EPA Finds Ethanol Is Environmentally Damaging. We've been telling folks this for years!

[Markle]

We've been telling the EPA and anyone else for decades that burning food crops to power cars was incredibly stupid and counterproductive.

Irony Alert: EPA Finds Ethanol Is Environmentally Damaging
JAZZ SHAWPosted at 2:31 pm on August 4, 2018

[...]

A long-delayed report from the Environmental Protection Agency finds that requiring ethanol made from corn and soybeans to be part of the nation’s gas supply is causing serious environmental harm.

Federal law requires the EPA to assess the environmental impact of the fuel standard every three years, but the new report, issued in July, was four years overdue. According to David DeGennaro with the National Wildlife Federation, the report documents millions of acres of wildlife habitat lost to ethanol crop production, increased nutrient pollution in waterways and air emissions and side effects worse than the gasoline the ethanol is replacing.

[...]

EPA Report Finds Ethanol Causing Environmental Damage

 

[Picaro]

It was just a subsidy for farmers, among many others for them. It also screws up engines and shorten their life spans, so the auto industry loves them, too.

Anything to destroy our topsoil at record rates is okay with both left and right wingers, just like it is with oil and gas. We're burning off enough natural gas now from gross over-production to power several major cities for years. Great plan.

 

[there4eyeM]

One of the worst ideas ever to be so widely accepted.

 

[Marion Morrison]

We've been telling the EPA and anyone else for decades that burning food crops to power cars was incredibly stupid and counterproductive.

Irony Alert: EPA Finds Ethanol Is Environmentally Damaging
JAZZ SHAWPosted at 2:31 pm on August 4, 2018

[...]

A long-delayed report from the Environmental Protection Agency finds that requiring ethanol made from corn and soybeans to be part of the nation’s gas supply is causing serious environmental harm.

Federal law requires the EPA to assess the environmental impact of the fuel standard every three years, but the new report, issued in July, was four years overdue. According to David DeGennaro with the National Wildlife Federation, the report documents millions of acres of wildlife habitat lost to ethanol crop production, increased nutrient pollution in waterways and air emissions and side effects worse than the gasoline the ethanol is replacing.

[...]

EPA Report Finds Ethanol Causing Environmental Damage

The sooner they get rid of Ethanol requirements, the better.

-Me and almost every man I know that uses gas-powered equipment.

 

[longknife]

EPA: Maybe adding ethanol to gasoline wasn’t smart after all!



It takes 4 years for them to come up with this? How much damage has occurred in the meantime?

A hot, new report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that requiring ethanol made from corn and soybeans to be added to gasoline in the name of “environmental protection” is doing more harm than good.
The report, Biofuels and the Environment: The Second Triennial Report to Congress, is four years overdue and contains many findings that should be troubling to those of us interested in real environmental protection. Here are some of the analysis:

• The substantially increased acreage used for crop production has impacted local environments (e.g., loss of natural habitat for wildlife).
  
  
• Ethanol from corn grain has higher emissions of harmful pollutants than ethanol from other feedstocks. These emissions include s nitrogen oxides (NOx gases), which can ultimately form ground-level ozone that contributes to smog).
  
  
• Fertilizer-infused runoff water from the new farms has contributed to harmful algal blooms (e.g., as in the case of Lake Erie).
  

These issues are on top of all the other troubles associated with ethanol-infused fuel, as described by John Stossel in a 2016 report:

The report highlights one of the challenges in relying on the government to solve all problems at all times: The bureaucracy put in place to do so is disinclined to leave once the issues are resolved. For example, the Clean Air Act of 1970 been successful in substantially reducing air pollution, as noted in another just-published EPA report:

…etween 1970 and 2017, the combined emissions of six key pollutants dropped by 73 percent, while the U.S. economy grew more than three times. A closer look at more recent progress shows that between 1990 and 2017, average concentrations of harmful air pollutants decreased significantly across our nation:

• Sulfur dioxide (1-hour) ↓ 88 percent
• Lead (3-month average) ↓80 percent
• Carbon monoxide (8-hour) ↓ 77 percent
• Nitrogen dioxide (annual) ↓ 56 percent
• Fine Particulate Matter (24-hour) ↓ 40 percent
• Coarse Particulate Matter (24-hour) ↓ 34 percent and
• Ground-level ozone (8-hour) ↓ 22 percent

Clearly, there is a need for environmental protection regulations. However, there must be a balance so that monies and resources are not being diverted to address non-existent problems in ways that create real ones.

More @ EPA: Maybe adding ethanol to gasoline wasn't smart after all!

 

[AZGAL]

It was kind of funky to meet the French fry grease truck people and they were so excited about the corn ethanol prospects as well!

 

[elektra]

Gee, all I hear of the demorats in this thread are, crickets?