Attacks on Ethanol Continue in Wall Street Journal

A commentary in a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal challenged the ethanol industry.

Merrill Matthews, a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, argued that it made economic and environmental sense to replace the 18 billion gallons of ethanol called for in the EPA's 2016 Renewable Fuel Standards with fossil fuel.

"When the RFS was enacted, lawmakers believed that adding ethanol to the national gasoline supply would reduce reliance on oil imports," he wrote. "Today, ethanol’s downsides have become clear."

Among Matthews' arguments:

• Because ethanol blends provide fewer miles per gallon, the cost of driving has increased. According to the Institute for Energy Research, American drivers have paid an additional $83 billion since 2007 because of the RFS.
   
• Ethanol adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than it reduces by replacing fossil fuels. The Environmental Working Group says that in response to greater demand for corn—40% of corn grown today is used to make ethanol—farmers are plowing up grasslands and wetlands to grow corn, which releases the carbon stored in the soil, contributing to climate-warming carbon emissions. The Congressional Budget Office notes that “available evidence suggests that replacing gasoline with corn ethanol has only limited potential for reducing emissions (and some studies indicate that it could increase emissions).”
   
• The U.S. no longer needs renewable fuels to reduce its dependence on energy from foreign sources. The U.S. has expanded its oil-and-gas industry and outdistanced Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s top oil and natural-gas producer. The U.S. could become energy independent in five years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, but only if crude oil prices are high enough to keep American producers operating.

Source: Wall Street Journal S