tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/corn-ethanol-24465/articlesCorn ethanol – The Conversation2022-05-05T12:41:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1813942022-05-05T12:41:46Z2022-05-05T12:41:46ZAllowing E15 fuel year-round won’t increase sales very much, but it’s a symbolic victory for corn ethanol advocates<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460820/original/file-20220502-22-8zhz3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C0%2C2982%2C1998&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An ethanol refinery in Chancellor, South Dakota.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/CarbonCapturePipelines/2a36a21cb5b6468a9c796fc5d0e1d42e/photo">AP Photo/Stephen Groves</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>As part of efforts to dampen high gasoline prices, the Biden administration is temporarily allowing gas stations to <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/12/fact-sheet-using-homegrown-biofuels-to-address-putins-price-hike-at-the-pump-and-lower-costs-for-american-families/">sell a special fuel blend called E15, containing 15% ethanol, year-round</a>. Under the Clean Air Act, E15 cannot be sold in summer because it evaporates more readily in warm weather and can worsen air pollution. Aaron Smith, professor of agricultural economics at the University of California, Davis, explains how E15 differs from the E10 that is blended into most gasoline sold nationwide, and the general environmental impacts of corn-based ethanol.</em></p>
<h2>What is E15 and where is it used?</h2>
<p>Ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol or grain alcohol, has long been a potential alternative to gasoline. Henry Ford <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1979/08/05/the-godfather-of-gasohol-ishenry-ford/ca98c17b-3112-4f80-b98a-7b06ed6a735b/">advocated for it in the 1920s</a>, but it wasn’t used much until the early 2000s because it was too expensive. <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106316/us-share-ethanol-production-by-feedstock-type/">More than 93%</a> of the ethanol currently made in the U.S. comes from corn.</p>
<p>In 2007, amid concerns about high gas prices, energy security and climate change, Congress passed a law creating a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program">Renewable Fuel Standard</a>, which requires transportation fuels sold in the U.S. each year to contain certain quantities of biofuels, like ethanol and biodiesel. Under this policy, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26092">more than 95%</a> of all gasoline sold in the United States is E10 – a blend of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol.</p>
<p>E15 contains 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline. It is currently available in about <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_e15.html">2,300</a> of the <a href="https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/consumer-information/consumer-resources/service-station-faqs">145,000</a> gas stations in the United States, mainly in Midwestern states where most corn is grown and processed into ethanol.</p>
<p>E15 is <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a11687/four-things-to-know-about-e15-15096134">more corrosive</a> than E10, so some drivers worry that it will damage their engines. The Environmental Protection Agency has <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_e15.html">approved E15</a> for use in any light-duty vehicle of model year 2001 or newer, and many carmakers have approved it for use in their cars <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/18/facebook-posts/e15-fuel-does-not-pose-danger-vast-majority-vehicl/">in the past decade</a>. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, some automakers <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_e15.html">recommend against</a> using E15. It is not approved for use in motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles such as buses and delivery trucks, boats, or equipment such as chainsaws or lawnmowers. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pqG12smBmu8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Advocates call biofuels an important asset for curbing climate change, but a 2022 study found that corn-based ethanol is significantly more carbon-intensive than regular gasoline.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why were E15 sales barred in summer?</h2>
<p>The prohibition on selling E15 in summer stemmed from the EPA’s efforts to reduce smog, which can cause <a href="https://www.airnow.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/smog.pdf">respiratory problems</a> in people who breathe it. Ironically, E15 has very <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ef100254w">similar smog-causing potential</a> to the E10 it would replace, but a set of arcane rules from the 1970s has banned E15 while allowing E10. </p>
<p>One source of smog is evaporating gasoline, and evaporation rates are highest in the heat of summer. To reduce summer evaporative emissions, the EPA sets seasonal limits for gasoline’s <a href="https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-reid-vapor-pressure">Reid vapor pressure</a>, a measure of its evaporation potential. This is why most of the country uses different gasoline in the summer than the rest of the year.</p>
<p>The EPA requires summer gasoline to have an RVP less than 9 pounds per square inch. Regular summer gasoline without ethanol has an RVP of 9, but summer E10 and E15 both have RVPs around 10. This would seem to preclude both E10 and E15. However, in 1978, during a previous energy crisis, Congress issued an <a href="https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/ethanol-waivers-e15-and-e10">allowance specifically for E10</a> to have an RVP of 10. That’s why E10 gasoline can be sold year-round, even though its smog-forming potential is no better than E15. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1519350723347156993"}"></div></p>
<p>Some regions require even lower Reid vapor pressure, including areas with severe ozone pollution that are <a href="https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/reformulated-gasoline#42%20U.S.C.%207511(b)">required to use reformulated gasoline</a> – fuel that is specially formulated to burn more cleanly than conventional gasoline, with fewer smog-forming and toxic pollutants. The state of California has <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/gasoline-reid-vapor-pressure-requirements">its own tight standards</a>. Research shows that requiring clean gasoline <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23045655.pdf">dramatically improves air quality and health</a>.</p>
<h2>Will allowing more use of E15 measurably affect gas prices?</h2>
<p>No, it won’t. The Biden administration stated in mid-April that E15 could save drivers <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/12/fact-sheet-using-homegrown-biofuels-to-address-putins-price-hike-at-the-pump-and-lower-costs-for-american-families/">10 cents per gallon on average</a>. That’s hardly enough to compensate for the fact that ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so cars running on E15 get <a href="https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml">1% to 2% fewer miles per gallon</a> than those burning E10. However, very little of it is likely to be sold. </p>
<p>Less than 2% of gas stations across the U.S. offer E15, and demand isn’t high for it even in the non-summer months when it’s permitted. That reflects the <a href="https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/will_the_ethanol_blend_wall_block_biofuels_growth">challenges of using more ethanol in gasoline</a>, including a lack of infrastructure and low consumer acceptance.</p>
<p><iframe id="ySj9x" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ySj9x/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>This is not the first time we’ve had summer E15. The Trump administration allowed it to be sold during the summer in 2019-2021, but gas stations <a href="https://ethanolrfa.org/file/2203/E15%20Volume%20Recap%202021%20Final.pdf">sold very little of it</a>. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that in lifting the seasonal restriction, Trump’s EPA had <a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/d-c-circuit-sides-with-oil-against-trump-ethanol-rule/">overstepped its legal authority</a>. The Biden administration believes it is on firmer legal footing because it is authorizing E15 under an emergency waiver due to a “<a href="https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/17518-epa-to-lift-e15-summer-restriction-following-biden-announcement">fuel supply emergency</a>” caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. </p>
<h2>Will using more ethanol help to slow climate change?</h2>
<p>In addition to promoting homegrown fuel, a major impetus for blending ethanol into gasoline was to mitigate climate change. Burning fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel sends carbon into the atmosphere, where it remains for hundreds of years and traps heat, gradually increasing the Earth’s average temperature. Ethanol <a href="https://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/basics/jtb_ethanol.pdf">burns more completely than gasoline</a>, so it offered the promise of reduced carbon emissions. </p>
<p>But the promise of climate benefits has not been realized. Producing ethanol requires growing crops, which disrupts carbon stored in the soil. U.S. farmers planted an <a href="https://agdatanews.substack.com/p/environmental-outcomes-of-the-us?r=i2qe&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web">average of 91 million acres of corn</a> in the years 2007-2021, up from 78 million in 1990-2006. Forty percent of the corn they produce now goes into ethanol. </p>
<p><iframe id="9f4rl" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/9f4rl/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In a recently published study, my co-authors and I explored changes in cropland area due to the Renewable Fuel Standard. We found that producing additional corn for ethanol <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/119/9/e2101084119">does not reduce carbon emissions</a> once you account for changes in land use. </p>
<p>It also has serious effects on nutrient pollution in lakes and rivers, which comes from nitrogen fertilizer washing off of crop fields. Using more nitrogen fertilizer and converting more land to grow crops increases greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution. Based on the performance of corn ethanol in the U.S., we concluded that it will require profound advances in technology and policy for biofuels to deliver the environmental benefits that they were intended to produce.</p>
