Dr. Jeremy Martin, a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program, is filling in for Kevin Knobloch this week.

Biofuels could be an important part of a new clean energy economy. Done right, increased biofuel production could cut America’s oil dependence, cut the carbon pollution that causes climate change, and create new economic opportunities for rural communities. Unfortunately, our current policies are not helping biofuels reach their potential.

Current tax credits for ethanol are expensive and ineffective. They give billions of dollars in tax subsidies to oil companies that are already required to purchase biofuels under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). These tax credits deliver few if any benefits to farmers or biofuels producers. Nor do they protect the environment.

Yesterday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called for a “fiscally responsible short-term extension” of the tax credits during an event at the National Press Club. But any extension of the current tax credits would be fiscally irresponsible. In fact, a USDA Economic Research Service report Vilsack released at the press conference found that the Renewable Fuel Standard will boost the economy on its own and that eliminating the tax credits would increase U.S. gross domestic product by nearly $10 billion compared to keeping them in place.

Later, Vilsack called for a “more efficient and effective” ethanol credit program. We agree that it’s time for a new approach on biofuels. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has proposed a comprehensive plan to reform the tax credits, save taxpayer money, and help launch the next-generation biofuels industry.

First, the federal government should replace existing ethanol subsidies with a new “biofuels performance tax credit.” Such a standard should be based on how much oil a fuel can displace as well as its ability to reduce carbon pollution.

A well-designed tax credit would also reward corn ethanol producers for improving their product, for instance, by making their refineries more energy-efficient. According to UCS analysis, reforming existing tax credits could save taxpayers $20 billion from 2011 to 2014.

Second, the government should use some of these savings to launch a “Billion Gallon Challenge” to jumpstart the cellulosic biofuels industry. These fuels – derived from perennial grasses, garbage, and agriculture and forestry waste – cut carbon pollution far more than corn ethanol and don’t compete with food crops. Unfortunately, this year, the Environmental Protection Agency had to lower its cellulosic biofuel target under the RFS from 100 million gallons to just 6.5 million gallons due to a lack of supply.

The financial crisis made it very challenging for many of these companies to secure the financing necessary to build new bio-refineries and delayed many projects. Targeted loan guarantees and investment tax credits would provide the necessary support to get the first billion gallons of cellulosic production up and running.

In sum, this is the sort of money-saving, innovation-driven policy we need to get American biofuels back on track. Adopting performance-based tax credits and a Billion Gallon Challenge would be a smart way to save taxpayer dollars, bolster rural economies, tackle climate change, and help our country curb its oil addiction.

Advanced biofuels can play a critical role in the clean energy future, but let’s be clear. Not all biofuels are created equal, and corn-based ethanol is one that does more harm than good.

Besides competing with our food supply, the EPA found that corn ethanol creates more greenhouse gas emissions than the gasoline it is supposed to replace. Ethanol also burns hotter than gasoline, which damages the pollution controls in older engines causing more toxic air pollution to be released from cars. Meanwhile, better performing biofuels made from perennial grasses such as switchgrass and winter-cover crops and waste like sewage sludge get the short end of the stick.

Corn-based ethanol is not a clean fuel, and therefore, the government should not be promoting it. The EPA’s decision last week to raise the limits on how much corn ethanol can be blended in our gasoline and the ongoing taxpayer subsidies for corn ethanol are a mistake.

Keep in mind that over the past four years, Big Oil has received $20 billion in taxpayer money in exchange for blending more and more corn ethanol into our gasoline supply—something they are already required to do by law. Should Americans really have to pay giant corporations to do what the law tells them to do? Yet the corn ethanol lobby keeps going back for more. They want an extension of these subsidies at a cost to you and me of nearly $6 billion next year alone.

What do we gain for these billions? Not much. Multiple studies have found that corn ethanol subsidies have little impact on domestic ethanol production or job creation.

In the midst of the worst recessions since World War II and in the face of the climate change crisis, now is not the time to be spending taxpayer money on a dirty fuel on behalf of Big Oil.

Now is the time to promote the advanced biofuels that will actually help America shift to cleaner, more sustainable ways to power our cars and trucks. Several smart policies can help get us moving in that direction.

At NRDC, we have proposed a Greener Biofuels Tax, which is a technology-neutral incentive that would pay for real environmental performance. We also support a Billion Gallon Challenge, which would focus support on developing 1 billion gallons of truly low-carbon biofuels by 2014, produced using feedstocks and conversion technologies that promise broad sustainability and can be brought to scale.

