![]() |
||||||||
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Ken Silverstein June 8, 2000 | During the past few months, a momentous if mostly discreet debate has been taking place in Washington, which will have enormous implications for air and water quality as well as for the price of gasoline. At issue is what type of fuel additive will be used in gasoline sold in the nation's most smog-afflicted regions: MTBE, which gained widespread use as a result of federal clean air legislation passed by Congress a decade ago, or ethanol, whose principal producer is agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). The debate heated up in March, when Carol Browner of the EPA announced plans to phase out the use of MTBE. The additive currently holds about 80 percent of the $4.5 billion market for so-called "reformulated gas," which is supposed to burn cleaner than normal gasoline. The EPA took action because MTBE (an acronym for methyl tertiary butyl ether) leaking from underground storage tanks has contaminated water supplies in 31 states. The problem is most acute in California. In some Southern California cities such as Santa Monica, 90 percent of the water supply is affected.
In April, water-well owners in 16 states filed a class-action lawsuit against some of the nation's biggest oil companies saying that they have long known that MTBE was an environmental menace. Browner said that MTBE should be at least partly replaced with ethanol -- alcohol distilled from corn, or basically moonshine -- which she portrayed as a safer option to reduce air pollution. If Browner's proposal is accepted, a phaseout of MTBE could begin as early as next year. If that happens, demand for ethanol, which is far more expensive than MTBE despite lavish government subsidies, will increase from about 1.3 million gallons this year to 3.2 billion gallons in 2004. Andrew Fairbanks, an energy industry analyst at Merrill Lynch, tells Salon that the cost to consumers will be an extra 3 to 5 cents per gallon at the pump. Lawmakers from the Corn Belt, including powerful Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Tom Daschle, D-S.D., roundly applauded Browner's action. MTBE producers and refiners, including Lyondell Chemical, Valero and Texas Petrochemicals, were far less enthusiastic. So, too, were Republicans in Congress, who say the EPA is trying to help Vice President Al Gore's standing in Midwestern states where ethanol is largely produced. (They don't mention that George W. Bush, like Gore, is a big-time ethanol backer.) So, what's the smart choice, MTBE or ethanol? Answer: Neither. The weight of scientific evidence shows that neither MTBE nor ethanol benefits air quality, and both inflict serious damage to the environment.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Salon News A Salon-eye view of the day's news, with investigative reports, analysis and interviews with newsmakers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Business | Comics | Health | Mothers Who Think | News
People | Politics | Sex | Technology and The Free Software Project | Travel & Food
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus | Salon Shop
Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
Copyright © 2000 Salon.com
Salon, 22 4th Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone 415 645-9200 | Fax 415 645-9204
E-mail | Salon.com Privacy Policy