<p>[<em>Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-150ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<p>As I see it, merely allowing summer E15 sales will have little effect because few will buy it voluntarily. However, ethanol advocates are pushing to expand the market. </p>
<p>Iowa lawmakers have already <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/26/iowa-legislature-passes-bill-promoting-gas-ethanol-e-15-biofuel-priority-governor-kim-reynolds/7440749001/">passed legislation</a> requiring most gas stations in the state to sell E15, and Midwest governors are asking the Biden administration to allow its <a href="https://governor.iowa.gov/press-release/gov-reynolds-leads-bipartisan-multi-governor-letter-to%C2%A0epa-for%C2%A0permanent-midwest-e15">permanent sale year-round</a>. Mandating more E15 use would benefit farmers by increasing demand for their crops, but it would be a net loss for the environment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181394/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aaron Smith received funding from the National Wildlife Federation for research on the environmental outcomes of the Renewable Fuel Standard. He currently has funding from the California Air Resources Board for research on the state's low carbon fuel standard. </span></em></p>Allowing the sale of gasoline that’s 15% ethanol year-round won’t have much impact on gas prices, but recent research shows that growing corn for fuel affects the climate – for the worse.Aaron Smith, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1684592021-12-02T13:41:45Z2021-12-02T13:41:45ZThe US biofuel mandate helps farmers, but does little for energy security and harms the environment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435076/original/file-20211201-25-y8w0za.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=42%2C8%2C5565%2C3715&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Surplus corn piled outside a farmer's co-op storage facility in Paoli, Colorado.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/surplus-corn-harvested-in-2010-is-piled-outside-a-farmers-news-photo/107592314">Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’ve pumped gas at a U.S. service station over the past decade, you’ve put biofuel in your tank. Thanks to the federal <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43325.pdf">Renewable Fuel Standard</a>, or RFS, almost all gasoline sold nationwide is required to contain 10% ethanol – a fuel made from plant sources, mainly corn. </p>
<p>With the recent rise in pump prices, biofuel lobbies are pressing to <a href="https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/biofuel-groups-push-for-strong-ethanol-mandate-citing-climate-and-gas-prices">boost that target to 15% or more</a>. At the same time, some policymakers are calling for reforms. For example, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators has introduced a bill that would <a href="https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/7/feinstein-toomey-menendez-collins-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-repeal-ethanol-mandate">eliminate the corn ethanol portion of the mandate</a>. </p>
<p>Enacted in the wake of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the RFS promised to enhance energy security, cut carbon dioxide emissions and boost income for rural America. The program has certainly raised profits for portions of the agricultural industry, but in my view it has failed to fulfill its other promises. Indeed, studies by some scientists, <a href="https://research.umich.edu/john-decicco">including me</a>, find that biofuel use has increased rather than decreased CO2 emissions to date. </p>
<p>Current law sets a target of producing and using 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022 as part of the roughly 200 billion gallons of motor fuel that U.S. motor vehicles burn each year. As of 2019, drivers were using <a href="https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/">only 20 billion gallons</a> of renewable fuels yearly – mainly corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel. Usage declined in 2020 because of the pandemic, as did most energy use. Although the 2021 tally is not yet complete, the program remains far from its 36 billion-gallon goal. I believe the time is ripe to repeal the RFS, or at least greatly scale it back. </p>
<p><iframe id="9N3cY" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/9N3cY/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Higher profits for many farmers</h2>
<p>The RFS’s clearest success has been boosting income for corn and soybean farmers and related agricultural firms. It also has built up a sizable domestic biofuel industry. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://ethanolrfa.org/">Renewable Fuels Association</a>, a trade group for the biofuels industry, estimates that the RFS has <a href="https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/news-releases/article/2019/02/ethanol-industry-makes-a-significant-contribution-to-u-s-economy-rfa-analysis-finds">generated over 300,000 jobs</a> in recent years. Two-thirds of these jobs are in the top ethanol-producing states: Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana and South Dakota. Given Iowa’s key role in presidential primaries, most politicians with national ambitions find it prudent to <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/05/2020-democrats-ethanol-225517/">embrace biofuels</a>. </p>
<p>The RFS displaces a modest amount of petroleum, shifting some income away from the oil industry and into agribusiness. Nevertheless, biofuels’ contribution to U.S. energy security pales compared with gains from <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=847&t=6">expanded domestic oil production through hydraulic fracturing</a> – which of course brings its own severe environmental damages. And using ethanol in fuel poses <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-aims-to-boost-ethanol-without-evidence-that-it-saves-money-or-helps-the-environment-96701">other risks</a>, including <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/03/gas-with-ethanol-can-make-small-engines-fail/index.htm">damage to small engines</a> and <a href="https://www.iea-amf.org/content/fuel_information/ethanol/e10/e10_compatibility">higher emissions from fuel fumes</a>. </p>
<p>For consumers, biofuel use has had a <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-47">varying, but overall small, effect</a> on pump prices. Renewable fuel policy has little leverage in the world oil market, where the biofuel mandate’s penny-level effects are no match for oil’s dollar-scale volatility. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1463600311579385862"}"></div></p>
<h2>Biofuels are not carbon-neutral</h2>
<p>The idea that biofuels are good for the environment rests on the assumption that they are inherently carbon neutral – meaning that the CO2 emitted when biofuels are burned is fully offset by the CO2 that feedstocks like corn and soybeans absorb as they grow. This assumption is coded into computer models used to evaluate fuels. </p>
<p>Leading up to passage of the RFS, such modeling found modest CO2 reductions for <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1121416">corn ethanol</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0604600103">soybean biodiesel</a>. It promised greater benefits from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol">cellulosic ethanol</a> – a more advanced type of biofuel that would be made from nonfood sources, such as crop residues and energy crops like willow and switchgrass. </p>
<p>But subsequent research has shown that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1178797">biofuels are not actually carbon-neutral</a>. Correcting this mistake by evaluating real-world changes in cropland carbon uptake reveals that biofuel use has <a href="http://theconversation.com/biofuels-turn-out-to-be-a-climate-mistake-heres-why-64463">increased CO2 emissions</a>. </p>
<p>One big factor is that making biofuels amplifies land-use change. As harvests are diverted from feeding humans and livestock to produce fuel, additional farmland is needed to compensate. That means <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910275107">forests are cut down</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0399">prairies are plowed up </a> to carve out new acres for crop production, triggering very large CO2 releases. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432901/original/file-20211119-17-1eetdr6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=28%2C21%2C4748%2C3695&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Corn kernels pour into a bin." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432901/original/file-20211119-17-1eetdr6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=28%2C21%2C4748%2C3695&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432901/original/file-20211119-17-1eetdr6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432901/original/file-20211119-17-1eetdr6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432901/original/file-20211119-17-1eetdr6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432901/original/file-20211119-17-1eetdr6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432901/original/file-20211119-17-1eetdr6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432901/original/file-20211119-17-1eetdr6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">About 40% of corn produced in the U.S. is used to make ethanol.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/ethanol-harvest-royalty-free-image/520153118?adppopup=true">Shuli Hallak/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Expanding farmland for biofuel production is also bad for the environment in other ways. Studies show that it has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02232-5">reduced the abundance and diversity of plants and animals worldwide</a>. In the U.S., it has amplified other adverse impacts of industrial agriculture, such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/industrial-corn-farming-is-ruining-our-health-and-polluting-our-watersheds-39721">nutrient runoff and water pollution</a>. </p>
<h2>The failure of cellulosic ethanol</h2>
