http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23262&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ncpadpd+(Daily+Policy+Digest)
At the turn of the 21st century, biofuels appeared to be a solution to mounting concerns over greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, skyrocketing fuel prices and dependence on foreign energy. When Congress passed the Energy Policy Act (EP Act) in 2005 with a renewable fuel standard (RFS) provision mandating that producers add ethanol to gasoline, it is unlikely that lawmakers thought the act would increase hunger and social unrest in the world’s poorest countries. However, unintended consequences frequently accompany even the most well-intentioned policies, says Sherzod Abdukadirov, a research fellow with the Mercatus Center.
The EP Act simply ramped up the already increasing use of ethanol as a fuel additive with the hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The law’s proponents expected higher ethanol use to offset rising oil prices by filling at least some of the domestic demand for fuel.
Further, because most ethanol in the United States comes from domestically produced corn, policy advocates hoped the act would make the country less dependent on imported oil. As an added bonus, the policy would benefit U.S. farmers.
At the time, the policy seemed perfect. As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented the policy and further increased its production in 2007, scholars and environmentalists began to question its environmental and energy benefits. Beyond ethanol’s questionable viability as a fuel, the negative environmental impacts of corn production undermine ethanol’s benefits. Scholars and environmentalists claim that ethanol production leads to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, offsetting some of the environmental gains from its use as a fuel.