Ethanol !

Was wondering just the other day about the fact that we hear so little about biofuels these days.  A decade ago, they were all the rage, with governments pushing them as a more environmentally-friendly, more sustainable alternative to fossilfuels, and stories showing up all the time in the media about people filling up their cars with chipfat or other leftover oils from restaurants.

Those who pointed out the potential environmental consequences of turning over more land to development for fuel, never mind the impact on food-supply for humans in redirecting the output of swathes of agriculture were pooh-poohed or ignored.

Anyways, this led me to Google News, and these two recent headlines:

Confused ?  Can both these headlines be true ?  Apparently, they can.

As I understand it, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is increasing year-on-year the requirements for, 'renewable fuel' percentages in the United States, but is doing so at levels, below the targets set by Congress.  For the simple reason that there isn't enough supply.  Or, as the EPA puts it:

The Clean Air Act provides EPA with the authority to reduce the volume requirements from their statutory targets under certain conditions, and we are proposing to use these authorities in this action. EPA has evaluated the availability of qualifying renewable fuels and factors that in some cases constrain the supply of those fuels to the vehicles that can consume them. EPA has also considered the ability of the market to respond to the applicable standards by producing changes in production, infrastructure, and relative pricing to boost the use of renewable fuels.

Based on these and other considerations, EPA is proposing volumes which, while below the volumes originally set by Congress, would increase renewable fuel use in the
U.S. above historical levels and provide for steady growth over time.

This is the kind of thing BTW likely to cause a freakout on the right in the US over Barack Obama's 'tyranical' abuse of executive power.  Except for the fact, that it's a relatively obscure wonkish issue that most people don't understand or care about.

And so anyway, the end-result is that no-one is happy with these proposals, whether it be boaters worried about ethanol destroying their engines, or those calling for the abolition of this idiotic mandate that should never have been put through for stupid political reasons by the Bush administration in the first place (What, should I pretend not to be biased ?), or the agricultural groups with a vested interest in maintaining artificial government subsidies for their crops.

Speaking of which, here's a nice quote:

The president of the The Iowa Corn Growers Association, Jerry Mohr, pointed out that farmers have the capabilities for increased ethanol production. "Iowa farmers have rallied to the challenge and been asked to produce corn, and we have. We just need a way to get rid of it. And ethanol has been a great one. And it's great for our country, and it cleans the air."

Never mind the crap about it cleaning the air (is he talking about photosynthesis ?), 'we just need a way to get rid of it.' ?  Seriously ?

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 805 million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world, or one in nine, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2012-2014. Almost all the hungry people, 791 million, live in developing countries, representing 13.5 percent, or one in eight, of the population of developing counties. There are 11 million people undernourished in developed countries (FAO 2014; for individual country estimates, see Annex 1.

This insane law is one of those things Obama could have set out to have repealed from early on in his presidency.  And although there is, of course, an instinctive resistance on the part of Republicans to go along with any the Obama administration's proposals, I suspect that there is actually some bipartisan agreement on this issue, the agri-lobby in Iowa aside, given that this law does interfere with the market, does impose bureaucratic governmental standards on business, and was pushed in the name of pseudo-environmental concern against the interests of fossil-fuel-based business.  The United States should be repealing this stupid legislation ASAP, and the EPA increasing the Ethanol-mandate not a jot.


* Relevant Links below:
http://www.examiner.com/article/corn-growers-rally-over-epa-s-rule-to-cut-ethanol-production
http://counton2.com/2015/07/14/epa-proposes-increasing-ethanol-in-fuel-supply/
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/regulations.htm
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/documents/420f15028.pdf
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world

** BTW, news-sites, the only thing worse than auto-play embedded video, is embedded video programmed to re-start automatically every five minutes or so, despite the fact that you've repeatedly expressed your disinclination to watch/listen to said video.  I am of course, not including in this comparison, video which is set by default to 100% volume.  WHICH IS SHEER EVIL !!!