“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
Legislators and their powerful interest groups are pursuing a mandate that would require all standard-grade gasoline in Wisconsin to contain 10 percent ethanol. In this political pursuit, they are borrowing a tactic employed by Hollywood’s favorite government phony — the Wizard of Oz. Like the Emerald City mayor, these pro-ethanol enthusiasts are hiding behind a curtain. They claim to promote E-10 fuel out of environmental concern, but this covers up their true objective: the installation of a mandated taxpayer subsidy to corn farmers in Wisconsin.
Make no mistake; there is a dire need for fuel reform in Wisconsin and across the United States as a whole. The federal government continues to offer environmentally unacceptable energy proposals like drilling in the Arctic National Refuge, or the Clean Air Act which has lax emission standards promoting anything but that. Oil prices have recently achieved a pocket-crunching price of fifty-one dollars a barrel. This is expected to rise, even with an OPEC commission meeting in mid-March to discuss increased drilling.
Economically, ethanol seems like a nice alternative to our current energy situation. Farmers would be the main beneficiaries of the E-10 mandate, but proponents argue that ethanol production could stimulate other sectors of the Wisconsin economy as well. Because refining, shipping and purchasing would also take place in the state, Wisconsin consumers would refuel not just their vehicles but also the state’s economy when purchasing E-10 gasoline. This mandated economic stimulus may seem like a farm-friendly and conscientious-consumer solution, but this win-win economic façade is just another piece of the curtain technique, which quickly unravels upon further examination.
In reality, ethanol is less efficient than petroleum-based gasoline. It takes just as much or more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it will yield as fuel. Part of the problem is most car fuel systems allow ethanol to permeate through plastic and rubber linings into the atmosphere. As a result, mileage decreases and Wisconsin citizens are forced to refill more often, increasing gasoline consumption and emission pollution.
Burned ethanol also has environmental drawbacks. It does produce less carbon dioxide, but it releases more volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen — chemical compounds that contribute to ozone pollution. In Wisconsin, ozone pollution is the primary concern for environmentalists like the Sierra Club, Madison’s Audubon Society (both oppose E-10 fuel) and even the EPA. In fact, excessive ozone pollution is the reason for heavy pressure from the EPA to reform Wisconsin emission standards in the coming months. By 2007, the state must present a plan for achieving compliance with the 2010 ozone standard.
In its present formula, E-10 fuel will not contribute to the achievement of that standard. Wisconsin should spend the two years before this deadline pursuing ways to improve ethanol fuel, especially by eliminating the dangerous chemical compound emissions that keep it from being an effective environmental emissions improvement. The state should also continue to research 10 other alternative fuels that have appeared promising in testing conducted thus far. Efforts on the opposite end of the oil spectrum will also improve the environmental reality in the state. Encouraging motor companies to produce more hybrid cars and offering tax credits to drivers who purchase environmentally friendly vehicles are just two of the ways to promote drastic change in energy consumption.
Although these solutions are less concrete than the ethanol mandate, their payoffs will far outweigh the potential hazards associated with E-10 fuel. Let’s pull back the special interest’s green curtain, face the faults of the E-10 proposal and begin pursing an environmental plan that actually reduces emissions and ensures Wisconsin safety and environmental responsibility.
Sarah Howard ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
