Canadian E5 mandate to move ahead despite concerns
Despite growing concerns that the widespread production and use of corn ethanol is actually counter-productive to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Canadian government is moving ahead with a mandate to require ethanol blending into all gasoline supplies. By September 2010, Canadian refiners will be required to have at least 5-percent ethanol content in all pump gas. The regulation has received cabinet approval, and if it proceeds, would require nearly half a billion gallons of ethanol annually for blending.
Recent studies have indicated that the full well-to-wheel emissions of ethanol from corn may actually increase emissions rather than reducing it. Nonetheless, the Conservative party that is currently in power in Canada has most of its support in the western provinces, which just happen to produce most of the corn as well. Gord Quaiattini, president of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, says that Canadian producers exceed the 20-percent emissions reduction requirement needed to be considered renewable fuels, but the Canadian calculation method is different from the US formula and does not count indirect land use.
[Source: Globe and Mail]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jpm100 8:55AM (5/12/2009)
You realize that ethanol in that amount is an anti-pollution additive (soot and particulates I believe) and not an attempt at a biofuel. The alternative to ethanol for this purpose contaminates groundwater.
Reply
mdf 9:20AM (5/12/2009)
Whether or not that is true, the facts are:
1. The source article doesn't even use the word "pollution".
2. The source article is all about greenhouse gas emissions.
I think it is fair to say that the ethanol is being justified on the grounds of reducing "greenhouse gas emissions" (to wit, CO2). That it also means many billions of dollars to Canadian corn farmers who vote Conservative is merely an amazing coincidence.
lne937s 10:51AM (5/12/2009)
There are a number of oxygenates other than MTBE that work just as well or better than ethanol without the groundwater contamination issues (methanol, butanol, etc.)
The insistence on ethanol is a subsidization of agribusiness. Look for ADM, et al campaign contributions.
Joe 9:39AM (5/12/2009)
Ethanol may not reduce emissions but does it does reduce foreign oil dependence.
Reply
mdf 12:04PM (5/12/2009)
This is a joke, right?
E5 will cut "foreign oil dependence" by some number X.
X is very small, about 2-3%.
If instead of pipelines of cash to corn farmers and their corporate prostitutes (referred to politely as "lobbyists"), the government mandated a minimum fuel efficiency a mere 20% better than today ...
Well, what's that, an order of magnitude better than ethanol?
Matt Welke 2:36PM (5/12/2009)
As a Canadian this embarrasses me. It seems our government is years behind when it comes to implementing green policies. As a previous poster stated, simply mandating increases in fuel efficiency over time would be much more effective than raping our countryside's farmland. Do people really still think ethanol is a long-term solution, if a solution at all?
Reply
Bob Barker 6:39PM (5/12/2009)
The reason it increases greenhouse emissions is because producing ethanol requires a lot of gasoline. More so in Canada where it travels great distances on trucks due to ethanol's special traveling requirements and Canada's dispersed population.
Canada is the "foreign oil producer" for the US and Canada. Foreign oil dependence makes no sense here. 60% of US gas imports comes from Canada.
Reply