<p>When Congress expanded the biofuel mandate in 2007, a key factor that induced legislators from states outside the Midwest to support it was the belief that a coming generation of cellulosic ethanol would produce even greater environmental, energy and economic benefits. Biofuel proponents claimed that cellulosic fuels were <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whatever-happened-to-advanced-biofuels/">close to becoming commercially viable</a>. </p>
<p>Almost 15 years later, in spite of the mandate and billions of dollars in federal support, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/02/11/cellulosic-ethanol-falling-far-short-of-the-hype/?sh=69132fb2505f">cellulosic ethanol has flopped</a>. Total production of liquid cellulosic biofuels has recently hovered around <a href="https://www.carsclimate.com/2021/11/cellulosic-failure.html">10 million gallons per year</a> – a tiny fraction of the 16 billion gallons that the RFS calls for producing in 2022. Technical challenges have proved to be more daunting than proponents claimed. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433778/original/file-20211124-15-1q9hjjc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Man in a field of tall grass." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433778/original/file-20211124-15-1q9hjjc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433778/original/file-20211124-15-1q9hjjc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433778/original/file-20211124-15-1q9hjjc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433778/original/file-20211124-15-1q9hjjc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433778/original/file-20211124-15-1q9hjjc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433778/original/file-20211124-15-1q9hjjc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433778/original/file-20211124-15-1q9hjjc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Making cellulosic ethanol from plants like switchgrass is complicated and remains unaffordable despite large subsidies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/switchgrass-production-in-tennessee-royalty-free-image/522082062?adppopup=true">Karen Kasmauski/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Environmentally speaking, I see the cellulosic failure as a relief. If the technology were to succeed, I believe it would likely unleash an even more aggressive global expansion of <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25012019/climate-change-agriculture-farming-consolidation-corn-soybeans-meat-crop-subsidies/">industrial agriculture</a> – large-scale farms that raise only one or two crops and rely on highly mechanized methods with intensive chemical fertilizer and pesticide use. Some such risk remains as petroleum refiners invest in <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48916">bio-based diesel production</a> and producers modify corn ethanol facilities to <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2021/10/25/cedar-rapids-archer-daniels-midland-adm-ethanol-plant-may-start-making-sustainable-aviation-jet-fuel/6174737001/">produce biojet fuel</a>. </p>
<h2>Ripple effects on lands and Indigenous people</h2>
<p>Today the vast majority of biofuels are made from crops like corn and soybeans that also are used for food and animal feed. Global markets for major commodity crops are closely coupled, so increased demand for biofuel production drives up their prices globally. </p>
<p>This price pressure <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es101946t">amplifies deforestation</a> and <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biofuels-land-grab-guatemala/">land-grabbing</a> in locations from <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/brazil-deforestation/">Brazil</a> to <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179821">Thailand</a>. The Renewable Fuel Standard thus aggravates <a href="https://theconversation.com/blood-in-bio-ethanol-how-indigenous-peoples-lives-are-being-destroyed-by-global-agribusiness-in-brazil-101348">displacement of Indigenous communities</a>, <a href="https://nyti.ms/2zleOBK">destruction of peatlands</a> and similar harms along agricultural frontiers worldwide, mainly in developing countries. </p>
<p>Some researchers have found that adverse effects of biofuel production on land use, crop prices and climate are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/713026">much smaller than previously estimated</a>. Nevertheless, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120716">uncertainties surrounding land use change</a> and net effects on CO2 emissions are enormous. The complex modeling of biofuel-related commodity markets and land utilization is impossible to verify, as it extrapolates effects across the globe and into the future.</p>
<p>Rather than biofuels, a much better way to address transportation-related CO2 emissions is through improving efficiency, particularly <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-make-the-us-auto-fleet-greener-increasing-fuel-efficiency-matters-more-than-selling-electric-vehicles-153085">raising gasoline vehicle fuel economy</a> while electric cars continue to advance. </p>
<p>[<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-corona-important">Get The Conversation’s most important coronavirus headlines, weekly in a science newsletter</a></em>]</p>
<h2>A stool with two weak legs</h2>
<p>What can we conclude from 16 years of the RFS? As I see it, two of its three policy legs are now quite wobbly: Its energy security rationale is largely moot, and its climate rationale has proved false. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, key agricultural interests strongly support the program and may be able to prop it up indefinitely. Indeed, as some commentators have observed, the biofuel mandate has become another <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/08/22/the-ethanol-industrys-flaw-is-its-entitlement-mentality/?sh=7b7e740f1d9a">agribusiness entitlement</a>. Taxpayers probably would have to pay dearly in a deal to repeal the RFS. For the sake of the planet, it would be a cost worth paying.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168459/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John M. DeCicco, Ph.D., is a Research Professor Emeritus retired from the University of Michigan. While remaining professionally active in energy and environmental research, he currently receives no funding and has no relevant relationships beyond his academic affiliation. </span></em></p>The US has required motor fuels to contain 10% biofuels since 2005. As this program nears a key milestone in 2022, farm advocates want to expand it while critics want to pare it back or repeal it.John DeCicco, Research Professor Emeritus, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/967012018-11-21T11:50:33Z2018-11-21T11:50:33ZThe government aims to boost ethanol without evidence that it saves money or helps the environment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246308/original/file-20181119-76144-1y56c2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A fan of fuel blends that contain as much as 85 percent ethanol.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Farm-Scene-E85-Outlook-Minneapolis/114b1a11cbfb4a59acd7ffbb0164a5c1/5/0">AP Photo/Jim Mone</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Donald Trump has <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/10/656079682/trump-orders-epa-to-lift-regulations-on-ethanol">promised his supporters in Iowa</a> that the federal government will take a step that may increase corn ethanol sales. </p>
<p>This plant-derived fuel, which comprises about <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=27&t=10">10 percent of the 143 billion gallons</a> of gasoline Americans buy each year, is a kind of alcohol made from corn. The industry first emerged in 1980s with government support, after interest in making the country less reliant on imported oil surged in the 1970s. It later acquired a second purpose: lowering greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>I have <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7qNwVHkAAAAJ&hl=en'">spent the last 24 years studying alternative fuels</a> and fuel blends. Based on my research, and as a consumer, I can say that increasing the amount of ethanol blended with gasoline creates problems with older engines and potentially increases air pollution due to increased fuel evaporation while doing little to curb climate change.</p>
<p><iframe id="A7ube" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/A7ube/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>E10 and E15</h2>
<p>Americans have been mixing ethanol and gasoline since Henry Ford touted the potential of biofuels. <a href="https://www.fuelfreedom.org/tag/model-t/">His Model T</a> could run on gasoline or ethanol or a combination.</p>
<p>But ethanol use only took off in the 1970s following the energy crisis. Its use expanded greatly during George W. Bush’s administration, with the advent of the <a href="https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/RFS.html">Renewable Fuel Standard in 2005</a>. This federal program mandated that increasing amounts of renewable fuels be mixed with gasoline and diesel. The program has set a target for the domestic consumption of <a href="https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/overview-renewable-fuel-standard">15 billion gallons of corn ethanol</a> since 2015.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5qDYoEupI28?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Ford made its first flex-fuel car a century ago.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most engines can safely run on a blend of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent corn ethanol, the standard formulation known as E10 that is available at most American gas stations. E15 is a blend containing 15 percent ethanol. This blend is not available in every state.</p>
<p>And where E15 is sold, it isn’t currently available year-round.</p>
<p>That’s because the additional 5 percent of ethanol, combined with summer heat, would increase the <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b00366?journalCode=enfue">tendency of blended fuels to evaporate</a> The evaporated emissions from fuels can contribute to the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ethanol-fuels-ozone-pollution/">formation of ozone</a>, a major component of smog. In hotter weather, <a href="https://www.livescience.com/58117-does-gasoline-go-bad.html">ethanol can exacerbate pollution problems</a> in cities. Trump’s proposal would eliminate the existing summer ban on E15 sales.</p>
<p><iframe id="PV7X6" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/PV7X6/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Winners and losers</h2>
