Trump and Clinton Agree to Be Wrong on Ethanol
By Jeff Stier
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump don't agree on much -- except the Renewable Fuel Standard. Too bad they're both wrong.
The policy requires America's gasoline supply be mixed with renewable fuels like corn-based ethanol. Both nominees cite ethanol as key to breaking U.S. dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
America's domestic energy boom has laid that first argument to rest. For the environment, the RFS does more to harm than good. Instead of aligning themselves on the wrong side of this issue, both candidates should commit to ending the RFS as quickly as possible.
America's peculiar relationship with ethanol began in the 1970s. Back then, the nation relied on foreign countries for much of its gasoline -- a situation that undermined U.S. security and drove up fuel prices.
Congress sought to address this problem by encouraging the transition to renewable fuels. It didn't hurt that the policy carried considerable political benefits, enjoying support from both environmentalists and corn-growers.
The RFS's 2005 implementation capped this decades-long effort to boost ethanol by requiring U.S. transportation fuel to contain a certain volume of renewable material -- ethanol chief among them.
But what seemed like a sensible policy in the 1970s is now utterly absurd. Indeed, the United States is no longer dependent on volatile foreign regimes for its oil.
Since 2008, American oil production has grown by 90 percent -- a surge that makes America the biggest global petroleum producer. For the first time, America has larger oil reserves than any other country, making it unlikely that we will run out anytime soon.
The environmentalist case for the RFS has fared no better. Ethanol was supposed to be a greener alternative to fossil fuels. But, by artificially inflating the demand for corn, the RFS has dramatically increased the amount of farmland for corn production. Some 7.3 million acres of natural habitat were destroyed after the policy took effect, according to University of Wisconsin researchers.
The process of transforming these lands unlocks vast amounts of carbon pollution. According to the Clean Air Task Force, over a 30-year period, ethanol emissions would actually be 28 percent higher than those produced from gasoline.
Moreover, corn fields require unusually high levels of fertilizers and pesticides that can easily contaminate nearby rivers and lakes after heavy rains.
Motorists also suffer. Corn-based ethanol contains a third less energy than gasoline, reducing the number of miles a driver can travel on a full tank. In New England alone, ethanol mandates cost motorists an additional $6.29 billion between 2005 and 2014.
Even our cars are poorly served. Increasingly stringent Environmental Protection Agency blending requirements have made motor fuel unsuitable for many cars. For nine out of ten of today's vehicle engines, filling up on high-ethanol fuel could result in serious damage.
Too many lawmakers would rather ignore this evidence than admit that the RFS was a disastrous mistake. The Obama Administration, for instance, has repeatedly failed to conduct legally-required studies of the RFS's effects on the planet, according to recent finding from the EPA's inspector general. Remarkably, the administration doesn't dispute this accusation.
That both Trump and Clinton are continuing the RFS charade doesn't bode well for the future. The ethanol mandate is a clear example of a policy with no real benefits and serious, measurable costs. Anyone seeking to lead this country shouldn't be afraid to say so.
Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division.
