most sustainable” race in the U.S. ever. Green racing really is the way to go if we want to convince the masses that alternative fuels really are the future.
Source: Fox Car Reports
Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs. You can read about his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout or follow his non-nonsensical ramblings on Twitter @harshcougar.
For an alternative fuel that has proven itself viable in other countries, ethanol just can’t get no love in America, despite a new study that reports that blending ethanol with gasoline saved Americans up to $0.89 cents per gallon.
A recent joint study by the Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin showed that, on average, the 10% ethanol mixture in gasoline pushed down the price of gasoline by an average of $0.25 cents a gallon, and in the MidWest more like $0.39 cents a gallon. Wholesale prices of gasoline were reduced by $0.89 cents a gallon, as ethanol production accounts for 10% of all gasoline sales now.That kind of money adds up when you consider that the average American family buys around 900 gallons of fuel per year. The average family spends about $2,400 a year on gasoline; without ethanol, that price would be closer to $3,200.
The paper, sponsored by the admittedly biased Renewable Fuels Association, also examined what gas prices would look like if ethanol was removed wholesale from the gasoline supply. The result would be gas prices between 40 and 90% higher than they already are, meaning prices in the $5.50 to $7.70 a gallon range.
As a rule, I take any study with a grain (or burlap sack) of salt, and obviously the RFA is probably delighted with the results of this study. On the same token, this is kind of a common sense study. A lot of ethanol is still made from corn, which remains heavily subsidized even as oil prices hover around $100 a barrel. Now, if you had asked me, I would think ethanol knocks off closer to 10% off the price of a gallon of gas, which these days amounts to closer to $0.40 cents a gallon. Ethanol isn’t free, I realize, and running E-85 can actually be quite expensive.
But I am all for anything that reduces our dependence on oil, including ethanol. In may not be the panacea for all our energy problems, but in places like the MidWest ethanol certainly makes more sense than electric cars. And it just so happens it is saving us all a hefty chunk o’ change. If we bumped the blend up to 15%, which studies show has no detrimental affect on older vehicles engines ,(still salty on that one too) we’d probably save even more loot. I won’t hold my breath, but I will hold on to the hope that common sense will eventually overcome partisan politics (I almost wrote parmesan politics. Guess I’m hungry!)
Source: Domestic Fuel | Image: Micheal Cote | Creative Commons Attribution 2.0
Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs. You can read about his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout or follow his non-nonsensical ramblings on Twitter @harshcougar.
In a bid to assert its authority as the world-leader in bio-fuel use, the Brazilian government has directed Petrobras (which is partially owned by the Brazilian government) to double its biofuel output over the next four years. Brazil’s government has set aside over $3.5 billion USD to help the company meet its lofty production goals.
Petrobras’ announcement comes just a few days after a politically-motivated (and factually dubious) report was issued by the GOP front group AAPS claimed that bio-fuel production could lead to increased food prices and mass deaths. Thankfully, Brazil’s powers-that-be have seen through the AAPS’ political smokescreen and are pushing forward with their biofuel plans, despite a recent a bump in global sugar prices that’s convinced many refineries to turn surgacane into sweetener rather than ethanol, causing ethanol’s prices to soar to a record $1.07 per liter last week.
This news follows the announcement of Shell’s plan to invest 12 billion USD into Brazil’s Cosan biofuel company last year, further cementing Brazil’s status as a global biofuel power.
Sources: Bloomberg; Petrobras, via Autoblog Green.
Every once in a while, I read something that doesn’t quite jive. Sometimes it’s a simple typo or a misplaced decimal point, and a quick double-take + common sense will straighten things out. Other times, like when I read a report on Autoblog Green about the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) predicting a move to ethanol-based bio-fuels “could kill 200,000 people a year”, something more sinister (or possibly just “more stupid”) is behind the apparent disconnect.
Reading the article (which I encourage everyone to do), the argument the AAPS is making essentially “boils down” to a single passage, which reads –
Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles. Higher food prices, in turn, condemn more people to chronic hunger and “absolute poverty” (defined as income less than $1.25 per day). But hunger and poverty are leading causes of premature death and excess disease worldwide. Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease.
– got that? At first glance, it might seem like solid reasoning.
It’s not.
Before I get down to the business of analyzing the logic behind that argument critically (i.e., like a good little philosophy major) I’m going to play a little “logical argument game” with the AAPS. Mind you, this little game will not actually refute the argument in any way (but we’ll get to that, I promise) and serves no grander purpose than letting me vent about something that irks me, but play along. I think you’ll enjoy it.