<p>Removing the ban would probably boost ethanol sales, aiding farmers who grow the corn used to make the roughly <a href="https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.php#renewable">16 billion gallons</a> of it the U.S. produced in 2017, including exports, and the ethanol industry overall.</p>
<p>Because a higher percentage of ethanol means a lower percentage of petroleum, using more ethanol hurts petroleum refiners. It would also pose a logistical challenge. Ethanol cannot go into oil or gas pipelines because it <a href="https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/Ethanol.htm">absorbs excess water and impurities</a> within pipelines. That means <a href="https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_production.html">rail cars and tanker trucks</a> transport all ethanol. </p>
<p>Although ethanol proponents say its use cuts carbon emissions, the evidence is mixed.</p>
<p>The government has determined that corn ethanol is much <a href="https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html">less effective than other biofuels</a> at reducing carbon emissions, producing only 1.5 to 2.1 units of energy for every unit used to produce it. This is much less efficient than biodiesel made from soybean oil, which produces <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.269.7061">5.5 units</a> of renewable energy for every unit consumed in production.</p>
<p>The ethanol Brazilians make from sugarcane residues does a much better job of shrinking that country’s carbon footprint. Converting sugarcane wastes into ethanol produces more than <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1448">9.4 units of energy</a> for every unit that producing this fuel consumes.</p>
<h2>Flawed arguments</h2>
<p>One of the original goals behind mandating ethanol blends was to reduce oil imports. While corn ethanol does directly displace gasoline consumption, other efforts to reduce oil imports have had far more impact.</p>
<p>The share of oil the U.S. imports has fallen in recent years, but that decline is largely due to a domestic production boom brought on by hydraulic fracturing, often called fracking, horizontal drilling and other <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20892">technological advances</a>. Increased domestic output has <a href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=a">displaced 54.5 billion gallons of imported oil</a>
annually – more than three times the roughly <a href="https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.php#renewable">15 billion gallons</a> of oil per year ethanol is displacing. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.biodiesel.org/production/production-statistics">Biodiesel and renewable diesel</a>, made from vegetable oils and animal fats, are displacing another nearly 3 billion gallons of diesel derived from petroleum per year.</p>
<p><iframe id="IWVkE" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IWVkE/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>A <a href="https://vimeo.com/253081178">TV commercial</a> I’ve seen during football games touted two other flawed arguments in favor of increasing corn ethanol production: that E15 will mean “cleaner air” at a “lower cost.” </p>
<p>The problem is that blending ethanol with other fuels <a href="https://www.concawe.eu/publication/report-no-1313/">lowers their energy content</a>, slightly decreasing fuel economy. It may cost a bit less to fill up your tank but based on my calculations the decrease in miles per gallon that E15 would yield will mean it makes no difference on your wallet.</p>
<p>Likewise, the claim that E15 leads to cleaner air is not justifiable.</p>
<p>For one thing, all vehicles made since 1975 have <a href="https://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter.htm">catalytic converters</a> that remove unburned hydrocarbons and other airborne pollutants. For another, the Energy Department has not detected any across-the-board reduction in tailpipe emissions associated with ethanol use. Instead, it has observed that using more ethanol may slightly increase the <a href="https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emissions.html">tailpipe emissions of aldehydes</a>, which are <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=216&tid=39">respiratory irritants</a>.</p>
<h2>Old cars and chainsaws</h2>
<p>All cars since model year 2001 can operate safely on E15, but not older cars. Vehicles manufactured before 2001 could suffer fuel system or engine damage if they’re run on E15. The government requires the labeling of all E15 fuel pumps to prevent accidental use for this reason.</p>
<p>A bipartisan bill is pending in Congress that would take this notification further by making the labels bigger and mandating that they <a href="https://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2018/21/federal-bill-introduced-to-require-larger-fuel-pump-warning-labels-for-e15">warn consumers</a> to check their owners’ manuals.</p>
<p>Another problem is that concentrations of ethanol in excess of 10 percent <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.2172/949053">can hurt non-automotive engines</a>, the Energy Department has found. These include, for example, the motors in lawn and garden equipment, motorcycles and <a href="https://www.boats.com/how-to/the-outboard-expert-ethanol-fuel-and-e15-update/">speedboats</a>.</p>
<p>Smaller engines lack computer controls able to adjust to operation on ethanol blends. If, say, the chain on your chainsaw engages without you intending it to, you could be in real danger. This malfunctioning can potentially cause <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20222526">accidents in which people lose fingers or even limbs</a>.</p>
<p>Even once manufacturers redesign their weed-whacker and chainsaw engines to become compatible with higher ethanol blends, consumers who own older equipment would remain at risk of having them break down due to changes in fuel composition if E15 becomes the norm at filling stations.</p>
<p>People who own lawn and garden equipment and speedboats would have to go out of their way to avoid this problem by buying “<a href="https://www.pure-gas.org/about">pure gasoline</a>.”</p>
<p>In short, year-round sales of E15 probably aren’t going to do much to reduce oil imports or trim the nation’s carbon footprint. It would take more ambitious and strategic energy policies to achieve those worthwhile goals.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96701/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>André Boehman serves on the Technical Advisory Board for Oberon Fuels (San Diego, CA). Prof. Boehman has received research funding from the US Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, US EPA, US Army TARDEC and other federal agencies, various state organizations and many industrial partners. </span></em></p>Vehicles made before 2001 could suffer fuel system or engine damage if they’re run on E15.André Boehman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering; Director, W.E. Lay Automotive Laboratory, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/644632016-10-05T10:02:07Z2016-10-05T10:02:07ZBiofuels turn out to be a climate mistake – here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140174/original/image-20161003-20213-af0byh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Soybeans and corn are two of the most widely planted crops in the United States and the main feedstocks used to make biofuels.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-105385193/stock-photo-curved-rows-of-corn-and-soybeans-growing-in-summer.html?src=N-rv_mq3sXzwhL6sZmQahg-1-16">www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ever since the 1973 <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo">oil embargo</a>, U.S. energy policy has sought to replace petroleum-based transportation fuels with alternatives. One prominent option is using biofuels, such as ethanol in place of gasoline and biodiesel instead of ordinary diesel. </p>
<p>Transportation generates <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions">one-fourth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions</a>, so addressing this sector’s impact is crucial for climate protection. </p>
<p>Many scientists view biofuels as <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544291900046">inherently carbon-neutral</a>: they assume the carbon dioxide (CO2) plants absorb from the air as they grow completely offsets, or “neutralizes,” the CO2 emitted when fuels made from plants burn. Many years of computer modeling based on this assumption, including <a href="http://stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/045905">work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy,</a> concluded that using biofuels to replace gasoline significantly reduced CO2 emissions from transportation. </p>
<p>Our <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1764-4">new study</a> takes a fresh look at this question. We examined crop data to evaluate whether enough CO2 was absorbed on farmland to balance out the CO2 emitted when biofuels are burned. It turns out that once all the emissions associated with growing feedstock crops and manufacturing biofuel are factored in, biofuels actually increase CO2 emissions rather than reducing them. </p>
<h2>Biofuel boom, climate blunder</h2>
<p>Federal and state policies have subsidized corn ethanol since the 1970s, but biofuels gained support as a tool for promoting energy independence and reducing oil imports after the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2005 Congress enacted the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program">Renewable Fuel Standard</a>, which required fuel refiners to blend 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol into gasoline by 2012. (For comparison, in that year Americans used <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#petroleum">133 billion gallons of gasoline.</a>) </p>