It is these kinds of advanced biofuels policies—and not more subsidies for mature, dirty fuels—that will send America down a cleaner road.

The White House shouldn’t crack corn with the ethanol lobby. And lawmakers should ignore its proposal for billions in taxpayer dollars for corn ethanol subsidies and deregulation of the biofuels industry. Contrary to popular belief, the biofuels widely used today (mainly ethanol derived from corn) come at an expensive environmental cost. In fact, corn ethanol energy production diverts huge tracts of land from growing corn for food and livestock feed to growing it for fuel, and can lead to deforestation and the loss of carbon-trapping forest lands -- key drivers of global climate change and the loss of plant and animal life around the world.

In addition, industrial-scale production of biofuel crops also require large quantities of chemicals such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticide, which often are carried by runoff into streams and rivers -- causing “downstream” water pollution. A distressing example lies in the Gulf of Mexico, where algae blooms – largely caused by runoff from Midwestern corn fields along the Mississippi River – have cast a massive, oxygen-deprived “dead zone” over parts of the Gulf of Mexico.

At the kernel of the biofuels policy debate is a proposal by Growth Energy, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association and the National Corn Growers Association that would give more federal subsidies to Big Oil, could divert up to half of our nation’s corn crops to fuel production, and require significant taxpayer investment in ethanol pipelines and infrastructure. This isn’t a forward-looking policy that will lead to a healthier environment and clean energy security. It’s an industry “wish list” that would pump billions of scarce taxpayer dollars into a polluting technology, while eliminating critical environmental protections in current biofuels law.

Since 2006, oil companies have been receiving tax breaks of 45 cents per gallon to blend our gasoline with up to 10 percent ethanol. The ethanol lobby wants to extend this tax incentive, which would otherwise expire this year, further lining Big Oil’s pockets with some $31 billion over five years at the taxpayers’ expense. Given that the Environmental Protection Agency just last week approved blending up to 15 percent ethanol in new cars, there is already the potential for a huge expansion of the ethanol market, and certainly no need to extend tax subsidies.

In addition to more tax breaks for Big Oil, the ethanol lobby wants the government to back loans for new ethanol pipelines. The biofuels field is rapidly evolving. Advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, offer a more environmentally responsible alternative to corn-based ethanol. The Obama administration should be investing in the development of new, better-performing biofuels rather than spending tax dollars on an entirely new infrastructure that locks ethanol fuels in the marketplace.

Obviously, these proposed measures would instigate more demand for corn ethanol and likely result in greater impacts on the environment. To help fulfill this artificially inflated demand, the proposal seeks to expand the definition of “advanced” biofuels to include corn ethanol in the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which would allow for more of its production. Under the current definition, the “advanced” biofuels category is reserved for cleaner, cutting-edge technologies such as producing fuel from algae. By including the centuries old practice of distilling corn ethanol in the RFS “advanced” definition, the U.S. Congress would increase the federal ethanol mandate from 15 billion gallons to 20 billion gallons. The move would require approximately 41 million acres of corn, diverting roughly half the nation’s food and feed corn harvest to fuel and increasing food prices in the process.

But that’s not all: The proposal would also weaken production regulations, stripping away the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to monitor and regulate greenhouse gas pollution released by converting land to ethanol production and distilling corn into fuel. When you consider land-use conversion and the energy it takes to grow and distill corn, ethanol production creates more greenhouse gas emissions than the gasoline it is supposed to replace. Ignoring these emissions will result in an incomplete assessment of our overall carbon footprint -- greatly jeopardizing our ability to reduce our emissions and prevent the worst impacts of climate change.

Biofuels can be part of the solution as our nation works to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If properly grown, harvested and produced, biofuel crops can be beneficial for wildlife, the environment, rural economies and energy independence. But without adequate land protection measures, any legislation that mandates a significant ramp up in biofuel production will result in unintended pressure on forests, conservation lands, native prairie and critical wildlife habitat. A Renewable Fuel Standard must include private and public land protections and establish necessary safeguards for sensitive natural lands and wildlife habitat.

The best thing President Obama and Congress could do for ethanol policy this year is nothing. By allowing 30 years of ethanol subsidies and trade protection to expire as scheduled on December 31st, government leaders will be helping to lower fuel prices, save taxpayers money and provide Americans with greater access to advanced renewable fuels like sugarcane ethanol.

