As the government backs off — ever so slightly — from its federal ethanol mandate in 2014, the corn fuel industry is pulling out all the stops to sustain the foolishness of its brand.
This, after the Environmental Protection Agency reduced ethanol's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to 15.21 billion gallons this year (down 1.3 billion gallons from 2013) because of a drop in gasoline demand. You see, refiners have reached what's called the “blending wall” — the point at which exceeding the current 10 percent ethanol mix will damage gasoline-powered engines, according to consumer groups.
So the ethanol industry — specifically, the “progressive” veterans group VoteVets.org — now argues that the fed's mandate is saving U.S. soldiers' lives by reducing the demand for Middle East oil, according to The Daily Caller.
Really? According to the government's latest data, the United States imported about 40 percent of its total petroleum consumed in 2012 and those imports have been declining since 2005. Of that amount, only about 29 percent of America's crude oil and petroleum products came from the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, the argument to blindly continue the ethanol mandate has come under increasing fire, most recently from an Associated Press report: “The ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than government admits today.”
America doesn't need a “lifesaving” ethanol mandate. It needs a safe, commonsense domestic energy policy.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The climate summit: Down for the count
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- A chilly reception
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- Harrisburg escapades: Come clean
- The medical device tax: An abject failure
- Saturday essay: Awaiting the peat
- Sunday pops