Special Report-How U.S. Regulators Allow Ethanol Plants to Pollute More Than Oil Refineries


 Green Plains' Otter Tail ethanol manufacturing plant is seen at night

 in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, U.S., October 24, 2020. Picture taken October 24, 2020. 

REUTERS/Bing Guan/

By Leah Douglas

 Reuters
Sept. 8, 2022

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In 2007, the U.S. Congress mandated the blending of biofuels such as corn-based ethanol into gasoline. One of the top goals: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But today, the nation’s ethanol plants produce more than double the climate-damaging pollution, per gallon of fuel production capacity, than the nation’s oil refineries, according to a Reuters analysis of federal data.

The average ethanol plant chuffed out 1,187 metric tons of carbon emissions per million gallons of fuel capacity in 2020, the latest year data is available. The average oil refinery, by contrast, produced 533 metric tons of carbon.

The ethanol plants’ high emissions result in part from a history of industry-friendly federal regulation that has allowed almost all processors to sidestep the key environmental requirement of the 2007 law, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), according to academics who have studied ethanol pollution and regulatory documents examined by Reuters. The rule requires individual ethanol processors to demonstrate that their fuels result in lower carbon emissions than gasoline.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with writing the regulations to meet the goals set by Congress. For processors, that translates to an EPA requirement that the plants use certain emissions-control processes the agency assumes will result in lower-than-gasoline emissions.

But the agency has exempted more than 95% of U.S. ethanol plants from the requirement through a grandfathering provision that excused plants built or under construction before the legislation passed. Today, these plants produce more than 80% of the nation’s ethanol, according to the EPA.

Among the five biggest polluters in 2020, per gallon of fuel capacity, were plants owned by Archer-Daniels-Midland Co, Golden Triangle Energy, Central Indiana Ethanol, Green Plains Inc and Marquis Energy, according to the Reuters analysis. Plants operated by major energy companies POET LLC and Valero Energy Corp were among the top 15.

 For a graphic showing the top five dirtiest ethanol refineries, click here: https://www.datawrapper.de/_/MVaMG 

Green Plains, Marquis and POET said that ethanol is cleaner than gasoline, despite higher plant-level emissions, when all factors are considered, including emissions from fuel consumption in vehicles. The other companies did not respond to requests for comment.

Some of the exempted plants produced much less pollution, including some owned by the same companies producing the highest emissions. The EPA said about a third meet the law’s environmental standard even though they are not required to do so. But as a group, the plants freed from regulation produced 40% more pollution per gallon of fuel capacity, on average, than the plants required to comply, the Reuters analysis found.

The EPA’s resolve to rein in ethanol emissions faces a new test this year as Congressional mandates for expanding biofuels expire, placing the future of the RFS at the agency’s discretion. The EPA is expected to propose regulatory changes later this year but has yet to publicly detail any proposed revisions.

White House representatives of Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden, who has vowed to aggressively fight climate change, did not comment on the Reuters findings on ethanol emissions. In response to Reuters inquiries, the EPA said it has followed the intent of Congress in implementing the biofuels law, including the regulatory exemptions. The agency acknowledged the higher production emissions of ethanol, compared to gasoline, but asserted that ethanol is cleaner overall.

The agency also touted ethanol’s benefits on rural economies and national security. “Renewable fuels help diversify our nation’s energy supply, improving energy independence and security,” the agency said, adding that biofuels provide “good paying jobs and income to farming communities.”

Ethanol industry representatives have recognized the need to lower the biofuel’s carbon emissions, and biofuel producers have been investing in projects that would capture plants’ carbon emissions and bury them permanently underground.

The leading ethanol industry group maintains, however, that ethanol is cleaner than gasoline. “Ethanol offers a significant and immediate carbon savings,” said Geoff Cooper, president of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), in a statement to Reuters.

Other industry observers say the RFS has utterly failed to meet its stated environmental goals. The ethanol mandate was “just a mistake,” said Timothy Searchinger, a senior researcher at Princeton University’s Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment. “We created a terrible model.”