Logical argument game: attack ad hominem.
Generally speaking, the validity of a given argument is independent of the arguer – which is to say: it doesn’t matter who says “2+2=4”, the statement is either true or false on its own merit. So, when an ultra-conservative GOP lobby calling itself “the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons” says things like “HIV doesn’t cause AIDS”, “the homosexual lifestyle reduces lifespan by 20 years”, and that “human activity has not contributed to climate change”, these shouldn’t take away from the group’s credibility.
So, despite the fact that other medical and scientific journals have claimed that the AAPS “is waging a war on science- and evidence-based medicine in the name of its politics” and that the New York Times described AAPS’ members as an “ultra-right-wing … political-economic rather than a medical group”, that shouldn’t influence our reading of the AAPS’ “biofuels kill” argument (in gray) above.
So, while the AAPS are (op-ed comment in 3 … 2 … 1 …) a malicious, racist, and homophobic bunch of douchebags, their malicious, racist, and homophobic douchebaggery is not a logically valid reason to automatically disbelieve what they’re saying about biofuel production being causally related to 200,000 deaths each year.
See? That was fun! Sophomoric, sure, but still fun. Besides, we don’t need to go after the AAPS’ own creditability to cast doubt (if not totally dismantle) their “biofuels kill” argument. From here on out, we’ll apply sound, 101 “intro-logic” level reasoning to the argument and see how it stands up.
Let’s start with the first sentence of the AAPS’ statement, which reads “Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles.” The sentence itself, as a grammatical English sentence, is really a compound sentence, making a first point (increased production of biofuels increases the price of food), whose truth is implied by a second point (biofuel production diverts crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles). As a logical argument, the compound sentence could be rewritten as “If you divert crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles (by increasing production of biofuel), then the price of food worldwide would go up.” If you look at it that way, you can see a few major problems.
… I’m going to take a bit of a side-track here and point out that 3,976 Iraqi civilians were killed in 2010 as a direct result of what many have called a war for oil. That was 2010, which was an improvement compared to the 4,680 civilians killed in 2009. This war has been going on for nearly 10 years now, and the heaviest fighting was early on. How many deaths, then, were directly caused by just this one war, even if you exclude combatants? 40,000? 50,000? That’s not worldwide, that’s just this one war in Iraq! What’s causing those deaths? Tanks, Hummers, planes, etc. all had their role – and the continuous wartime operation of all these vehicles is adding to the demand for oil to the tune of 40 million barrels a year over and above peacetime ops (395,000 barrels per day, according to the DoD). This sort of massive oil use is driving up costs according to exactly the same “supply/demand” model the AAPS applies to crops and biofuel – which begs the question: How many deaths were caused by the rise in oil prices that were a direct result of feeding the war for oil machine?
“Too many.” is the correct answer.
Note, also, that these are not hypothetical deaths – these deaths are happening now, and they are happening precisely because we haven’t shifted our focus away from petroleum fuels. The AAPS doesn’t care about these deaths, however – because these deaths don’t advance the AAPS’ agenda …
… before we get back to the (super fun!) attacks ad hominem, though, let’s get back to the AAPS’ “biofuls kill” argument. We’ve already shot a few holes in the reasoning and consequences laid out in the first part of the argument, but what about its second half – wherein the AAPS’ writers are “leading” us to their conclusion? That conclusion being, “Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease.” Again, this is based on the validity of the first sentence in the argument (the one we already beat down) so, in a pure “classroom” sense, we can ignore this completely.
This isn’t a classroom, though, so I’ll make it as clear as I can: because it is not immediately clear that increased biofuel production would directly cause an increase in food prices (see items 1, 2, 3, and 4, above) it is not possible to causally connect higher biofuel production with increased death and disease.
For objectivity’s sake, the AAPS’ full press release is included below.
TUCSON, Ariz., March 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — U.S. and European policy to increase production of ethanol and other biofuels to displace fossil fuels is supposed to help human health by reducing “global warming.” Instead it has added to the global burden of death and disease.
Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles. Higher food prices, in turn, condemn more people to chronic hunger and “absolute poverty” (defined as income less than $1.25 per day). But hunger and poverty are leading causes of premature death and excess disease worldwide. Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease.