Tax credits and import tariffs probably made sense in 1980 to foster the nascent ethanol industry, and the policies have unquestionably worked. America’s corn ethanol has blossomed into a thriving business with booming exports to other countries and now accounts for half of all ethanol produced around the globe. But 30 years later, the time has come to remove the industry’s training wheels and promote market competition.

Brazil made such a move two decades years ago by ending its ethanol subsidies. And the South American country took another important step towards building an open and global biofuels marketplace earlier this year by eliminating its tariff on imported ethanol. As the world’s top producers of ethanol, the United States and Brazil should lead by example in creating a free market for clean, renewable fuel.

Predictably, defenders of the status quo argue that the United States would suffer catastrophic job losses without the subsidies, domestic biofuel production would plummet and America would become more dependent on foreign energy. To learn what would really happen, the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) turned to leading agricultural economists at Iowa State University for objectiveanswers. Their study, which was published this summer, found that Americans would actually benefit from ending the tax credit and trade protection. Those benefits include:

• Lower Fuel Prices. Ending the tax credit and tariff would reduce ethanol prices by 12 cents per gallon in 2011 and 34 cents per gallon in 2014. Because most gas sold in the United States contains 10% ethanol – and the Environmental Protection Agency just increased that limit to 15% for newer vehicles – lower ethanol prices would lead to savings at the pump for all drivers.
• Taxpayer Savings. In a time of soaring budget deficits, $6 billion annually is real money. Ending the ethanol subsidies would save taxpayers that amount.
• Clean Energy Diversity. Americans would gain greater access to Brazilian sugarcane ethanol – a clean and affordable renewable fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 60% compared to gasoline.

The Iowa State study also found that elimination of the subsidies would have practically no short-term impact on U.S. corn and ethanol demand. That’s because Congress already mandates the use of renewable fuels like ethanol, and those requirements will triple from 13 billion gallons today to 36 billion gallons by 2022. As a result, American corn ethanol production would continue to increase to some 14.5 billion gallons by 2014 (even without tax credits or tariffs) meaning productive farmers and ethanol refiners in the U.S. will keep their jobs. And far from becoming dependent on foreign ethanol, Iowa State estimates that sugarcane ethanol would supply about 5% of America’s needs in 2014.

Turns out Econ 101 has it right. Consumers win when businesses have to compete in an open market, because competition produces higher quality products at lower costs. The same principle holds true for renewable fuels. Because of the renewable fuel standard, the market for corn ethanol will still grow without the tax credits and trade protection. Productive farmers and ethanol refiners will keep their jobs. But allowing other alternative fuels like sugarcane ethanol to compete fairly in the U.S. would save Americans money, cut dependence on Middle East oil and improve the environment.

Increased use of ethanol may damage the engines of automobiles and other vehicles. In addition, there are cost uncertainties as well including determining the price tag of adding additional pumps at stations or retrofit existing pumps to accommodate EA 15. Furthermore, more resources like water, fertilizer and fuel will be diverted to corn-based ethanol since we don't yet have the technology to mass produce any other variant. Increased use of these resources and greater use of fuel will actually increase domestic GHG emissions. The World Bank has noted that diversion of corn production into ethanol will have a significant impact on global food prices, which will have a tremendous impact on third world countries. In the long run, increased use of ethanol won't help reduction of global GHGs and is not a cost effective way to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The administration should pursue more sound, proven renewable energy alternatives as opposed to increesed use of ethanol and should also increase access to onshore and offshore oil and gas reserves.

Ethanol in the US is made mostly with corn. About 35% of our corn crop goes to this. This large use of corn and of the land and other inputs to grow this corn for the development of a subsidized and government supported fuel further distorts our already distorted agricultural markets. There are some studies pointing out that the use of corn to produce ethanol also tends to raise the price of other agricultural commodities, not just corn. This is mostly due to the displacement of land that could be used for wheat, barley and other grains toward corn growing for ethanol. Speculation and the changing uses of other resources towards corn can also add to price pressures on other crops.

Surely some farmers and agricultural communities have been helped, but at what cost to the overall consumer and the economy. One of the biggest sources of inflation in the future could be in food. We really don't need to push these costs up even further by focusing on ethanol produced from food or feed crops (corn is a feed crop for cattle and other livestock). Ethanol can be produced from other feedstock. The longer we support corn-based ethanol, which is really a payoff to the political leadership and powerful constituents of the corn-growing states, the less likely it is that we will help alternative methods of producing ethanol find their place in the markets of the future.

