backtop


Print 28 comment(s) - last by Wolfpup.. on Apr 1 at 11:50 AM

Industry associations lost their last appeal

The Obama administration has been pushing to reduce the amount of oil that we consume within the United States. This has resulted in a big push to increase the use of alternative fuels and rules forcing automakers to become more fuel-efficient. The alternative fuel push lead to the EPA’s decision to approve a gasoline blend that uses more ethanol for 2001 model year vehicles and newer.

However, many automotive manufacturer associations continue to assert that increasing the percentage of ethanol in fuel could harm some vehicles. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of Global Automakers, the Outdoor Equipment Institute, and the National Marine Manufacturers Association jointly filed a petition this week seeking the Supreme Court to overturn EPA's plans.
 
These associations all lost a previous appeal when the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that none of those trade associations or parties had the legal standing to challenge the EPA's approval of E15 fuel.

These groups are hoping that the Supreme Court might overturn the lower court's ruling.

"It is not in the longer-term interest of consumers, the government, and all parties involved to discover, after the fact, that equipment or performance problems are occurring because a new fuel was rushed into the national marketplace,” said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

The EPA first cleared the way to bring E15 fuel to gas stations around the country in June of 2012. Current gasoline blends available at stations around the country can have up to 10% ethanol.

"Today, the last significant federal hurdle has been cleared to allow consumers to buy fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol (E15)," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in June of 2012. "This gets us one step closer to giving the American consumer a real choice at the pump. The public has a right to choose between imported oil and home-grown energy and today’s action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advances that goal."

Some states are also up in arms over the increased ethanol proposal. The state of Maine has pledged to ban the sale of E15 fuel within the state if at least two other New England states agree to ban the fuel as well.

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By JediJeb on 3/28/2013 8:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to the US Dept of Agriculture, the market price per bushel of corn has gone from $2 in 2005/6 to about $7 today.


What most people never take into consideration is the farmers. Yes there has been a large increase in corn prices in the past decade, but what most never post is that in 1970 the average price per bushel of corn was in the $1-2 range. For 35 years the price of corn never rose, yet the cost of fuel farmers use along with everything else rose quite a bit ($0.50/gallon for diesel versus $3.00). In 1970 a farmer with a few hundred acres could easily support a family of four in an above poverty manner. Now even when a farmer has over a thousand acres the cost of living usually means either he or his wife must work off the farm to supplement their income just to break even and keep their family above the poverty line.

If we revert the price of corn back down to $2 per bushel, either farmers will switch to growing something more profitable or go bankrupt and quit farming. Where will we be if farmers begin to stop farming and work other jobs? I don't see anybody going into farming now days who were not raised on a farm to begin with. If we try to hold food prices low and not allow things like corn to increase in price, should we also force farmers to keep producing while earning less and less just so the non-farm population can continue to have their cheap food? To me that would be turning farmers into state sponsored servants of the people. If that is allowed, why don't we also force auto workers to work for less money just so we can have cheaper cars, or computer programmers to work for less money so we can have cheaper computer software?

Sorry I didn't mean to get so off topic, but I get fired up when people go on about how our food supply is going to fall apart if we don't force all farm ground to be used to produce edible food or that we force farmers to help keep prices down for other people while having to give up their right to actually be profitable and strive to be more than just poor farmers.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki