Frank O'Donnell is president of Clean Air Watch, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization aimed at educating the public about clean air and the need for an effective Clean Air Act.
An Environmental Protection Agency news brief last week about ethanol seemed so innocuous that it escaped the notice of the dozing major media, with the exception of the astute St. Louis Post-Dispatch .
But the EPA maneuver—a rule that weakened air pollution standards for ethanol refineries—could undermine the alleged environmental rationale for the fuel. Perhaps it is a warning that we ought to take a deep breath before we plunge ahead with the sort of dramatic scale-up in “alternative” fuels sought by President Bush and some in Congress.
Ethanol, of course, has become a minefield when it comes to serious discussion. No politician today wants to stand in the way of something invariably described by its proponents as “clean.”
In fact, perhaps the last politician who spoke skeptically about ethanol was a fictitious character: presidential aspirant Arnold Vinick (played by Alan Alda) in an episode of “The West Wing” titled “King Corn.”
Many environmentalists have made nice noises about ethanol in recent years because “biofuels” could be one piece of a larger mosaic to deal with global warming. In theory, ethanol can produce fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline. But that depends on how the ethanol is made, and how it is used.
Ideally, the ethanol is produced not from corn, but from plant residue or other so-called cellulosic sources. Renewable fuel rather than coal should be used to power the ethanol refinery. And the ethanol itself should be deployed in vehicles specially designed to handle ethanol fuel (so-called E-85) rather than adding more ethanol to regular gasoline, which can increase smog-forming pollution. (EPA quietly acknowledged the pollution problem last week when it issued rules required under the 2005 Energy Policy Act to increase the amount of ethanol used in gasoline.)
Unfortunately, neither the Bush policy nor pending legislation in Congress—the latter sharply panned by my friends with the Natural Resources Defense Council —has been shaped by environmental idealists. In fact, it’s become a classic special-interest scrum. (If we were really interested in displacing oil, why do we still have a stiff tariff on ethanol imports? Why to keep corn prices high, of course.) And we may be racing down a path with many unwanted consequences.
“It’s a classic case of ready, fire, aim,” notes Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies about the rush to quintuple the amount of ethanol required by the 2005 energy act.
The new ethanol refinery rule is a great example. Ostensibly designed to make ethanol production more efficient, the rule would not only permit more air pollution in nearby communities, but would also encourage coal burning to create ethanol—something that EPA concedes (on page 83) in the fine print of the rule.
Burning coal to convert corn would negate the often-touted greenhouse gas advantages of ethanol, according to the California Energy Commission. [See chart on page 9 of this document]
Little wonder that corn refiners have allied themselves with the coal industry and other special-interest polluters to fight against more health-protective national EPA standards for smog.
Astonishingly, not a single member of the Senate or House of Representatives appears to have said a critical word about the EPA rollback, which was instigated by Senator John Thune, R-SD, a former ethanol industry lobbyist, who also recently boasted of helping steer $80 million in federal funding to his former client and continuing campaign contributor, the Broin Companies.
And now corn-crusader Thune has a new project in mind that is causing consternation at the EPA. He wants to double the ethanol content of regular gasoline, now limited to 10 percent because of the potential corrosive impact of ethanol on engine systems.
“We are going to come under extreme political pressure to permit this,” one EPA expert told me, adding that the agency hasn’t conducted any tests to see how such a change could affect cars or other engines.
There are some warning signals, however. When Thune-style fuel was tested on cars in Australia several years ago , it polluted at much higher levels over time when the added ethanol poisoned catalytic converters.Concerns are also being raised about the possible negative impact of more ethanol on other lawnmower, boat and other engines.
And new questions are also being raised this week about the possible negative impacts of ethanol on breathers.
Shouldn’t we do more study of these issues before Thune brings home even more bacon?
