ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund.
FEED
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblg.
BLOGROLL
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
Eco-nomics, the new kind of economics
Please don't disrupt my endocrines!
FEATURED
Please don't disrupt my endocrines!
Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square
Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
« Bush's 'biofuel boosterism' boondoggle? | Main | The upside of higher gas prices »
More reactions to Bush's ethanol plan
Today North Jersey's The Record highlights some salient observations illuminating the reality behind Bush's ethanol proposal.
Eric DeGesero, executive VP of the New Jersey Fuel Merchants Association, wants to remind us that putting more corn into fuel production could raise the cost of America’s corn-intensive diet (though something tells me Mr. DeGesero should visit a nutritionist).
"You'll pay more for Twinkies or Coca-Cola or Frosted Flakes, which are sweetened with corn syrup, because of the demand ethanol will put on the price for a bushel of corn."
Bush "20 in 10" plan calls for a 20 percent reduction in the amount of gasoline consumed in the country within 10 years.
But, the fine print called for reducing the "projected" amount of gasoline to be used in a decade, not the amount that's currently being used.
Which would explain why:
Environmental groups argued that Bush's proposal was too weak when it came to requiring automakers to increase fuel-efficiency standards, and the alternative fuels proposal might sound popular but was environmentally questionable, if not unfeasible.And why the Sierra Club takes this position on ethanol:
"The Sierra Club opposes ethanol because it takes more energy to create than you get from it," said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of the national environmental advocacy group. "It's really a subsidy for agri-business."Not to mention that:
Ethanol also provides less mileage than gasoline, requiring more fuel to be purchased.
New Jersey's not buying Bush plans for ethanol, Herb Jackson. The Record (25 Jan 07)
Comments
Not only does ethanol require more energy to produce than it can yield, but it has other environmentally damaging effects. Ethanol can increase the solubility of pollutants in water, therefore degrading our water systems.
Posted by: Stacy Moir | February 7, 2007 8:58 AM