Socialist measure requiring oil companies to blend billions of gallons of ethanol into gas harming the planet?

Socialists and communists want the U.S. to be more socialist--thus presumably more like, um...Venezuela?  In any case, to stop being so exceptional.  One of the many, many ways they've been trying to do this is by using gullible, scientifically-illiterate snowflakes to help push laws and regulations that make energy more expensive here, costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

One of the big, successful legal efforts was to get congress to rule tens of millions of acres of federal lands off-limits to oil and gas exploration.  A second method--the subject of this article--was to force gasoline refiners to include billions of gallons of "renewable fuels" in the gasoline they sold.

The "renewable fuel" in question is ethanol--an alcohol made from fermenting corn and soybeans.  That law is why virtually every gasoline pump you see has a sticker saying "May contain up to 10% ethanol."

The law was passed because of bribery and corruption of both congress-craps and their staff. The main pusher--and not surprisingly also the main beneficiary of the law's vast money-moving provisions--is a company called Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM), which controls roughly two-thirds of the corn produced in the U.S.

Humans have been turning corn and grain into alcohol for about 4000 years.  Problem is, it costs a LOT more to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of regular oil-based gasoline.  ADM (and everyone else) knew that, so they knew the oil companies wouldn't voluntarily add ethanol to their gasoline.  But by bribing key congress-creeps and spinning a good yarn about the "miracle benefits of renewable energy versus the old, discredited 'fossil fuels' to get lesser members to sign on, they got a bill passed that forced taxpayers to pay essentially the difference between the cost of makeing ethanol and the cost of conventional gasoline.

Cool, eh?

Well, at least it is if you're ADM.  Or if you're a farmer who raises corn or soybeans.  Cuz the government forcing oil companies to use ethanol has kept the price of both those crops higher than they normally would have been.  For example, nine years ago the U.S. crossed a sort of milestone: for the first time in history, over half of the corn raised in the U.S. did NOT go to feed people.

Interesting, huh.

But emperors and congress have been bleeding taxpayers and consumers for billions of dollars for decades--nothing new there.  And if the law results in using tens of millions of tons of potential food to make fuel (i.e. reducing the food supply)...well, it's not their problem, right?  "Cuz mandating the use of 'renewable fuels' is saving Mother Earth, comrade!  Surely you support that, right?"

Critics of ethanol fuel warned of both the above effects, but of course were derided as luddites or counter-revolutionaries.  And even if the critics eventually turned out to be right, the socialists could always fall back on "We're saving the planet!  Cuz ethanol is renewable!"

If you're not clear on how that saves the planet, don't worry--you won't be tested on that.

But now comes the kicker:  A long report from the Environmental Protection Agency says forcing gasoline refiners to include billions of gallons of ethanol--made from corn or soybeans--in the gas they sell is actually damaging both the air and soil.
Wait...what??

Yep.  The study, titled “Biofuels and the Environment,” found that ethanol derived from corn and soybeans is causing serious harm to the environment. Water, soil and air quality were all found to be adversely affected by biofuel mandates.

The study found that the ethanol mandate has boosted production of corn and soybeans. Large-scale production of these crops is causing environmental degradation. The EPA also found that — at least in some instances — using ethanol in lieu of gasoline resulted in worse air emissions.

And to add insult to injury, ethanol contains about 33 percent less energy per gallon than "normal" gasoline.  So you can't drive as far on a tank of ethanol.  (Admittedly the difference with 10% ethanol wouldn't be significant, but it's the principle.)  And BTW, the link above is to the NY Times, which is normally strongly in favor of leftist/Democrat programs.  Even the Times says the ethanol mandate is costing consumers ten billion a year.

Unfortunately, like all government programs, once a law puts tens of billions of dollars per year into play, it's virtually impossible to stop the damn things, cuz the folks profiting from the program are more than willing to spend a paltry ten million or so to bribe congress to keep those dollars flowing.