DISPUTED GOVERNMENT RESEARCH

Ethanol does have a key environmental advantage over gasoline: It burns cleaner in cars. The problem, biofuels researchers have found, is that those gains are offset by the pollution from planting corn and refining it into fuel.

Researchers from industry, government and academia seek to account for all these dynamics in estimating ethanol’s pollution throughout its full “life cycle” -- from farms to processing plants to automobile tailpipes.

The Reuters analysis examined one major part of that cycle - ethanol processing - based on the emissions data that most plants are required to report to the EPA. The data provides the only view of ethanol emissions tied to individual processors, allowing for comparisons among ethanol plants subject to the emissions-reduction regulation, those exempt from it, and their counterparts in oil refining.


Government and academic researchers have also sought to estimate the industry’s overall pollution, but they have come to sharply contrasting conclusions.

A growing consensus of academics has found that, considering all phases of the fuel’s life cycle, ethanol produces more carbon than gasoline - not less. A study published by the National Academy of Sciences in February, for example, estimated that ethanol produces 24% more carbon.


The EPA’s methodology, by contrast, has hewed closer to the findings of industry-commissioned studies, which assert that ethanol produces as much as 40% less lifecycle emissions than gasoline. The EPA has used a controversial methodology to estimate the ethanol industry’s life-cycle emissions that has effectively ensured the industry’s continuing regulatory compliance. The model greatly underestimates the industry’s pollution from corn agriculture, four academic researchers of ethanol told Reuters.

The EPA methodology relies in part on the work of a researcher from Purdue University in Indiana, whose model the agency selected at the ethanol industry’s suggestion, regulatory documents show.

The RFA said the Reuters analysis of processing-plant pollution inappropriately focused on only one aspect of the industry’s pollution profile and disputed the findings of independent academic researchers showing the overall life-cycle emissions of ethanol are higher than gasoline. Cooper, the association’s president, concluded that “the science is clear,” showing overall ethanol emissions are “40-50% lower than gasoline.”

EXEMPTIONS FOR POLLUTERS

The ethanol industry’s high emissions are caused in part by the exemptions the EPA has granted to almost all ethanol plants, academic researchers said.

The law requires that the ethanol industry demonstrate that the fuel delivers a 20% reduction in carbon emissions compared with gasoline. The percentage is based on the EPA’s model for estimating emissions from all phases of the fuel’s life cycle, including agricultural and fuel consumption. But individual processing plants can meet the standard by agreeing to certain EPA-stipulated emissions-control practices.

Congress initially required the exemptions, but the EPA had broad authority to interpret the law. Several environmental groups asked the agency early on to set an expiration date for the exemptions, or to terminate exemptions for plants that are substantially upgraded or expanded. The agency declined, regulatory records show. The EPA argued in documents outlining the final rule in 2010, for example, that terminating an upgraded plant’s exemption status would require an agency evaluation that would be too “time consuming.”

The legacy of the exemptions is apparent at the Vantage Corn Processors ethanol plant, a hulking complex of steel silos, storage tanks and brick factory buildings that dominates the riverfront in downtown Peoria, Illinois, near the heart of the U.S. corn belt.

The facility was among the dirtiest U.S. ethanol plants, according to a Reuters analysis of EPA data. The plant cranked out more than 3,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide - seven times more than the average oil refinery - for every million gallons of fuel produced.

The plant was owned in 2020 by ADM, the multinational food processor and agricultural trader, and was purchased the following year by BioUrja Group, a global energy firm. BioUrja’s chief operating officer, Shék Jain, said the data analyzed by Reuters reflects emissions under ADM ownership and that his company is making the plant more efficient. ADM did not comment.

The Peoria plant is among 240 of 251 U.S. ethanol production facilities that are exempted from emissions-reduction requirements, EPA data show.

Reuters analyzed 165 of the exempted facilities, those for which both production and emissions data were available. The remaining facilities are not required by federal law to report their pollution levels because their carbon emissions were below 25,000 metric tons annually. Generally, that indicates they are small processing facilities.