Research by the World Bank indicates that the increase in biofuels production over 2004 levels would push more than 35 million additional people into absolute poverty in 2010 in developing countries. Using statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Indur Goklany estimates that this would lead to at least 192,000 excess deaths per year, plus disease resulting in the loss of 6.7 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per year. These exceed the estimated annual toll of 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million lost DALYs that the World Health Organization attributes to global warming. Thus, developed world policies intended to mitigate global warming probably have increased death and disease in developing countries rather than reducing them. Goklany also notes that death and disease from poverty are a fact, whereas death and disease from global warming are hypothetical.
Thus, the biofuel remedy for global warming may be worse than the disease it purports to alleviate.
Sources: too many to list, but clicking on the embedded hyperlinks above will get you there, and I encourage anyone with even the slightest bit of interest in politics and environmental policy to do just that.
Photo: Associated Press.
Yesterday’s Daytona 500 NASCAR race was a historic event in more ways that one. For starters, it was the first time since the event’s inaugural running that a first-time entrant had won, Trevor Bayne became the youngest NASCAR/Daytona race winner in the sport’s history, and it was the first Daytona 500 to feature cars fueled by E15. Indeed, the race organizers actively promoted alternative fuels all weekend, in the form of the series “American Ethanol” sponsorship … which looks like this:
The “greening” of NASCAR is, of course, a matter of degrees. Did the 43 cars running the E15 Sunoco race blend push out fewer harmful emissions than they did on last year’s blend? Yes. Does the American Ethanol promotion of NASCAR bring information about alternative fuels to millions of Americans who would, otherwise, probably ignore or avoid said information? Sure. Will the “American Ethanol” green flags waved at the start of each race continue to draw attention to ethanol-related causes all season long? Absolutely. Do NASCAR’s haulers, commercial flights, charter jets, news helicopters, safety vehicles, etc. make use of “greener” alternative fuels?
Not so much.
Keep in mind, all of this E15 flag-waving at NASCAR is going down on the same weekend that the House voted “overwhelmingly” to block E15’s use at gas pumps nationwide – a story that’s still unfolding on congressional floors, with lobbyists on both sides of the issue practically foaming at the mouth with pros on cons. If this season is a success and a few million NASCAR fans reach out to their representatives in Washington in favor of ethanol … I imagine that would be hard to ignore.
We’ll have more on the developing E15 story soon, but – for now – let’s congratulate Trevor Bayne, the team behind the no. 21 Ford, and Growth Energy (the group behind the American Ethanol NASCAR marketing initiative) for helping to put on a heck of a show yesterday.
Source: NASCAR, Detroit News.
One of the big impending issues in the biofuels world right now is what’s called the “blend wall.” The ethanol industry currently sells most of its product as a result of federal and state regulations that require gas stations to sell E10 (10% ethanol/90% gasoline) at regular fuel pumps.
Under federal Renewable Fuel Standards, the industry is being increasingly required to make more and more ethanol. As the argument goes, unless the EPA approves the higher E15 blend for use in normal fuel pumps and existing vehicles the ethanol industry will run into the “blend wall,” wherein supply will far outstrip demand… resulting in mass bankruptcies of ethanol blenders, extreme financial hardship for farmers, and the potential death of the fledgling, next-generation cellulosic ethanol industry.
As many of you know, I dig racing. I’ve already dedicated several posts to efforts being made by the American Le Mans Series (ALMS) to promote a greener image when it comes to auto racing and to highlight the efforts being made in the racing world to develop green technology. While many people might dismiss the notion of production car-based racing as green, the fact is that many major manufacturers use racing as a test bed for new technologies, both performance oriented and otherwise, that eventually find their way into dealerships.
Last Friday, the ALMS announced a five member “Green Dream Team” made up of five racers from the ALMS. These five men will serve as ambassadors towards a greener racing series. Bob Dickinson, Vice President of Public Relations/Media Service, reached out and clarified for me what these ambassadors will do, and how the ALMS is looking towards a greener, and faster, future.
In a concise letter to the heads of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Agriculture as well as to the White House, a broad and diverse coalition of major consumer and industry associations has implored the EPA to slow down as it heads towards what seems to be a quick decision on allowing E15 (85% gasoline, 15% ethanol) blends to be sold at fueling stations for use in all vehicles—even those not originally designed for use with ethanol.
The letter writing coalition* represents virtually every retail gasoline provider, virtually every automobile manufacturer and a large majority of motorcycle, marine, and non-road equipment manufacturers in the US.
The EPA already allows the use of up up to 10% ethanol blends (E10) in all gasoline-powered vehicles and many states have adopted their own rules regarding the subject. Owners of small engined machines have been generally resistant to the ethanol blends, saying that higher amounts of ethanol can harm them.