Ethanol as it is made here also uses a lot of energy to produce the final product. It also has a much larger carbon footprint than most would think. Consider the fertilizers that are natural gas and other hydrocarbon based. Consider the tractors, plows, sorters, dryers, distilleries (ethanol is distilled corn mash), trucks for transport, trains, and all of the energy and fuels used to till, sow, grow, harvest, process, transport, etc. this final product and you start to get the picture – and it is not as environmentally friendly as some would hope. Ethanol production also uses a lot of water. Burning ethanol is cleaner than burning gasoline, but it is still a hydrocarbon and it still produces C02, albeit less than gasoline.

Ethanol also can damage parts to certain types of motors, especially boat motors if the ethanol is left in the motor over the winter or for other long periods. Furthermore, an increase in ethanol production would require other infrastructure to be developed to transport it. You cannot transport ethanol in normal refined product pipelines. It has the wrong viscosity. It is also rather explosive so great care is needed in transporting it on trains or in trucks. But, then again, gasoline is explosive too. Odd how the general public thinks hydrogen is more explosive than gasoline. It is not given that way it is likely to be transported or carried in cars, trucks, trains, and more. Fuel cells, batteries and the like are most certainly less explosive than ethanol or gasoline if we are thinking driver and logistical train safety. I would rather be transporting batteries and fuel cells to our troops in Afghanistan via Pakistan than gasoline, for example.

Supporting one fuel does not necessarily rule out supporting others. In the process, however, we could be setting up a series of fuel support policy networks that are not connected to each other in a logical and rational way. If we are truly going to focus on changing the way we transport things, and this is where most of the ethanol goes, we need to look at thing in a systems within systems framework and look at the whole picture of options, including R&D for alternative fuels that are their baby steps stages and for those fuels we have not even thought about yet. We also need to connect that policy framework with our overall fuels policies.

We also need to link our federal policies of fuels to the many state and local fuels policies. The real driving forces behind energy change and climate change mitigation can be found at the state and local levels. The federal government could learn from what they are doing, instead of just trying to invent the wheel all the time.

We could also learn from other countries, and their state and local government equivalents. Now that is a concept, isn't it?

American ethanol is the only fuel currently available to replace and reduce imported oil for cars and small trucks. The Obama Administration and Congress should continue to offer incentives for the production and use of American ethanol in the transportation sector.

Even with the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest ruling on 15 percent ethanol blends, there is much more work that needs to be done. EPA bureaucrats need to complete analysis on E15 for all vehicles. The science clearly supports its safe and effective use in all vehicles. Equally important, policymakers need to take four more steps towards the President’s vision of “a clean energy future.”

First, Congress should renew the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which provides blenders and marketers of every form of ethanol with an excise tax credit of 45 cents on each gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline in this country. The tax credit – which will expire this year unless Congress acts – encourages the production and blending of ethanol here in the US, rather than importing biofuels from overseas.

Second, the US Department of Energy must amend its current loan guarantee program to make it more accessible to next generation biofuel companies. It needs to adjust its rules and requirements to ensure these near-commercial technologies can access the capital they need to take that final step. In addition, the US Department of Agriculture should make sure that it learns from DOE mistakes and crafts its loan guarantee program for new bio-refineries to provide innovative entrepreneurs with the capital that they need to develop new technologies, in spite of the economic downturn and the financial crisis.

Third, the federal government needs to work with gasoline retailers to create the infrastructure that they need to provide motorists with higher ethanol blends. In a nation with more than 170,000 gas stations, only about 2,300 currently offer ethanol blends greater than 10 percent. This means tax incentives and investments to install blender pumps and modernize an antiquated and neglected fuel distribution system.

Fourth, the federal government should continue to work with the nation’s automakers to make and market more flexible fuel vehicles (FFV’s) designed to operate on ethanol blends up to 85 percent. Currently, there are only about 8 million FFV’s among the nation’s more than 230 million cars, trucks and other vehicles.

Our nation’s leaders have set the goal of producing and using 36 billion gallons of renewable transportation fuel by 2022. We’re on our way. Let’s keep moving forward.

(These comments were submitted by Ken Cohen, Vice President for public and government affairs, Exxon Mobil Corporation)

Many have questioned government support of ethanol. They have seen that the federal government has provided substantial subsidies for ethanol fuel for more than 20 years, yet economic studies have concluded that the ethanol market could collapse without such subsidies. Why?