While the small number of ethanol plants subject to regulation produce 40% less pollution than the exempted plants, they still produce more pollution, on average, than oil refineries, the Reuters analysis found. Ethanol plants complying with the rule produced an average of 860 metric tons of carbon per millions of gallons of fuel capacity, compared to 533 tons at the average oil refinery. The average exempted ethanol plant produced 1,203 tons of carbon.

The grandfathered facilities produced 4.8 million tons more carbon emissions than they would have if they had been required to comply with the standard, according to a Reuters calculation based on the average emissions from regulated and unregulated plants. That’s equivalent to the emissions of more than a million cars.

INDUSTRY-FRIENDLY ASSUMPTIONS

The U.S. government has maintained that ethanol produces less pollution than gasoline despite the growing body of independent research showing the opposite. The EPA bases its claim that ethanol benefits the climate on calculations made nearly 15 years ago using a handful of scientific models. The models include one that was recommended to the agency by the Renewable Fuels Association, agency documents show.

When Congress passed the RFS, it required the EPA to model ethanol’s emissions profile to verify it could meet the emissions-reduction standard. The EPA’s first pass at the calculation in 2009, however, found that ethanol would result in a 5% increase in greenhouse gas emissions over gasoline, which would have barred the fuel from the blending mandates.

Industry groups including the RFA bristled at the calculation and urged the agency to change the formula. The industry recommendations included adopting a model maintained by the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) at Purdue University to estimate the pollution generated by planting corn for ethanol, EPA records of the debate show.

The EPA redid its modeling and used GTAP to test its results, according to a 2010 Congressional Research Service report. It concluded ethanol’s emissions were 21% lower than gasoline - putting the biofuel just barely over the 20% threshold for RFS compliance.

The agency told Reuters that it did not make the modeling change solely at the industry’s request, but rather included input from “government, academia, industry, and not-for-profit institutions.”

The Purdue model’s approach to estimating agricultural emissions has been disputed by academics.

The bulk of ethanol emissions are produced when new land is tilled for corn production, releasing carbon that is stored in soil and roots. Two biofuel experts told Reuters that the team working on the Purdue model has steadily reduced its estimate of how much carbon is released from tilled land over the years, making ethanol appear more climate-friendly. For instance, the model has been adjusted over the past decade to overstate increases in corn yields, resulting in an underestimate of emissions from planting, according to a study published in 2020 by the Journal of Cleaner Production, an academic publication focused on sustainability.

The changes raise concerns about the model’s credibility and result in a “really lowball estimate” for agricultural emissions from ethanol, said Stephanie Searle, director of the fuels program at the International Council on Clean Transportation, a nonprofit research organization.

The Purdue model is led by Dr. Farzad Taheripour, a researcher and professor of agricultural economics. Taheripour said the model was modified over time to reflect real-world observations of how biofuels production has affected land use. For instance, early scholarship on ethanol regulation suggested the RFS would lead to deforestation, which did not occur, he said.

Taheripour has received research funding from several biofuels industry trade groups since 2012, including the Renewable Fuels Association, National Corn Growers Association, Indiana Corn Soybean Alliance, and National Biodiesel Board, according to a Reuters review of his research funding disclosures.

Reuters was not able to determine the total amount of industry grants Taheripour has collected or the amount he may have received from other sources. Taheripour said his funding sources do not affect his research methods or outcomes.

LAND CONVERSION

When Congress passed the RFS, it barred farmers from planting previously uncultivated acres with corn for ethanol, a measure intended to limit carbon emissions. And biofuels supporters often point to the fact that overall U.S. corn acreage has stayed relatively stable since the passage of the biofuels law in 2007.

Some scientists counter that corn planting would have dropped significantly without the government biofuels mandate. In the 25 years before the law’s passage, corn acreage declined nearly 7%, due in part to increasing yields per acre.

Moreover, corn acreage statistics do not account for millions of acres of corn for ethanol being planted on new lands -- the result of another EPA regulation that relaxed restrictions on the industry.

During its initial RFS rulemaking, the agency allowed new corn planting for ethanol on land enrolled in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which pays farmers a monthly rent to keep fragile land idle.