<p>In 2007 Congress dramatically expanded the RFS program with support from some <a href="https://goo.gl/Yr30ha">major environmental groups</a>. The new standard <a href="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/">more than tripled</a> annual U.S. renewable fuel consumption, which rose from 4.1 billion gallons in 2005 to 15.4 billion gallons in 2015. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140145/original/image-20161003-20205-f5533v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140145/original/image-20161003-20205-f5533v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140145/original/image-20161003-20205-f5533v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140145/original/image-20161003-20205-f5533v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140145/original/image-20161003-20205-f5533v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140145/original/image-20161003-20205-f5533v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140145/original/image-20161003-20205-f5533v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Biomass energy consumption in the United States grew more than 60 percent from 2002 through 2013, almost entirely due to increased production of biofuels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=15451">Energy Information Administration</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1764-4">Our study</a> examined data from 2005-2013 during this sharp increase in renewable fuel use. Rather than assuming that producing and using biofuels was carbon-neutral, we explicitly compared the amount of CO2 absorbed on cropland to the quantity emitted during biofuel production and consumption. </p>
<p>Existing crop growth already takes large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. The empirical question is whether biofuel production increases the rate of CO2 uptake enough to fully offset CO2 emissions produced <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efpac/ghg/GHG_Biogenic_Report_draft_Dec1410.pdf">when corn is fermented into ethanol</a> and when biofuels are burned. </p>
<p>Most of the crops that went into biofuels during this period were already being cultivated; the main change was that farmers sold more of their harvest to biofuel makers and less for food and animal feed. Some farmers expanded corn and soybean production or <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2009-march/growing-crops-for-biofuels-has-spillover-effects.aspx#.V_PkTJMrJZ0">switched</a> to these commodities from less profitable crops. </p>
<p>But as long as growing conditions remain constant, corn plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere at the same rate regardless of how the corn is used. Therefore, to properly evaluate biofuels, one must evaluate CO2 uptake on all cropland. After all, crop growth is the CO2 “sponge” that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. </p>
<p>When we performed such an evaluation, we found that from 2005 through 2013, cumulative carbon uptake on U.S. farmland increased by 49 teragrams (a teragram is one million metric tons). Planted areas of most other field crops declined during this period, so this increased CO2 uptake can be largely attributed to crops grown for biofuels. </p>
<p>Over the same period, however, CO2 emissions from fermenting and burning biofuels increased by 132 teragrams. Therefore, the greater carbon uptake associated with crop growth offset only 37 percent of biofuel-related CO2 emissions from 2005 through 2013. In other words, biofuels are far from inherently carbon-neutral. </p>
<h2>Carbon flows and the ‘climate bathtub’</h2>
<p>This result contradicts most established work on biofuels. To understand why, it is helpful to think of the atmosphere as a <a href="http://scied.ucar.edu/climate-bathtub-model-animations">bathtub</a> that is filled with CO2 instead of water. </p>
<p>Many activities on Earth add CO2 to the atmosphere, like water flowing from a faucet into the tub. The largest source is respiration: Carbon is the fuel of life, and all living things “burn carbs” to power their metabolisms. Burning ethanol, gasoline or any other carbon-based fuel opens up the CO2 “faucet” further and adds carbon to the atmosphere faster than natural metabolic processes. </p>
<p>Other activities remove CO2 from the atmosphere, like water flowing out of a tub. Before the industrial era, plant growth absorbed more than enough CO2 to offset the CO2 that plants and animals respired into the atmosphere. </p>
<p>Today, however, largely through fossil fuel use, we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere far more rapidly than nature removes it. As a result, the CO2 “water level” is rapidly rising in the climate bathtub. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140153/original/image-20161003-20217-t7dajv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140153/original/image-20161003-20217-t7dajv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140153/original/image-20161003-20217-t7dajv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140153/original/image-20161003-20217-t7dajv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140153/original/image-20161003-20217-t7dajv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140153/original/image-20161003-20217-t7dajv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140153/original/image-20161003-20217-t7dajv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, recorded by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The line is jagged because CO2 levels rise and fall slightly each year in response to plant growth cycles.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png">Scripps Institute of Oceanography</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When biofuels are burned, they emit roughly the same the amount of CO2 per unit of energy as petroleum fuels. Therefore, using biofuels instead of fossil fuels does not change how quickly CO2 flows into the climate bathtub. To reduce the buildup of atmospheric CO2 levels, biofuel production must open up the CO2 drain – that is, it must speed up the net rate at which carbon is removed from the atmosphere. </p>
<p>Growing more corn and soybeans has opened the CO2 uptake “drain” a bit more, mostly by displacing other crops. That’s especially true for corn, whose high yields remove carbon from the atmosphere at a rate of two tons per acre, faster than most other crops.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, expanding production of corn and soybeans for biofuels increased CO2 uptake only enough to offset 37 percent of the CO2 directly tied to biofuel use. Moreover, it was far from enough to offset other GHG emissions during biofuel production from sources including fertilizer use, farm operations and fuel refining. Additionally, when farmers convert grasslands, wetlands and other habitats that store large quantities of carbon into cropland, very large CO2 releases occur. </p>
<h2>Mistaken modeling</h2>
<p>Our new study has <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0827/Do-biofuels-harm-the-planet-more-than-gasoline">sparked controversy</a> because it contradicts many prior analyses. These studies used an approach called <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/420f10006.pdf">lifecycle analysis</a>, or LCA, in which analysts add up all of the GHG emissions associated with producing and using a product. The result is popularly called the product’s “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/jun/04/carbon-footprint-definition">carbon footprint</a>.” </p>
<p>The LCA studies used to justify and administer renewable fuel policies evaluate only emissions – that is, the CO2 flowing into the air – and failed to assess whether biofuel production increased the rate at which croplands removed CO2 from the atmosphere. Instead, LCA simply assumes that because energy crops such as corn and soybeans can be regrown from one year to the next, they automatically remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as they release during biofuel combustion. This significant assumption is hard-coded into LCA computer models. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140178/original/image-20161003-20205-qzjjg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140178/original/image-20161003-20205-qzjjg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140178/original/image-20161003-20205-qzjjg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140178/original/image-20161003-20205-qzjjg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140178/original/image-20161003-20205-qzjjg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140178/original/image-20161003-20205-qzjjg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140178/original/image-20161003-20205-qzjjg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lincolnway Energy ethanol plant in Nevada, Iowa.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/photolibrarian/15550847133">photolibrarian/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately, LCA is the basis for the RFS as well as California’s <a href="https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm">Low-Carbon Fuel Standard</a>, a key element of that state’s ambitious climate action plan. It is also used by other agencies, research institutions and businesses with an interest in transportation fuels. </p>
<p>I once accepted the view that biofuels were inherently carbon-neutral. Twenty years ago I was lead author of <a href="http://www.carsclimate.com/2013/01/lcfs-some-early-history-of-concept.html">the first paper</a> proposing use of LCA for fuel policy. Many such studies were done, and a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1121416">widely cited meta-analysis</a> published in Science in 2006 found that using corn ethanol significantly reduced GHG emissions compared to petroleum gasoline. </p>
<p>However, other scholars raised concerns about how planting vast areas with energy crops could alter land use. In early 2008 Science published two notable articles. One described how biofuel crops <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1152747">directly displaced carbon-rich habitats</a>, such as grasslands. The other showed that growing crops for biofuel triggered damaging <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1151861">indirect effects, such as deforestation</a>, as farmers competed for productive land. </p>
<p>LCA adherents made their models more complex to account for these consequences of fuel production. But the resulting uncertainties grew so large that it became impossible to determine whether or not biofuels were helping the climate. In 2011 a National Research Council <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13105/renewable-fuel-standard-potential-economic-and-environmental-effects-of-us">report on the RFS</a> concluded that crop-based biofuels such as corn ethanol “have not been conclusively shown to reduce GHG emissions and might actually increase them.” </p>
<p>These uncertainties spurred me to start deconstructing LCA. In 2013, I published a paper in Climatic Change showing that the conditions under which biofuel production could offset CO2 <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0927-9">were much more limited than commonly assumed</a>. In a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wene.133">subsequent review paper</a> I detailed the mistakes made when using LCA to evaluate biofuels. These studies paved the way for our new finding that in the United States, to date, renewable fuels actually are more harmful to the climate than gasoline. </p>