Observers and economists point to the fact that there are virtually no economies of scale associated with ethanol processing; production costs have not declined significantly over time; and ethanol production is a very mature technology.

The bottom line is the government should not be picking winners and losers. Governments should promote and support reliable, affordable energy of all types to meet societal needs.

I recently discussed the unintended consequences of the ethanol mandate on my blog, ExxonMobil Perspectives. I invite you to join our conversation.

"No one asked for corn in their gas tank…But I suppose if the first presidential primary was in Vermont, we would all be pouring maple syrup into our gas tanks." This joke by comedian Bill Maher cuts through the flimflam to the heart of the matter. The ever-expanding market for corn ethanol is a creature of politics, driven by mandates and subsidies, not by consumer choice.

In 2005 and 2007, Congress enacted and then expanded a Soviet-style production quota for ethanol – motor fuel made from corn or other plant materials. Ethanol has been touted as a cure for everything from oil dependence to global warming to high gasoline prices. But if ethanol is such a great bargain, why do we need a law to make us buy it?

The answer is that during most of the past 27 years, ethanol was more expensive than regular gasoline. In 2010, the price per-gallon of ethanol dipped below that of gasoline, because the mandate combined with other subsidies increased supply faster than demand.

However, driving one mile on ethanol is still more expensive than driving one mile on gasoline, because a gallon of ethanol contains one-third less energy than does a gallon of gasoline.

Congress not only forces us to buy corn ethanol at the service station, it also subsidizes ethanol with a 45¢ per gallon tax refund, a 54¢ per gallon protective tariff, and a 2.5% ad valorem tariff. Ethanol enjoys a host of other federal and state subsidies.

Two of the three biggest policy privileges for corn ethanol – the 45¢ per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Tax Credit (VEETC) and the protective tariff – are set to expire December 31, 2010. The VEETC costs taxpayers $5-6 billion annually. The protective tariff increases consumers’ pain at the pump. With the national debt expected to exceed GDP in 2012, and with gasoline prices still hovering around $3.00 a gallon in many markets, Congress should let these policy Dodos tumble into history’s dustbin.

Ethanol lobbyists confuse the issue by saying that the VEETC and protective tariff are necessary to support the “family farm.” In reality, the tax-credit payments go directly to Big Oil – refiners such as BP and Valero, who are not lobbying for its extension.

More tellingly, recent studies by both the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Iowa State University (deep in the heart of corn country) conclude that the mandate will continue to prop up ethanol production even if the industry is no longer subsidized by the tax credit and tariff. Retaining the VEETC might sustain an additional 1,000 farm jobs over the next five years – not a whole lot of “stimulus” bang for the $30 billion taxpayers would have to shell out.

The VEETC and tax credit do induce some additional ethanol production beyond what the mandate requires, according to some studies, but not at a reasonable cost. The University of Missouri Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute estimates that the tax credit will increase ethanol production by 1.4 billion gallons beyond the amount required by law next year. With VEETC costing nearly $6 billion, this works out to about $4 for each “extra” gallon of ethanol.

The aforementioned Iowa State study finds an even higher price tag. The VEETC would induce additional blending of 680 million gallons of ethanol, costing taxpayers almost $7.00 per extra gallon in 2011. In 2014, the VEETC would induce additional blending of only 220 million gallons. That works out to a whopping $30.40 per gallon!

Similarly, the CBO study mentioned above reveals that ethanol subsidies are woefully inefficient as climate policy even if one considers global warming to be a serious problem. According to CBO, “taxpayers’ costs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the ethanol tax credit are

$754 per metric ton of CO2e (that is, per metric ton of greenhouse gases measured in terms of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide), and about $300 per metric tons of CO2e for biodiesel.”

CBO notes that if the Iowa State study is correct, and the VEETC is responsible for only 15% of ethanol consumption, then “the costs to taxpayers of reducing emissions through the credits would be about $1,700 per metric ton of CO2e rather than roughly $750.”

For perspective, the Energy Information Administration estimates that under the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, emission allowances in the “basic case” would sell for $32 per metric ton in 2020 and $65 per metric ton in 2030 (p. 12). On a per-ton basis, the VEETC is about 11 to 26 times more costly than Waxman-Markey, which the Senate declined to pass.