Since then, farmers have planted about 5 million acres of conserved land with corn for ethanol, according to the National Academy of Sciences study. All that planting comes with “a carbon cost,” said Tyler Lark, a scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment and the study’s lead author.

Taheripour dismissed the idea that the ethanol industry’s new corn plantings produced much pollution.

“CRP land is nothing but unused cropland,” Taheripour said. “Unused land does not have the capability to capture lots of carbon.”

The USDA has for years claimed otherwise – that unused farmland in its CRP program soaked up massive amounts of carbon. Touting the program as a major solution to climate change, the department estimated between 2006 and 2017 that such lands contained about 1.4 metric tons of carbon per acre, on average.

Asked about the climate benefits of CRP land for this story, however, the USDA told Reuters it had recently lowered its estimate of carbon in such lands by nearly half, to 0.8 metric tons per acre, after reviewing updated data.

Given the scientific disputes surrounding ethanol, industry and governmental claims of a major climate benefit are dubious, said Rich Plevin, an environmental consultant and former researcher at the University of California-Berkeley who has studied biofuels emissions.

“Did the policy achieve anything? I think it’s really hard to claim that it did for the environment,” he said. “The best we can say is, no one really knows.”

(Reporting by Leah Douglas; editing by Richard Valdmanis and Brian Thevenot)

Copyright 2022 Thomson Reuters.

SEE

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for ETHANOL 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for ADM 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CORN 

 

Brazil Launches World-First Ethanol-Powered Grid Engine

By Haley Zaremba - Jun 04, 2026

 

• Brazil has launched the world's first ethanol-powered engine designed specifically to generate grid electricity, at the Suape II power plant in Pernambuco, developed with Finnish firm Wärtsilä.
• 
  
• The pilot comes as the U.S. proposed a 25% tariff on Brazilian ethanol on June 1, citing unfair trade practices — adding geopolitical weight to Brazil's push for domestic ethanol applications.
• 
  
• Brazil's ethanol sector is worth roughly $20 billion and already supplies mandatory blends of up to 100% for flex-fuel vehicles; if the grid engine proves viable, it could reshape how countries use biofuels to back up intermittent renewables.
• 
  

Brazil is undertaking a major biofuels experiment that could be majorly disruptive for the global energy landscape if it proves effective. The South American country is filthy rich in biomass, and is seeking to use ethanol in novel applications – in this case, to power the energy grid. A new ethanol-powered engine designed specifically to provide electricity to the grid was just launched at the Suape II power plant in Pernambuco, in a world first.

Brazilian energy company Suape Energia has partnered with Finnish technology firm Wärtsilä to develop the engine, a pilot model which will test whether or not the technology is viable in real-world conditions. The testing will be extensive, providing thousands of hours of data over the coming years that will tell the researchers a lot about the approach's performance, sustainability, and economic viability.

The engine will run on ethanol sourced primarily from sugarcane grown in Brazil. Brazil is the top producer as well as the top consumer of sugarcane-derived ethanol in the world, and finding a way to convert it into usable and affordable electricity would be a major win for the nation's energy autonomy and security. Typically, this ethanol is used to power vehicles. Using it in grid applications is a novel and potentially majorly disruptive approach.

“Brazil is a world leader in ethanol production, but its potential use in electricity generation has up to now been overlooked,” said José Faustino Cândido, the technical director of Suape Energia.

This innovation comes at a time of broad experimentation with ethanol in Brazilian markets. “A new wave of biofuel innovation is sweeping the nation,” Reuters reported this week.

Brazil's ethanol sector is huge, representing around USD $20 billion. It's the second largest ethanol industry in the world, behind the United States. The country has been a longtime champion of “flex-fuel” cars able to run on a mandatory blend of at least 30 percent ethanol, and up to 100 percent ethanol. This policy has helped to shield Brazilian consumers from the current oil and gas prices that are causing so much pain at petrol pumps around the world.

