By Harold Wolle
If given the choice, would you rather have your fuel come from the Alberta Tar Sands, a Middle Eastern country that doesn’t like the U.S. or a Minnesota corn field?
I understand that not everyone is going to choose a Minnesota corn field like I would. But without the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a Minnesota corn field might not even be an option.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed slashing the RFS — legislation that sets targets for how much ethanol we blend in our gasoline — by more than 1 billion gallons in 2014. The EPA is proposing this despite the fact that the RFS has given consumers choices at the pump, while lowering gas prices, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and boosting the rural economy.
In other words, the EPA is trying to fix something that is anything but broken.
A cut to the RFS would allow the oil industry to limit consumer choice and strengthen its monopoly on the transportation fuels market. This would hurt all Americans. It would also be a giant step forward in the oil industry’s ultimate goal: Complete repeal of the RFS and total control over consumers’ pocket books when they pull up to fuel their cars.
According to a recent study from Iowa State University, ethanol saves Americans as much as $1.37 per gallon every time they fill up. Foreign oil imports are also down 20 percent since the RFS was finalized in 2007 and greenhouse gas emissions were cut by 33.4 million tons in 2012 thanks to ethanol.
Only in Washington D.C. would they attempt to scale back a piece of legislation that is working so well.
In 2001, a barrel of oil cost $23. Today, oil is around $100 per barrel — a 335 percent increase despite the fact that gasoline demand is down and we’re drilling for more oil domestically in places like North Dakota.