The actual cost to taxpayers of each ton of greenhouse gas emissions avoided via the VEETC could be even higher than $1,700 per ton, because CBO’s “estimates do not reflect any emissions of carbon dioxide that occur when the production of biofuels causes forests or grasslands to be converted to farmland for growing the fuels’ feedstocks.” Here CBO alludes to research indicating that the expansion of biofuel production releases the carbon locked in soils, increasing net emissions relative to gasoline consumption over many decades. CBO continues: “If those emissions were taken into account, such changes in land use would raise the cost of reducing emissions and change the relative costs of reducing emissions through the use of different biofuels – in some cases, by a substantial amount.”

Humanitarian and environmental concerns also argue for ending the tariff. Unlike corn ethanol, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol does not divert massive quantities of grain from food to auto fuel. Subsidy-driven expansion of U.S. corn ethanol production was a factor inflating food prices and worsening world hunger in 2008. Life cycle analyses show that sugarcane ethanol has a lower carbon footprint than corn ethanol, which is why EPA classifies it an “advanced biofuel.”

The “infant industry” rationale for coddling the corn ethanol industry is ludicrous. The U.S. ethanol industry is the world’s biggest. Taxpayers have been subsidizing it for 30 years. Enough is enough. If Members of Congress want to assure us that they are not completely bought and paid for, they can start by allowing the grim policy reaper to rid us of the ethanol tariff and tax credit.

The United States needs to develop viable, economic alternatives to foreign oil. It’s not just oil’s environmental impact – which continues to worsen as marginal sources, including deepwater rigs, are exploited – it’s also the price volatility. The recession that we’re still trying to recover from was preceded by a year of oil prices topping $100 per barrel. The food price rises of 2008 were more the result of the rising price of oil – and of grocery manufacturers exploiting an opportunity to raise prices – than with increased production of biofuels.

Ethanol made from U.S. corn is the most viable alternative transportation fuel available today. But to really reduce reliance on oil, the United States needs to produce large volumes of advanced biofuels, such as biobutanol and green gasoline molecules that can be made from diverse, widely available, and potentially less expensive renewable resources. Support for current ethanol capacity is necessary to maintain our biofuels foundation. Over the long run, diversity of feedstocks is the only way to ensure production of high volumes of reliable and stably priced transportation fuel.

Three years ago, Congress enacted a blueprint for ramping up biofuel production to meet 20 percent of U.S. transportation demand. The technology for meeting this level of production is ready, but there are still a number of infrastructure challenges to overcome, such as undeveloped supply chains for renewable feedstocks and continuing market resistance to biofuels. Many of the programs that Congress enacted with that blueprint took years to adequately fund or implement. One of the most crucial programs – the Loan Guarantee Program – has all but excluded biofuels from participating. We trust the Obama administration will make it a priority to see that this program works as Congress intended it to and that Congress will restore its full funding.

It is hard to take seriously the environmental commitment of any Administration that pushes greater use of corn-based ethanol as an automotive fuel. Existing ethanol mandates are economically wasteful and environmentally destructive. Pushing ethanol weeks before an election is simply pork-barrel politics at its worst.

Ethanol has been subsidized and mandated for decades, and we have little to show for it. Corn-based ethanol is still not economical, and it does not enhance environmental protection. If ethanol were an economically viable substitute for gasoline, it would not need extensive government subsidies and mandates. Subsidizing and mandating ethanol not only hurts taxpayers and drivers, but consumers as well, as it puts upward pressure on food prices.

Ethanol does not make sense on environmental grounds either. Replacing gasoline with ethanol does not produce net reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, nor does it produce other appreciable air quality benefits. But ethanol is not without environmental consequences. The subsidy-driven ethanol boon has wreaked havoc on groundwater supplies and makes it more difficult to set farmland aside for species habitat.

The Obama Administration claimed it would reject the special-interest-driven environmental policies of its predecessor. If the Administration continues to back ethanol, however, it will be special interest politics as usual.

Getting fed increasingly more government largesse every year, the ethanol lobby seems immune to the old adage that pigs get fed, and hogs get slaughtered. Ever since 1990’s Clean Air Act amendments, ethanol mandates and subsidies have been used for political influence. It is not a mere coincidence that EPA made its decision about E-15 just a few weeks before November’s midterm elections. Democrats are running for their political lives, and the administration’s action before vehicle testing and Clean Air Act mandated analyses loudly smacks of attempts to shore up the party’s re-election chances.

Not only has Congress mandated the use of ethanol when it is not necessary for emission reductions, lawmakers have repeatedly increased the volume required in gasoline while also maintaining an annual $5 billion subsidy to the industry. This a blatant wealth transfer to corn growers and large agricultural interests like Archer Daniels Midland. The ethanol lobby has an insatiable appetite for an ever larger financial gift from taxpayers via D.C. bureaucrats and members of Congress.

