Someone is listening

[audtatious]

WASHINGTON — Following the lead of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Senate Republicans want the Environmental Protection Agency to consider waiving the country's ethanol production mandate amid rising food prices.

Twenty-two Republican senators, including presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have sent a letter to the EPA. They said the agency has the authority to waive, or restructure, a law passed by Congress requiring a five-fold increase in U.S. ethanol production by 2022.

Lawmakers are ramping up questions about the potential unintended consequences of using corn for fuel amid rising global demand for food.

Last month, Perry made waves when he asked federal regulators to relax rules requiring use of corn-based ethanol in the nation's fuel supply, arguing the mandate is driving up world food prices and harming the Texas economy.

In an April 25 letter to the EPA, Perry asked the Bush administration to waive 50 percent of the federal mandate for production of ethanol derived from grain.

Federal law requires that the nation use 9 billion gallons of renewable fuels this year and 11 billion gallons in 2009.

Ethanol is blended into more than half the gasoline sold in the United States, including in Houston and other cities struggling with the worst air-quality problems.

[0wn3r]

Food prices may fall, but you think gas prices will go up by 'up to 10%' now? If food prices were lower, that's more reward for those who walk or ride a bike for transportation.

[audtatious]

It actually costs more to make that 10% of ethanol.

[0wn3r]

i guess the upside was that it was "renewable"

i'd prefer more efficient vehicles over high food prices.

[audtatious]

Ethanol may be renewable but there are some negative stanpoints

1. Takes food out of the food chain _and_ makes those products more costly to the population including increased cost due to supply and demand

2. Ethanol actually takes more energy to make as compared to gas

3. Ethanol is worse for gas mileage

4. Ethanol deteriorates parts of the engine, thus higher maintenance costs

[0wn3r]

From my limited knowledge, I believe newer cars are designed to run w/ ethanol. Of course that could be total BS. I've definitely come across claims that ethanol has damaged/corroded some of the fuel parts in older cars.

If we had more efficient machinery, it would provide a cleaner burn than fossil fuel. But of course, you'd have to look at the waste that comes from producing that amount of ethanol. (lol which could be what you were talking about).

i'm totally playing devil's advocate i guess. In reality I'm a tree hugger. I think ethanol is just as retarded as people. We'll try and burn through all of the fuel the world has @ $100/gallon before finding different sources.

[audtatious]

I'm all for technological advances that make economic sense. Taking food sources and making it into gas simply does not make any sense at all.