Fake Solutions for the Climate Crisis

We don’t have time for fake solutions to the climate crisis. We’re not meeting our current emissions reduction goals. How could we possibly get back on track with outdated ideas like ethanol?

Coalition Letter Opposing the E-15 Ethanol Mandate

March 17, 2021
Submitted Electronically to
Members of the Minnesota House of Representatives
Members of the Minnesota Senate

Re: Coalition Opposition to HF 1433/SF 1178, the E-15 (Ethanol) Mandate


 

Dear Legislators,

We are writing to you in opposition to HF1433/SF1178 specifically and with concerns generally about the Walz Administration’s push for biofuels coming at the expense of real action to address the climate crisis.

“The next few years are probably the most important in our history,” Deborah Roberts, Co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II, October 8, 2018. The IPCC is clear. Greenhouse gases must be reduced by 45% by 2030 if we are to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

Now is not the time to go backwards to implement old and discredited ideas. E-15 consists of 85% gasoline and 15% ethanol and is not a serious solution to climate change. Originally developed as an economic development tool, ethanol is now being advertised as a pro-climate alternative, even by some who have been well known climate deniers. But we are out of time for fake solutions to the climate crisis.

We Have Real Alternatives Now

There is no scientific or technological basis for the Walz administration’s recent push to expand ethanol to reduce climate emissions from the transportation sector. Quite the opposite, any review of current climate science and technological advancement shows that the case for ethanol is dramatically less persuasive than ever before because electric vehicles have advanced so much.

When it comes to climate impact, fully electric vehicles are far superior. EVs are already significantly less polluting today, based on both the inherent efficiency of electric drive trains and the current electricity supply which is already greener than in the past due to expanded use of renewable energy like solar and wind. This existing advantage for EVs will only grow as our electric grid continues to get less polluting. By contrast, the other fuels already pollute more than electricity - and they always will.

Furthermore, we must consider the full lifecycle emissions impact of biofuels. This should include climate pollution that comes from the production of biofuels including direct and indirect land-use changes. Already, increased use of corn ethanol across the country has contributed to the conversion of more than 7 million acres of grassland and other habitats into crop production. When we look at this total picture, it becomes even more clear that biofuels are just another polluting form of dirty internal combustion technology we must move away from.

This is not to say there is no role whatsoever for non-corn and soy biofuels in transportation’s future, but it should be tightly limited to heavier vehicles, construction equipment or aviation where no electric alternative exists. The E-15 mandate is a costly approach which is more likely to hold back real climate progress by displacing beneficial electrification among the vast majority of vehicles where electrification is by far the better choice.

Advocates have acknowledged that the biofuels industry wants to “carve out a place for themselves” in the future of transportation. It is understandable that they would need governments to intervene on their behalf because technology and the free market are currently passing them by. Last year’s announcement from the CEO of General Motors, confirms that available EVs will shortly include not just cars but a variety of pickup and SUVs. GM is one of several companies switching to electric. Public policy needs to keep up with reality.

In addition to not addressing climate, Biofuels including ethanol have many damaging effects:

Biofuels Are the Wrong Choice For Air Pollution & Public Health

Multiple studies show the huge cost to public health from continued reliance on fossil fuels, including this recent study published in Environmental Research from Vohra et al. Local impacts are significant. “Air pollution in the Twin Cities contributes to about 2,000 premature deaths every year, and sends 1,000 people to the hospital for asthma, lung and heart disease treatments,” according to an analysis by the Minnesota Health Department and the MN Pollution Control Agency published in the StarTribune. Fully electric vehicles are far superior for air quality, including impacts on communities already disproportionately burdened by pollution.

Biofuels Are The Wrong Choice for Communities Of Color

Continued reliance on outdated technology perpetuates and exacerbates existing racial and economic disparities in the public health impacts of transportation pollution. People who live near highways are disproportionately low income people and/or people of color. They are also more likely to be affected by the cumulative impacts of pollution from non-transit vehicles and pollution generally.

Biofuels Harm Water Quality and Life That Depends On Clean Water

Biofuels are also polluting Minnesota’s waters, threatening the health of our people and ecosystems. Both ethanol and soy-based diesel additives in use today are a product of conventional row crop agriculture systems that rely on high rates of fertilizer and pesticides. Fertilizers and pesticides run off into surface waters and infiltrate into our ground waters with disastrous effects. Nitrate pollution, caused primarily by this application of fertilizer to energy crops like corn and soy, is leaving a wake of contaminated private wells and municipal water supplies that are too polluted to drink. The MPCA estimates that 72% of the nitrogen polluting Minnesota’s surface water originates from such row crop
agriculture. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture finds that where there are nitrates in private wells, there are pesticides and where nitrogen increases, pesticides increase.

Biofuels Harm Multiple Species Including Pollinators And Deer

The 2018 Governor’s Committee on Pollinator Protection convened by Governor Dayton found that “insecticide application onto or into flowers and plants that pollinators use for food or nesting materials can harm pollinators via acute lethal toxicity or via sub-lethal effects on behavior and physiology.” Specifically, most corn and soybean seed is treated with neonicotinoid pesticides that have those effects. The Committee listed some of the species including native bumble bees that are at risk of extinction or have completely disappeared. Minnesota’s state bee, the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, was once found all over the state. Now it is listed as endangered and found only in the metropolitan area. New studies find neonicotinoid pesticides in deer in alarming amounts. Other studies affirm harm to birds.

Better Policy Tools

The Legislature has far better tools available to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.

First, we can finally redesign our transportation systems to provide alternatives so people don’t have to drive everywhere for everything. That means real investments in transit, walking and biking as well as land use reforms and incentives to allow for remote-working as desired. Such investments are proven to have a huge return on investment (ROI) for access to jobs, public health, public safety, racial and economic equity, economic competitiveness, housing affordability and ability to retain young workers in Minnesota.

If we are serious about climate change, these alternatives are not optional. There is no data to suggest we could possibly address emissions in the transportation sector simply through repowering vehicles, even superior EVs. We must reduce Vehicles Miles Travelled (VMT) by finally providing people real choices for how to get around. There is no car trip better for the climate than the car trip not taken.

Second, to accelerate adoption of electric vehicles, the State can a.) incentivize charging stations, with the public sector leading by example at its own facilities, b.) incentivize purchase of EVs, again with the government leading by example with its own fleets, and c.) make it possible for prospective car buyers to have all the available options as provided by “Clean Cars.”

Council on Biofuels

We encourage you to look at HF1433/SF1178, as well as other proposals from the Governor's Council on Biofuels, with significant skepticism since the participants include many who would directly or indirectly benefit financially from such policies.

Conclusion

It’s 2021. The IPCC Special Report tells us we have just a few years to make a hard pivot away from permanently polluting technologies like E-15. We are out of time for expensive “bridge” or “transition" technologies which have minimal benefits at best, maximal damaging side effects, and really serve only to delay us from moving directly to the carbon-free transportation future we must embrace.

Sierra Club North Star Chapter
Austin Coalition for Environmental Sustainability
Cooperative Energy Futures
Hastings Environmental Protectors
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Izaak Walton League Minnesota Division
Minnesota Ornithologists Union
Minnesota Well Owners Organization
MN350
Our Streets Minneapolis
Pollinator Friendly Alliance
Resilient Cities and Communities
St. Paul Audubon Society

cc:
Governor Tim Walz
Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan
Charles Sutton
Alexis Donath