<p>It is still urgent to mitigate CO2 from oil, which is the largest source of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the United States and the <a href="http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget">second-largest globally</a> after coal. But our analysis affirms that, as a cure for climate change, biofuels are <a href="http://www.oecd.org/sd-roundtable/39411732.pdf">“worse than the disease.”</a> </p>
<h2>Reduce and remove</h2>
<p>Science points the way to climate protection mechanisms that are more effective and less costly than biofuels. There are <a href="http://www.carsclimate.com/2014/10/LCC1.html">two broad strategies</a> for mitigating CO2 emissions from transportation fuels. First, we can reduce emissions by improving vehicle efficiency, limiting miles traveled or substituting truly carbon-free fuels such as electricity or hydrogen. </p>
<p>Second, we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere more rapidly than ecosystems are absorbing it now. Strategies for <a href="http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-94-007-4159-1">“recarbonizing the biosphere”</a> include <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=47">reforestation and afforestation</a>, rebuilding soil carbon and restoring other carbon-rich ecosystems such as wetlands and grasslands. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140185/original/image-20161003-30459-h4ss44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140185/original/image-20161003-30459-h4ss44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140185/original/image-20161003-30459-h4ss44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140185/original/image-20161003-30459-h4ss44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140185/original/image-20161003-30459-h4ss44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140185/original/image-20161003-30459-h4ss44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140185/original/image-20161003-30459-h4ss44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140185/original/image-20161003-30459-h4ss44.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protecting ecosystems that store carbon can increase CO2 removal from the atmosphere (click for larger image).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www2.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_science_pick/can-we-move-carbon-from-the-atmosphere-and-into-rocks-and-plants/">U.S. Geological Survey</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These approaches will help to protect biodiversity – another global sustainability challenge – instead of threatening it as biofuel production does. Our analysis also offers another insight: Once carbon has been removed from the air, it rarely makes sense to expend energy and emissions to process it into biofuels only to burn the carbon and re-release it into the atmosphere.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64463/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John DeCicco's work is supported by the University of Michigan Energy Institute (UMEI), whose financial partners and advisory board members include federal agencies, national laboratories, energy, financial, automotive and other manufacturing companies and nonprofit organizations. The recent study discussed in this article was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. However, the conclusions and views expressed are those of the author alone and neither represent nor were influenced by API nor other past or current funders of the author's work. </span></em></p>A new study challenges the longstanding view that biofuels are carbon-neutral, and asserts that in the U.S. to date, they have done more harm to the climate than gasoline.John DeCicco, Research Professor, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/636902016-09-01T03:24:54Z2016-09-01T03:24:54ZWho should pay for our corn ethanol policy – Big Oil or gas stations?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135956/original/image-20160830-28244-cmd3o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ethanol made from corn goes into our gas tanks. Now refiners who pay for the subsidy are complaining of rising costs. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/armydre2008/5287083456/in/photolist-bQKvgr-4SpjLZ-b6rFMX-dZDQMo-PwcGa-fDTjYh-aCQYw1-9DvT3y-rpPjw5-rGiDZe-rGiDwv-qKBqhv-ro5ric-8yCgzX-rpWVEP-94cFHj-rGiF2p-ro5qNV">armydre2008/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When most of us refuel our car or truck with gas, we’re also filling up with ethanol – the E10 label on many gas pumps indicates that 10 percent of the fuel is ethanol. </p>
<p>The reason we run our vehicles partially on biofuel goes back to a federal mandate to blend ethanol with gasoline prior to it being pumped into your tank. The mandate, which is backed by subsidies, was put in place to reduce dependence on foreign oil and cut vehicle pollution. </p>
<p>The subsidy for blending the ethanol and gasoline together isn’t free, however, and now a debate has broken out over who should be required to pay for it. It’s an argument that could be felt by consumers if higher refining costs increase prices at the pump.</p>
<p>In recent weeks, <a href="http://www.platts.com/latest-news/agriculture/houston/valero-rin-costs-may-rise-to-as-high-as-850-mil-21084306">oil refiners</a> and some <a href="http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/08/24/ethanol-credit-spike-divides-gas-stations/">gas station owners</a> have complained about rising prices associated with blending ethanol into gas. The country’s oil refiners are on track to spend in total more than <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-refinery-ethanol-idUSKCN10L2F6">US$2 billion</a> on meeting the mandate this year. A refining trade group has argued that the mandate, which uses credits that can be bought and sold, is unnecessarily imposing <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biofuels-refineries-idUSKCN10F2MB">higher fuel costs</a> on drivers. </p>
<p>Is the system of subsidizing corn ethanol blending actually broken and, if so, how should it be fixed?</p>
<h2>How the biofuels mandate works</h2>
<p>In 2007 Congress created the revised Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2). This legislation mandates that a certain volume of biofuels be blended with fossil fuels such as gasoline. The corn ethanol industry was already established in 2007, and its fuel was set as the largest blending category (as opposed to biofuels from other sources, such as wood chips) until 2022.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133953/original/image-20160812-16364-185yc9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133953/original/image-20160812-16364-185yc9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133953/original/image-20160812-16364-185yc9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133953/original/image-20160812-16364-185yc9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133953/original/image-20160812-16364-185yc9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133953/original/image-20160812-16364-185yc9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133953/original/image-20160812-16364-185yc9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133953/original/image-20160812-16364-185yc9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Annual blending requirements under the RFS2 through 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Schnepf (2013)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Oil refiners process crude oil to make finished products, such as fuels or plastics. The RFS2 requires oil refiners to blend sufficient biofuels with their refined fuels to meet the mandated volumes. Each refiner’s individual obligation is determined by its U.S. market share. </p>
<p>The mandate is enforced through the use of blending credits named Renewable Identification Numbers (RIN). <a href="http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCTbriefing_RINs_20140508.pdf">RINs</a> are credits that represent the attributes of ethanol and act as the form of compliance to show that refiners and blenders have met the federal biofuel mandate. </p>
<p>A RIN is created when a gallon of biofuel is produced. Once a refiner or gas station purchases a gallon of biofuel and blends it with petroleum fuel, the RIN can then be submitted to the federal government to demonstrate compliance with the mandate. Alternatively, if the blender has more RINs than it is required to submit by the mandate, it can sell the excess to another company at a market price. </p>
<h2>Surging RIN prices</h2>
<p>This system worked well during the mandate’s early years. Some refiners owned sufficient blending capacity to meet their annual RIN obligations. Those who did not were able to purchase the balance for about $0.02 per RIN for the corn ethanol category. </p>
<p>This situation changed rapidly in early 2013. Corn ethanol RIN prices <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11671">surged</a>, from $0.05 at the beginning of the year to $1.45 by the following July, an increase of 2,800 percent. Those refiners that relied on RIN purchases to meet their obligations saw their expenses move sharply higher. RIN prices fell below $0.20 by November, but not before U.S. refiners and importers spent a total of $1.3 billion on them in that year alone.</p>
<p>2013’s “<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ethanol-idUSBRE97605420130807">RINsanity</a>” was attributed to the arrival of the ethanol “<a href="http://www.agmrc.org/renewable-energy/ethanol/ethanol-blending-economics-the-expected-blending-wall-and-government-mandates/">blend wall</a>.” The blend wall is the maximum volume of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline, which was put into place for technical reasons.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135957/original/image-20160830-28253-y6rdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135957/original/image-20160830-28253-y6rdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135957/original/image-20160830-28253-y6rdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135957/original/image-20160830-28253-y6rdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135957/original/image-20160830-28253-y6rdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135957/original/image-20160830-28253-y6rdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135957/original/image-20160830-28253-y6rdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/135957/original/image-20160830-28253-y6rdjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The primary intent behind U.S. biofuel policy was to promote a domestic fuel made from corn.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iowacorn/6623615599/">iowacorn/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unlike gasoline, ethanol attracts water into the fuel infrastructure, such as pipelines and storage tanks. This isn’t a problem when only a small amount of ethanol equal to less than 10 percent of gasoline by volume is blended. However, blending more than this can cause corrosion in <a href="http://newsroom.aaa.com/2013/12/the-real-facts-on-aaa-and-ethanol/">older or unmodified</a> pipelines, storage tanks and vehicles.</p>