While Brazil is “uniquely positioned” to test out this technology thanks to its robust ethanol supply chains and infrastructure, the ramifications of this test extend far beyond the Brazilian context. According to a recent report from Interesting Engineering, “the project's developers hope to show that ethanol can provide a source of dispatchable power, electricity that can be generated on demand, at a time when many countries are seeking ways to complement intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.”

This new domestic use for ethanol also comes at a politically fortuitous time for Brazil, as the United States proposed a 25 percent tariff on Brazilian ethanol just this week. On June 1, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released a report finding that “Brazil's acts, policies and practices with respect to ethanol market access are unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce.” In other words, the federal government conducted an investigation into Brazil's ethanol trade policies and determined that they have unfairly disadvantaged the United States and other trading partners by unduly restricting the market.

But while Brazil is leaning more heavily than ever into biofuels, the United States is in turmoil over how to regulate ethanol on its own soil. The Republican party is sharply divided over biofuels quotas of the kind that have benefitted Brazil during this latest oil price shock. Last month the House narrowly passed a bill to codify year-round sales of E15 ethanol fuel with a 15 percent ethanol blend in a major win for the corn lobby and for agricultural states. The bill will now have to go through the Senate, where its future is uncertain.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

CORN IN YOUR TANK MEANS NO CORN TORTILLA'S

EXPLAINER: Why Biden is allowing more ethanol in gasoline

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Tuesday his administration will suspend a federal rule that bars higher levels of ethanol in gasoline during the summer. The move, which Biden announced during a visit to Iowa, is intended to tamp down prices at the pump that have spiked during Russia’s war with Ukraine. Iowa is a key producer of the corn-based fuel additive.

A look at how that the decision to authorize year-round use of so-called E15 will impact gas supplies, prices and the environment.

WHAT ACTION IS BIDEN TAKING?

Most gasoline sold in the U.S. is blended with 10% ethanol. At Biden's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency will issue an emergency waiver to allow widespread sale of 15% ethanol blend that is usually prohibited between June 1 and Sept. 15 because of concerns that it adds to smog in high temperatures.

Senior Biden administration officials said the move will save drivers an average of 10 cents per gallon at 2,300 gas stations that sell E15, as the high-blend ethanol is known. Those stations are mostly in the Midwest and the South, including Texas, according to industry groups.

WHY IS BIDEN DOING THIS?

Lawmakers from both parties and ethanol advocates have urged Biden and the EPA to allow year-round sales of E15, calling it a cheaper and readily available domestic alternative to traditional gasoline. The U.S. has banned imports of Russian crude oil since the country's late February invasion of Ukraine, disrupting global markets and raising prices.

“Homegrown Iowa biofuels provide a quick and clean solution for lowering prices at the pump, and bolstering production would help us become energy independent once again,″ said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a longtime ethanol proponent. Grassley and 15 other senators sent Biden a letter last month urging him to allow year-round E15 sales.

Ethanol groups called Biden's action a major win for American drivers and U.S. energy security. "It means cleaner options at the pump and a stronger rural economy,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, a biofuel trade group.

HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT?

Biden administration official say the short-term move will have little effect on the environment and that EPA will work with states to "ensure there are no significant air quality impacts through the summer driving season.''

Environmentalists questioned that, saying ethanol production contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and soil erosion and raises prices for corn and other crops.

“The ethanol lobby will be happy and kids with asthma will be sicker,'' said Dan Becker of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. “However well-meaning (Biden's action) might be, kids and the elderly shouldn’t pay the price with their health for slight gas savings.''

A recent report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences revealed that the federal ethanol mandate inflated corn prices by 30% from 2008 to 2016, made corn-based ethanol more carbon intensive than gasoline and increased annual fertilizer use by up to 8%, polluting waterways.

HAS EPA DONE THIS BEFORE?

The EPA has lifted seasonal restrictions on E15 in the past, including after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. The Trump administration allowed for year-round E15 sales starting in 2019, but a federal appeals court struck down the policy change in July 2021, saying the EPA overstepped its authority.

The decision dealt a significant blow to the ethanol industry and corn farmers who had anticipated increased ethanol demand through year-round sales of the higher blend.

HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM TRUMP'S ACTION?