An abundance of research shows that tailpipe emissions could be met without the oxygenate mandate. An abundance of related research demonstrates that -- on a “well to wheels” basis -- ethanol is not carbon neutral. None the less, the past few Congresses have mandated that increasing volumes of ethanol be used for U.S. transportation purposes.

The latest iteration -- mandating 30-35 billion gallons per year by about 2020 -- extends well beyond current capabilities and is based on the assumption that cellulosic technology will be cost competitive in that time frame. The effect of the mandate is to force technology and create a government incentive to grow more corn at the expense of other crops. The negative impact on foods costs has previously been demonstrated quite clearly. Corn prices -- which are already at high levels -- will only increase as a result of EPA’s action.

Gasoline consumption peaked several years ago and without the ethanol mandate so would the use of ethanol at 10% of the gasoline supply. In steps EPA to get around that problem. Lifting the current ethanol limit of 10% is only the first step. The second will be taking action to make sure that more and more E-15 enters the market. The law of unintended consequences will not be suspended.

Automobile warranties limit ethanol to 10%, so E-15 could void them. The fuel mix will degrade vehicle performance, because ethanol has less energy than the gasoline it replaces. The effect on engine parts is the subject of research, but evidently the agency is not waiting until that is complete. Regulators’ rush to judgment is a strong reason for believing that the agency’s action was politically motivated. There is also the issue of adding pumps which are not cheap, and we also must take into account the corrosive effect of ethanol on piping and tanks.

At a time of economic hardship and swollen government deficits, it is irresponsible for the Obama administration to take an action that will only make these problems worse. The best way to provide a future for ethanol is to stop propping it up and to let it compete in the market place with other alternatives to gasoline.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has long supported increased use of ethanol in motor fuels, in order to reduce dependence on foreign petroleum and to benefit from lower carbon fuel that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have also encouraged increased availability and consumer use of E85 in Flex Fuel Vehicles that are engineered to accommodate higher amounts of ethanol in fuel.

Regarding a “partial waiver” for E15 use, the Alliance has consistently advocated that EPA not make a final decision affecting the national marketplace until it has taken the precaution to consider the results of a suite of pending studies that will evaluate effects from increased ethanol on various additional vehicle parts and systems. These include short and longer term impacts on such critical equipment as the engine and cylinder heads, sensitive computer diagnostic systems that drive malfunction lights, and evaluation of changes in evaporative emissions from the fuel in the vehicle.

We believe this is important in order to assure a safe and positive consumer experience with the new fuel. If EPA proceeds with this decision in the face of concerns raised by automakers and others, it will need to continue to be engaged in the event that problems arise. Mis-fueling avoidance measures such as retail pump labeling may not be effective in supporting proper consumer choices, and this is particularly problematic with a partial waiver that tries to splice up acceptable fuels based on particular model years.

In the meantime, pending completion of the remaining studies, Alliance Members advise their customers to refer to their owners’ manuals for guidance on compatible fuels for their particular vehicles.

As the manufacturers of nearly all the gasoline and diesel fuel used by families, farmers and truckers in the United States, members of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association are committed to providing safe, efficient, affordable and reliable fuel to the American people.

Unfortunately, no one really knows the effect on fuel quality of the 50 percent increase in the amount of ethanol that the Environmental Protection Agency has approved for gasoline used by vehicles made since 2007.

In addition, no one knows how much environmental damage increased corn and ethanol production will cause. And no one knows how much food prices will rise as more and more corn is diverted from food to fuel use, beyond the one-third of the U.S. corn crop already used to make ethanol.

Because of all these unknowns, President Obama, EPA and Congress would be wise to follow the advice of the old proverb – “when in doubt, leave it out” – when faced with the question of whether to approve an increase in the amount of ethanol blended with gasoline from the current 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent (E15).

Instead of spending billions of dollars more on subsidies to distort the marketplace and incentivize ethanol beyond the 10 percent blend requirement already in place, the White House and Congress should be incentivizing objective research and analysis to follow the science and determine if E15 is in the best interests of the American people and our environment.

EPA is incentivizing a high-stakes gamble in which the American people could come out the biggest losers by asking us to pump first and ask questions later. EPA wants us to trust the well-being of our cars, motorcycles, boats, snowmobiles and outdoor power equipment – and our own safety and the safety of our families – to fuel with far more ethanol than we’ve ever used before.