<p>Gasoline consumption was steadily rising when the mandate was created, so Congress did not expect the blend wall to be a problem. High oil prices and improved vehicle fuel economy caused U.S. gasoline consumption to decline after 2009, however, and the mandate breached the blend wall in 2013, meaning more than 10 percent of the U.S. fuel mix was ethanol. </p>
<p>Most blenders were unable to handle the higher rate, and refiners became dependent on purchasing credits from other companies to generate the needed RINs. RIN prices declined only after the federal government proposed to reduce the mandate below 10 percent of gasoline consumption in recognition of the problem.</p>
<h2>A broken market?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/07/21/u-s-gasoline-demand-reaches-record-levels/#715e619576c4">Rebounding gasoline demand</a> more recently has prompted the federal government <a href="https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/final-renewable-fuel-standards-2014-2015-and-2016-and-biomass-based">to raise</a> the blending mandate. </p>
<p>So this year RIN prices have returned to levels not seen since 2013 despite higher gasoline demand. They have remained so high that U.S. refiners have reported spending nearly as much on RINs in the first half of 2016 as they did in all of 2013. My analysis of refiners’ financial statements suggests that their total RIN costs this year will be 46 percent higher than in 2013 and 134% higher than last year based on current prices.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133960/original/image-20160812-16336-hkp6ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133960/original/image-20160812-16336-hkp6ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133960/original/image-20160812-16336-hkp6ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133960/original/image-20160812-16336-hkp6ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133960/original/image-20160812-16336-hkp6ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133960/original/image-20160812-16336-hkp6ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133960/original/image-20160812-16336-hkp6ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133960/original/image-20160812-16336-hkp6ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Combined annual RIN costs for publicly traded U.S. independent refiners based on data from quarterly earnings calls, annual 10-K filings.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This year’s high prices have coincided with refiners’ accusations of RIN <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/As-price-of-biofuel-credits-spike-refiners-9125281.php">market manipulation</a> by other companies in the fuel supply chain. </p>
<p>Refiners transport and sell their fuels to fuel terminals that then distribute them to gas stations. Restrictions on the transport of ethanol through pipelines mean that terminals are frequently the point at which the blending occurs, rather than centralized refining plants. </p>
<p>These terminals and fuel retailers (the two operations are frequently, but not always, owned by the same company) thus control more blending capacity than many refiners despite not falling under the blending mandate. Any company that blends a gallon of biofuel produces a credit, but only refiners are legally obligated to submit their credits to the government. The terminals and retailers instead sell their credits to the highest bidder.</p>
<p>One of the largest “nonobligated blenders,” retailer Murphy USA, is <a href="http://seekingalpha.com/filing/3176905">on pace</a> to earn $165 million from its RIN sales this year. Many additional small entities, such as terminal owners and fuel truck drivers, also generate RINs for resale. This is such a lucrative source of small business income that individual states have in the past <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/refinery-operations-valero-memphis-idUSN0848893920090508">considered laws</a> banning biofuel blending by refiners.</p>
<h2>Shifting the cost?</h2>
<p>The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), a trade group, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biofuels-refineries-idUSKCN10F2MB">recently petitioned</a> the federal government to change the mandate so that terminal owners in addition to refiners are required to blend biofuels or buy RINs under it. The group claims that nonobligated blenders are holding onto RINs to create artificial scarcity and higher prices refiners, as a captive market, are forced to pay.</p>
<p>The group argues that expanding the obligation of purchasing ethanol credits to include companies further along the distribution network would cause RIN prices to become cheaper and less volatile. It would also reflect limitations in the refining and transport infrastructure on how much biofuel can be blended. </p>
<p>This position is supported by researchers at <a href="http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/renewable_fuel_standard.pdf">Columbia University</a> and former Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Environment <a href="http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a4545f2f-52df-4f3f-8a08-e5802950d8e5/rem-rfs-written-testimony.pdf">Ron Minsk</a> on the grounds that it would also increase the incentive to blend higher volumes of biofuels by reducing RIN hoarding. Finally, <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w21343">an analysis</a> led by a MIT researcher finds that high RIN prices are passed through to fuel prices, in which case the proposal could result in lower prices at the pump for drivers.</p>
<p>A downside to this proposal is that, by requiring terminals and retailers to blend or purchase blending credits as refiners are, these smaller businesses would lose out on an important source of income. Instead of being able to sell their credits, they would be given to the government to show compliance with the biofuel mandate.</p>
<p>The effect on prices at the pump is unclear. Refiners argue that obliging terminals and retailers to pay would reduce refining costs and increase supply, pushing prices lower. Retailers argue that they already pass the increased income to drivers in the form of lower prices, and that removing the income would cause prices to move higher.</p>
<p>In effect, this proposal could be presented as transferring wealth from smaller business owners to “Big Oil” – namely, the big national refiners. That could be a hard sell in a presidential election year even if it benefits drivers too. The federal government has pledged to listen to both sides before making its decision. In the meantime, expect the debate over who pays for our corn ethanol subsidy to continue as we wait to see if higher prices will be passed down to consumers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63690/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tristan R. Brown owns a diverse portfolio of shares that includes both fossil and renewable energy producers.</span></em></p>A fight’s breaking out over who should pay subsidies for corn ethanol, and it is consumers who may end up paying for any changes.Tristan R. Brown, Assistant Professor of Energy Resource Economics, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/540302016-02-02T20:56:50Z2016-02-02T20:56:50ZCorn ethanol: the rise and fall of a political force<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110004/original/image-20160202-32222-1uvv7w2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Before there was E10, in the 1970s there was 'gasohol,' another name for gasoline that had been blended with ethanol.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/eklektikos/22948054/in/photolist-32BE7">eklektikos/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The 2016 primary race is defying conventional wisdom, with erstwhile fringe candidates competitive in the polls despite their unorthodox policy positions. The Iowa Republican Caucus provided additional material for this storyline as Senator Ted Cruz <a href="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/">defied projections</a> and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/01/politics/iowa-caucuses-2016-highlights/index.html">won the state</a>. </p>
<p>His victory came despite <a href="http://time.com/4199339/republican-debate-ted-cruz-ethanol/">his opposition</a> to subsidies for one of the state’s biggest industries: the production of corn ethanol. </p>
<p>Monday night’s result would have been unthinkable just a decade ago when American policymakers wanted to see as much corn ethanol consumed as rapidly as possible. </p>
<p>Now, however, more politicians – and <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-ethanol-iowa-campaign-20151217-story.html">voters</a> – question or openly criticize corn ethanol, saying it’s been a boon to Iowa but has provided little in the way of environmental benefits or energy security. </p>
<h2>Fueling the ethanol boom</h2>
<p>Iowa achieves the highest corn yields in the world and, following the passage of an <a href="http://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program">energy law in 2005</a>, quickly became the center of a multi-billion dollar industry. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/10701/study-quantifies-impact-of-biofuel-on-iowa-economy">full 30 percent</a> of American ethanol production came from the state in 2014. If it were a country, Iowa would be the third-largest ethanol producer in the world, <a href="http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resources/industry/statistics/#1454098996479-8715d404-e546">surpassing all</a> but the rest of the United States and Brazil.</p>