Senior Biden administration officials said they expected the EPA waiver to survive a likely court challenge, saying that unlike the open-ended Trump rule, the action is limited to this summer and is prompted by a supply disruption caused by the war in Europe.

Greater use of E15 should "help alleviate some of the pain that we’ve seen since Russia launched this war against Ukraine,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told a Senate committee last week.

But critics said the only emergency is Biden's dropping poll numbers.

Emergency fuel waivers are reserved for acute supply disruptions, such as those resulting from a hurricane, said Chet Thompson, president & CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents petroleum refiners.

“An additional three months of E15 sales won’t do anything to address high crude oil prices, and 98% of retail (gas) stations can’t even sell the fuel,'' Thompson said. “This is politics, not a real solution for drivers.”

WILL E15 HURT MY CAR'S ENGINE?

E15, often sold at the pump as Unleaded 88, for its octane rating, can safely be used in all cars, trucks and SUVs from 2001 on. Those model years represent more than 90% of vehicles on U.S. roads. The ethanol industry says the fuel is one of the most tested in history and has no effect on vehicle drivability. More than 20 billion miles have been driven in cars and trucks using Unleaded 88, a number continues to grow.

WHAT IS THE PRICE OF E15 GAS?

E15, or Unleaded 88, typically sells for 10 cents a gallon less than E10, the standard formulation for U.S. cars. The price difference between Unleaded 88 and conventional gasoline without ethanol is around 40 cents.

WILL I GET BETTER MILEAGE WITH E15?

There is no noticeable difference between the mileage achieved when using E15 and mileage when operating on E10.

CAN I USE E15 IN MY LAWNMOWER OR OTHER SMALL-ENGINE EQUIPMENT?

E15 has not been approved by EPA for use in non-automotive engines such as boats, motorcycles, lawn mowers and other small engines. E10, the standard ethanol formulation, is approved for small engines.

Matthew Daly, The Associated Press

'Short-term thinking': Environmentalists push back on Biden's ethanol expansion

Jon Schuppe - 



President Joe Biden's plan to reduce the price of gas by allowing the sale of higher-ethanol fuel this summer may make corn farmers and their elected representatives happy. But the move also has irked environmentalists who see ethanol as a climate-change villain.

Biden made his announcement Tuesday during a trip to Iowa, where corn — and ethanol — are crucial to the state economy. He said the Environmental Protection Agency would issue an emergency waiver from the Clean Air Act that will permit the sale of gasoline that is 15 percent ethanol, 5 percent more than the typical blend, from June 1 to Sept. 15. The change will lower gas prices by about 10 cents a gallon at the 2,300 gas stations equipped to pump it, the Biden administration says.

To environmentalists, that's a small benefit compared to the damage the decision could do to efforts to reduce the country's carbon emissions.

“What the president is doing is the definition of short-term thinking,” said Carroll Muffett, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law. “The

goal here shouldn’t be to bring gas prices down by 10 cents in the near term by increasing emissions that will endanger large parts of the population.”

Although ethanol was embraced more than a decade ago as a renewable fuel, its green reputation has eroded. Scientists have found evidence that increased corn production for ethanol could increase greenhouse gas emissions; a study published in February said ethanol may be worse for the climate than gasoline.

The reason Biden needs an emergency waiver is that the summertime use of gas with 15 percent ethanol, known as E15, is known to increase smog.

“This is a quick fix that will harm the planet and not do much to support consumers,” said Jim Walsh, policy director at Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit group that opposes the use of ethanol as a climate solution.

Senior Biden administration officials have told reporters that the EPA's own analysis did not indicate that the emergency waiver was likely to harm air quality. They pointed to another study, published last year, showing that ethanol's greenhouse gas emissions are decreasing with improvements in farming and production methods.

Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade association, said ethanol was "unquestionably a winner when compared to gasoline."

Biden's move also drew criticism from the oil industry. The American Petroleum Institute, a trade association for the oil and gas industries, said that the scarcity of stations equipped with E15 fuel limits the impact of the president's action.

