CARSON CITY, Nev. – Ethanol – the corn product blended into gasoline – was meant to make fuel cleaner in the United States.

But a new report by the Environmental Protection Agency shows biofuel has created another set of environmental problems.

Nevada's Desert Research Institute has conducted research on the impacts of corn ethanol. And Kent Hoekman, research professor emeritus with DRI, says Congress' 2007 act that mandated use of ethanol in gasoline reduced dependence on fossil fuels and boosted rural economic development.

But he says it's now clear the environmental consequences of ethanol far outweigh its benefits.

"The disbenefits include potential water pollution, water shortages, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, increased air pollution, greater food insecurity and diminished sustainability," he explains.

Hoekman says corn demands an average of 100 gallons of water to make just 1 gallon of ethanol, compared to about 5 gallons of water used to make gasoline.

And pushing demand for corn to an all-time high has meant expanding cropland into drier regions of the country.

Environmental groups are now asking Congress to reverse the mandate and invest in habitat restoration.

David DeGennaro, an agriculture policy specialist with the National Wildlife Federation, says runoff from farmland contributes to harmful algae blooms and water contamination. And demand for land to grow corn has cut into important habitats for butterflies, bees and migratory waterfowl.

"The report is a red flag warning us that we need to reconsider the mandate's scope and its focus on first-generation fuels made from food crops," he stresses.

DeGennaro says the EPA report comes at a critical time, since the current administration has shown strong support for ethanol requirements.

The EPA is currently taking comments on its proposed plans for next year's fuel mandates.


get more stories like this via email

Virginia's General Assembly will consider budget amendments to reenter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin pulled the state out of RGGI at the end of 2023, and now experts said the holes in the budget left by RGGI funding going away are not being filled. Money from the program was used to fund climate mitigation work.

Jay Ford, Virginia policy manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the state saw many benefits when it was part of RGGI.

"We were reducing fossil fuel emissions that were being created here in Virginia," Ford pointed out. "There were some clear reductions as a result of our participation. So, we're improving air quality and we are helping expedite that transition to a clean economy."

Virginia residents mostly favored staying in RGGI, but Youngkin has said the reason for pulling out was in his view, it was a "hidden tax" for ratepayers. Ford estimated homeowners paid around $2 a month from their electric bills for RGGI and argued the trade-offs were worth it.

Between 2021 and 2023, RGGI revenue generated around $828 million for Virginia. Ford thinks not rejoining the initiative could slow down Virginia's ability to reach the Clean Economy Act's climate goals, and warned other effects could be costly to communities.

"On the ground in communities around the state, if we don't get back into RGGI, there's a real potential that the work to prepare the Commonwealth, and prepare our communities for climate impacts, could grind to a halt," Ford contended.

Virginia used RGGI money to help towns and cities fund their climate resilience plans. The state used 25-million RGGI dollars to establish a Climate Resilience Fund. There have been 107 "billion-dollar disasters" since 1980 in Virginia, with long-term costs totaling between $20 billion and $50 billion.

Despite different outcomes - New York's first offshore wind farm came online and New Jersey had one canceled - both states are benefiting from offshore wind. Job creation and economic growth are predicted, as New Jersey's decarbonization efforts could create 20,000 jobs.

The New Jersey Wind Port being developed in Salem County is expected to create up to 1,500 jobs.

Caren Fitzpatrick, former Atlantic County Commissioner, said it's time the area had a viable industry again.

"They used to be known for growing asparagus and harvesting oysters. And due to blight and overfishing, those industries went away. They're starting to come back now, but they're not big enough to support the families that live in this area," Fitzpatrick argued.

After Ocean Wind's cancellation, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities is moving on. This year, it has approved two projects that would power close to 2 million homes, create 27,000 jobs and provide a $3 billion boost to the state's economy.

Beyond job growth and economic development, New Jersey Assemblymember Carol Murphy, D-Cinnaminson, contended public health will also improve as the state shifts to cleaner energy sources.

"The transition from fossil fuel to clean energy power will improve air quality, water quality, reduces cases of medical illness such as asthma, heart disease and cancer, and this will save billions of dollars in healthcare costs," she explained.

Offshore wind projects have faced tough odds to get this far. Misinformation has made the public skeptical. But lawmakers in both states have signed letters voicing their commitment to these projects.

New York Assemblymember Angelo Santabarbara, D-Schenectady, said it's only the beginning.

"Let's continue to push forward for a brighter, cleaner future for all here in New York, but for the entire country as we move forward. Together, we can harness the power of offshore wind to build a better tomorrow, and in Schenectady we're doing it one turbine at a time," Santabarbara said.

With the South Fork Wind Farm online, attention is turning to other projects like Empire Wind 1, the first offshore wind project connected to New York City's grid. In March, the developer's agreement was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Later this month, Indigenous leaders will speak before a United Nations panel about their ongoing concerns with a controversial oil pipeline in the Great Lakes region.

Enbridge Energy's Line 5 operation is likely to come up when the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues convenes in New York.

Back in the Midwest, organizations such as Earthjustice represent the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

The tribe has been contesting Line 5 in Wisconsin as Enbridge seeks to re-route the pipeline.

Earthjustice Senior Attorney Stefanie Tsosie said the proposal isn't an improvement in minimizing the effect on tribal lands.

"The Bad River Band is already at a risk of an oil spill because the pipeline is going directly through their reservation," said Tsosie, "and the re-route, if you look at the map, it's basically hugging the reservation boundaries."

She said her team is preparing for litigation if permits for the re-route are issued.

The tribe has previously filed lawsuits against Line 5 in an effort to shut it down, prompting the latest route plans. Similar cases have been active in Michigan.

Enbridge argues the pipeline is a key source of energy and rejects claims and legal decisions that it's trespassing on tribal lands.

On the Michigan side, opponents say they're worried about Enbridge's latest Line 5 plans to construct an oil tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac, a connecting waterway.

The company says it would be safer than the existing pipeline section, but Native American Rights Fund Senior Staff Attorney Wes Furlong said there's real concern about a worst-case scenario.

"If a leak happened within that tunnel, it would cause a catastrophic failure," said Furlong, "pumping crude oil into the Straits and into the Great Lakes."

He said pushing back against Line 5 aligns with calls to reduce the use of fossil fuels, citing their connection to climate change and the impact on treaty-reserved resources Midwest tribes rely on.

First built in 1953, the pipeline can transport up to 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids per day.




get more stories like this via email