<p>But the roots of corn ethanol’s political clout reach back farther than the George W. Bush presidency. The modern corn ethanol industry first came of age in the 1970s. That decade saw U.S. policymakers focus on energy security as the country was hit by oil embargoes even as its domestic crude production was entering a <a href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M">lengthy decline</a>. </p>
<p>Federal tax breaks were implemented in 1978 on gasoline blended to contain 10 percent ethanol by volume – a fuel then called gasohol. A large tariff was also imposed on ethanol made from sugarcane imported from Brazil. U.S. ethanol production grew rapidly in response but from a small base, and ethanol’s impact on overall gasoline consumption <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11131">remained low</a>.</p>
<p>This situation changed drastically after the turn of the 21st century. </p>
<p>In August 2001 Saudi Arabia became America’s <a href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm">largest source</a> of foreign oil. The discovery that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of that country once again made energy security a national priority. The Bush administration unveiled several domestic energy initiatives in response, including a <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/1560605">hydrogen vehicle</a> program and tax credits for electricity made from renewable sources, such as solar and wind. </p>
<p>A larger tax credit for gasohol, which was restyled “E10,” had the most immediate impact of the new initiatives. This credit allowed companies that blend ethanol with gasoline to receive a payment from the IRS for every gallon they blended. </p>
<p>The combination of the tax credit and tariff caused ethanol production to increase by <a href="http://www.eia.gov/opendata/embed/iframe.php?series_id=TOTAL.ENPRPUS.A;TOTAL.ENTCPUS.A%22%20load=%22iframe_load">700 percent</a> between 2001 and 2010. </p>
<iframe id="eia_widget" style="width:100%;height:500px" src="https://www.eia.gov/opendata/embed/iframe.php?series_id=TOTAL.ENPRPUS.A;TOTAL.ENTCPUS.A" load="iframe_load" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Ethanol production was so profitable that the country’s first ethanol mandate saw its target for 2012 reached <a href="https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40155.pdf">four years early</a>. </p>
<p>Around that time, there was growing <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/MTBE-Leaks-A-Ticking-Bomb-Gas-additive-taints-2973242.php">concern</a> that the fuel additive MTBE, which was designed to improve gasoline’s fuel performance but can <a href="http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=226&tid=41">cause health problems</a>, was leaking from storage tanks and contaminating groundwater. That left corn ethanol, which also improves gasoline’s performance but does not persist in the environment as much as MTBE, as the only remaining fuel additive on the market.</p>
<p>Even as corn ethanol spread into more and more filling stations, scientists and watchdog groups <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/better-biofuels/truth-about-ethanol#.VrDZ_jYrJp9">questioned its environmental benefits</a>, noting that carbon emissions are not necessary lower than those of gasoline alone and pointing out the significant amount of water and land required for corn ethanol production. </p>
<h2>Enter the Tea Party</h2>
<p>After the ethanol industry achieved its first mandated level of production, Congress quickly began work on an expanded mandate. But ultimately, corn ethanol’s rapid success led to its fall from political favor. </p>
<p>The year 2007 witnessed three major events that drastically changed the nature of the new biofuel mandate. </p>
<p>Democrats took control of Congress in early 2007 after campaigning on a platform that included environmental security. Shortly afterward, an article argued that diverting corn’s calories from stomachs to cars would cause <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2007-05-01/how-biofuels-could-starve-poor">widespread hunger</a> among the world’s poor. </p>
<p>That article’s publication coincided with a sharp increase in the prices of corn and other grains, which <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7065061.stm">prompted</a> one UN official to label biofuels “a crime against humanity.” <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5867/1238.short">Another analysis</a> conducted during the year concluded that corn ethanol wouldn’t drive food prices permanently higher. However, it also calculated that emissions from biofuels were higher than thought because farmers in the Amazon responded to higher ethanol prices by converting rainforest to farmland.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109881/original/image-20160201-32257-1nyu1pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109881/original/image-20160201-32257-1nyu1pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109881/original/image-20160201-32257-1nyu1pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109881/original/image-20160201-32257-1nyu1pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109881/original/image-20160201-32257-1nyu1pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109881/original/image-20160201-32257-1nyu1pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109881/original/image-20160201-32257-1nyu1pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109881/original/image-20160201-32257-1nyu1pf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Let it rain corn: Corn being unloaded from a truck for conversion into ethanol at the Lincoln Energy Plant in Iowa.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/breadfortheworld/6377989873/in/photolist-aHASbD-8iRkRF-cL9q4-8diC3v-b32EZD-9mUx5X-bcF3AF-eCVf39-bkurMu-avbX7g-a5gFc3-7YEWuN-avbWR4-a5hoBW-a5dMfM-8dLsj8-gb8bBk-ip89qz-8ZsXiM-bZ7vmf-dP7j1E-bZ7uRb-a5gF6w-a5sFCg-a5evPg-48CyfV-a5gDzq-cL8DD-cL8vx-bktQtu-dejxXr-9f8fx-3mN7NL-8JeUUV-cL8zM-7gxWYE-2Sf2KK-4Fdtrk-cXfwHu-7gtSFX-7YBGXe-7YBKAT-7YBLYK-7YBHjT-7YEYDb-7YEUDA-4GJr79-a5hWQ3-a5evWT-a5gERA">breadfortheworld/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As opposition to corn ethanol grew, Congressional Democrats put a cap on how much corn ethanol could be blended with gasoline, at roughly 10 percent of gasoline consumption under the expanded mandate. </p>
<p>To meet higher volumes of ethanol production, the revised rules called for production of biofuels from non-food sources, such as wood chips or corn stalks and husks. The mandate called for these advanced biofuels to fulfill higher production targets by 2022 despite the fact the industry was non-existent in 2007. </p>
<p>Then grain prices collapsed in 2008 and subsequent research has determined that Brazilian deforestation <a href="http://www.inpe.br/ingles/news/news.php?Cod_Noticia=10">fell by 83 percent</a> after 2004 even as corn ethanol production quadrupled, countering the argument that biofuels in the U.S. would lead to higher deforestation globally. The expanded mandate was already law when these findings became known, however.</p>
<p>Ethanol’s political problems were just beginning, though. With the rise of the Republican Party’s pro-austerity Tea Party wing, the blenders’ tax credit and ethanol import tariff were <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/business/energy-environment/after-three-decades-federal-tax-credit-for-ethanol-expires.html">both being discarded by 2011</a>. Tea Party opposition to the Affordable Care Act’s insurance mandate also led to the movement’s <a href="http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/ethanol-the-power-of-a-really-bad-idea">opposition</a> to the blending mandate, most recently manifested by Cruz. </p>
<p>In 2013 the Tea Party gained a powerful ally in the form of the U.S. refining industry. </p>
<p>American refiners, the companies that turn petroleum into gasoline, diesel and other products, are tasked with implementing the mandate’s blending requirements. Their collective compliance costs <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-rins-spike-costs-analysis-idUSBREA2U0PT20140331">exceeded $1 billion</a> in 2013 and <a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/3027376-regulatory-costs-for-some-refiners-increased-in-fy-2014">remained high</a> in 2014. </p>
<p>A large lobbying effort by the refining industry that began in 2013 called the mandate’s political future into question. This uncertainty was not dispelled <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/30/epa-raises-biofuel-requirements-finalizes-renewable-fuel-standard">until late 2015</a>. In that year the EPA established future blending volumes that were higher than the refining industry had wanted but lower than had been originally expected.</p>
<h2>A no-show for advanced biofuels</h2>
<p>Despite the political push-back the U.S. corn ethanol industry is in no danger of disappearing. Yet its future is still be limited by political and technology constraints. </p>
<p>The advanced biofuel from non-food biomass that was to surpass corn ethanol has mostly been a no-show, reaching just <a href="http://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/2015-renewable-fuel-standard-data">4 percent</a> of its original blending target in 2015 because of insufficient production. Efficiency gains mean that corn ethanol now achieves <a href="http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f10006.pdf">fewer greenhouse gas emissions</a> than domestic gasoline.</p>
<p>Congressional opposition is too weak to exclude corn ethanol from the country’s biofuel mandate. On the other hand, it is strong enough to prevent corn ethanol’s mandate to expand to fill the place of the missing advanced biofuels. </p>
<p>Finally, ethanol’s tendency to damage <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/06/e15-e10-ethanol-alcohol-pollution-engine-damage-labels-gas-station-pump-epa/1#.VrELcFKi1h4">older engines</a> when used in blends exceeding 10 percent has constrained its ability to surpass current consumption volumes. </p>
<p>All of these factors have deflated ethanol’s stature from a decade ago. One need only look at the results of the Iowa Republican Caucus to understand just how much the fuel’s political fortunes have faded.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54030/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tristan R. Brown owns a diverse stock portfolio that includes producers of both fossil fuels and renewable energy.</span></em></p>Ted Cruz opposes subsidies for biofuels and still managed to win in ethanol-friendly Iowa. Is corn ethanol starting to lose its political clout?Tristan R. Brown, Assistant Professor of Energy Resource Economics, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.