"Americans are looking for long-term solutions, not short-term political fixes that fail to acknowledge the logistical, legal and compatibility constraints that limit the ability of E15 to influence prices at the pump today," Ron Chittim, the group's vice president of downstream policy, said in a statement.

Then-President Donald Trump tried allowing the year-round use of E15 fuel in 2019 but a federal court overruled him following a challenge from oil refiners.

Sheila Karpf, a senior policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit government watchdog group that opposes ethanol subsidies, said she expected Biden's waiver to be challenged in court as well.

"We have seen decades of corn ethanol subsidies, and the handouts to the industry continue to happen," she said.

Cooper, of the ethanol trade group, said that he too expected the oil industry to challenge Biden's expansion of E15 but that it will survive, because it involves the temporary use of emergency powers allowed by the Clean Air Act.

"If war in Ukraine and $4 gas and a shortage in the marketplace don’t warrant an emergency, I don’t know what would," he said.

E20 Petrol: Balancing Energy Security – Analysis

Image: Grok

August 28, 2026
By Patial RC


Key Takeaways:

India’s E20 ethanol-blend push is credited with cutting oil-import exposure, saving foreign exchange, and opening markets for sugarcane, maize, and surplus grain—but the author says net benefits are assumed more than measured.

Hidden costs include ethanol’s lower energy content (fewer km per litre at similar pump prices), uneven gains for small farmers versus mills, food-versus-fuel risk, and water use in stressed regions.

The piece urges a published cost-benefit ledger, residue-based second-generation feedstocks, clearer consumer choice for older vehicles, and an independent review before raising blends further. Farmers, Consumers and Sustainability

India’s transition towards ethanol-blended petrol represents one of the country’s most significant energy-policy initiatives of the past decade. The move towards E20—petrol containing up to 20 per cent ethanol—has been driven by several legitimate national objectives: reducing dependence on imported crude oil, conserving foreign exchange, improving energy security, creating additional markets for agricultural produce and reducing emissions.

Measured against these objectives, the programme has achieved considerable scale and speed. India imports a substantial proportion of its crude-oil requirements, leaving the economy exposed to international prices, exchange-rate movements and geopolitical disruptions. Replacing a portion of imported petroleum with domestically produced ethanol therefore provides a degree of insulation from global oil-market volatility.

The strategic value of that insulation became particularly apparent during periods of international uncertainty. When crude prices rise sharply because of geopolitical tensions or disruption to supply routes, a portion of India’s transport-fuel requirement is effectively sourced domestically rather than being entirely exposed to international crude prices and the dollar. In that sense, ethanol blending can be viewed not merely as an environmental programme but also as a form of energy-security insurance.


The important question is not whether E20 has benefits—it clearly does—but whether those benefits and costs are being measured comprehensively and distributed fairly among farmers, consumers, oil companies, distilleries and the wider economy.
The Economic Case for Ethanol


The economic rationale for ethanol blending is straightforward. Every litre of ethanol used in petrol represents a corresponding reduction in the quantity of petroleum that has to be imported, subject to the actual energy content of the respective fuels.

The programme has also created a large and predictable market for agricultural feedstocks, including sugarcane, maize and certain surplus or damaged grains. This can provide additional revenue streams for sugar mills, distilleries and agricultural producers, while encouraging investment in processing capacity and rural infrastructure.


There are environmental benefits as well. Ethanol is a renewable fuel and, depending on the feedstock, cultivation practices, processing technology and transport involved, blending can reduce the lifecycle carbon intensity of petrol.

These are important gains. India’s energy transition cannot be assessed solely from the perspective of the price paid at a petrol pump. Foreign-exchange savings, energy security, rural employment, industrial investment and emissions reduction also have economic value.

At the same time, the net benefit needs to be measured rather than assumed.
The Cost of the Energy Transition


One of the less discussed characteristics of ethanol is its lower energy content compared with petrol. Ethanol contains substantially less energy per litre, which means that a vehicle may require more blended fuel to travel the same distance.

The government’s own assessments acknowledge some loss in fuel economy, while earlier projections by NITI Aayog indicated that the impact could be more significant for vehicles designed for lower ethanol blends. This creates an important consumer question.