The questions abound on the impact of EPA’s decision to allow more ethanol in gasoline.

How many millions of Americans will use E15 in older vehicles and in off-road vehicles and power equipment? How many will suffer severe engine damage that could leave boaters stranded in stormy seas, snowmobilers stuck in the subfreezing wilderness, and power equipment users injured by overheated equipment that goes out of control?

How many struggling families will see their budgets stretched to the breaking point by higher corn prices that would drive up the price of thousands of food items made with corn, including meat from animals fed with corn?

How much environmental damage will be caused by increased pollution of our water and air resulting from the use of more fertilizer and pesticides to grow more corn, and by the conversion of open land to cornfields?

EPA put Corn Belt politics ahead of consumer protection by approving the use of inadequately tested E15 just three weeks before the midterm elections. As many journalists have pointed out, vulnerable Democrats facing election contests for the House and Senate in corn-growing states were under extreme pressure by corn farmers and ethanol producers to win EPA’s OK for increased ethanol in gasoline.

The ethanol industry has been lobbying hard and furiously to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline so it can boost sales. The math is simple: increase the amount of ethanol in all gasoline by 50 percent (the goal of the ethanol lobby) and ethanol sales go up by 50 percent. And if demand for ethanol rises dramatically, the price of ethanol could rise as well.

A wide and diverse coalition of groups representing environmentalists, boaters, outdoor power equipment manufacturers, meat producers, grocery manufacturers, automobile makers, motorcycle enthusiasts, petroleum refiners, gasoline retailers and others worked together to dissuade EPA from rushing to judgment on E15 because of all the problems the higher blend might cause.

Despite our efforts, and a brief campaign that has generated more than 27,000 e-mails to President Obama asking him to block the approval of E15, the Environmental Protection Agency abdicated its responsibility to safeguard our nation’s public health and environment and became the Ethanol Promotion Agency. The American people came out the losers because EPA violated President Obama’s 2009 commitment to them to put science ahead of politics.

Like other groups that worked so hard to protect the American people from seeing their engines used as guinea pigs in a giant science experiment, NPRA is now evaluating whether to seek relief from the courts to block EPA’s unwise and premature approval of E15 before the completion of necessary tests. The public interest demands a careful scientific evaluation of E15.

Yes, and so should congress.

To strengthen our national security and improve our environment we need to wean ourselves from foreign oil and the significant costs that go along with defending it. Every year we send $300 billion overseas for oil. That’s the equivalent of $1,000-a-year for every man, woman and child in the United States, paid in tribute to foreign nations.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

Ethanol – produced right here in America – can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs in the United States, strengthen our national security and improve our environment. Ethanol production creates and supports the growth of more than 400,000 jobs annually, contributing $53.3 billion to the nation’s GDP and generating $8.4 billion in tax revenue. All of this is in addition to eliminating the need to import at least 364 million barrels of oil.

And we can do much, much more if we produce and consume more American ethanol. What can policymakers do to secure these benefits? Ensure market access.

For decades the amount of ethanol in fuel has been arbitrarily capped at 10 percent (known as E10). But last week, the EPA – acting on a formal petition filed in March 2009 by Growth Energy – took an important first step in beginning to increase the allowable market for ethanol by approving use of E15 in vehicles 2007 and newer, or about 20 percent of the current US fleet. EPA indicated that they would make a decision on older cars, 2001-2006, when testing on those models is completed next month. That would make E15 eligible in all cars 10 years and older or more than 54 percent of all vehicles on the road today.

Moving to E15 is the first crack the blend wall in more than 30 years. A full move to E15 would create 136,000 American jobs, cut emissions equivalent to taking 1.35 million cars from the road, and displace as much as 7 billion gallons of gasoline refined from foreign oil.

Long term, an investment in blender pumps, federal loan guarantees for ethanol pipelines, and Flex Fuel Vehicles would put the power to choose back in the hands of the consumer. Growth Energy’s Fueling Freedom Plan calls for the build out of 200,000 blender pumps and 120 million Flex Fuel Vehicles. This would create permanent access to the fuel market and spur the private investment necessary to commercialize cellulosic ethanol.

America’s ethanol industry has been an undeniable success, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and reducing our nation’s reliance on foreign oil. Removing the infrastructure barriers that prevent motorists from having an alternative to oil at the pump – such as ethanol – is a critical public policy change that will help our nation realize its energy security and environmental goals.