The wrong ‘mix’: End the ethanol ruse |

The wrong ‘mix’: End the ethanol ruse

With Republican White House, House and Senate control at hand, the days of blending corn-based ethanol into America’s fuel supply under an ill-advised federal mandate should be numbered. Whether that actually happens will test how President-elect Donald Trump translates campaign rhetoric into policy.

Congressional Republicans have long tried to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard. The day before Thanksgiving, the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency gave the new GOP-controlled Congress fresh motivation to do so: It increased the amount of biofuels — mostly corn-based ethanol — that must be blended in 2017, The Daily Caller reports.

Ethanol costs more than gasoline but produces less energy. Blended at more than 10 percent, it hinders performance and can damage engines. Producing it diverts enough corn to raise food prices — and generates pollutants that offset any supposed environmental benefits.

Without the RFS, which also costs refiners millions of dollars for compliance, there would be no market for this “government moonshine.”

Yet Mr. Trump, as a candidate seeking votes, especially in corn-rich Iowa, favored increasing the RFS. As president, he should encourage congressional Republicans to do away with it. Backing corn-based ethanol may be politically expedient at times, but mandating its use always has been economic and environmental folly — and should have ended long ago.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.