If E20 is sold at essentially the same pump price as conventional petrol, but provides fewer kilometres per litre, the motorist’s effective cost per kilometre can rise even if the price per litre does not. That does not necessarily make E20 an uneconomic policy. If the additional cost to the consumer is outweighed by foreign-exchange savings, energy-security benefits and environmental gains, the programme can still produce a positive national return.But that calculation should be transparent.


A useful next step would therefore be publication of a comprehensive cost-and-benefit assessment of E20, including the cost of ethanol, petrol displaced, transportation and blending, taxation, vehicle efficiency effects and the value of reduced petroleum imports. Such transparency would make the debate considerably more constructive.
Who Ultimately Benefits?


The programme is also frequently presented as an opportunity for farmers. The creation of a large domestic ethanol market can certainly benefit agricultural producers, but the distribution of those benefits deserves closer examination.

Payments made by oil marketing companies to distilleries and sugar mills do not automatically translate into equivalent increases in farm incomes. The extent to which the additional value reaches the farmer depends on procurement arrangements, feedstock prices, market conditions, processing margins and the bargaining position of individual producers.

Large farmers and organised agricultural producers may be better positioned to benefit from assured demand than small and marginal cultivators, who often have limited marketable surpluses.

This is particularly relevant in the case of maize. If government policy encourages greater maize production for ethanol while market prices remain below the declared minimum support price, questions naturally arise about how much of the value generated by the ethanol market is actually reaching cultivators.

These questions need not imply that the ethanol programme has failed. Rather, they point to the need for better measurement of the programme’s farm-level outcomes.

The ultimate test of the agricultural component should therefore be simple: has the additional demand for ethanol translated into a sustained improvement in farm incomes?
Food Versus Fuel


Another issue requiring careful consideration is the increasing use of food-related feedstocks for ethanol.

Maize, sugarcane and rice have legitimate competing uses in India’s food and agricultural economy. In normal years, there may be sufficient supplies to accommodate both food and fuel requirements. However, droughts, crop failures, international disruptions or sudden changes in domestic demand can alter that balance quickly.


The use of surplus, damaged or otherwise unsuitable grain for fuel can be economically sensible because it creates value from material that may not otherwise enter the food chain.

The situation becomes more complicated when cultivable resources are deliberately redirected towards fuel production at the expense of food, feed or other essential uses.

This is not an argument against ethanol. It is an argument for maintaining flexibility in feedstock policy and ensuring that energy security does not unintentionally create a food-security challenge.
The Water Question


Water may ultimately prove to be one of the most important sustainability questions surrounding ethanol.

The environmental footprint of ethanol varies substantially according to the feedstock. Sugarcane is water-intensive, while grain-based ethanol also carries the water requirements associated with cultivation.

Therefore, the environmental benefit of replacing imported petrol cannot be assessed as stand alone. The entire lifecycle—from cultivation and irrigation to processing, transportation and blending—needs to be considered. This becomes particularly important in regions already experiencing groundwater stress.

A sensible long-term strategy would encourage feedstocks and technologies that impose lower pressure on scarce water resources. Agricultural residues, crop waste and other non-food biomass could play a progressively greater role through second-generation biofuel technologies. Such diversification would also reduce the potential conflict between food and fuel.

The Consumer Perspective


The motorist is another important stakeholder in the transition.Consumers are being encouraged to move towards cleaner and more efficient forms of mobility while simultaneously facing higher fuel prices, changing vehicle regulations and the costs associated with newer technologies.

Petrol vehicles remain an important part of India’s transport system. If higher ethanol blends result in even modest reductions in fuel economy, the impact will be felt most directly by high-mileage users, particularly two-wheeler owners and households for whom fuel expenditure represents a significant share of monthly income.

Vehicle compatibility is another consideration. Newer vehicles are increasingly designed and calibrated for higher ethanol blends, but India’s vehicle fleet is large and diverse, with millions of older vehicles still on the road. The objective should therefore be to ensure that the transition is technologically sound as well as environmentally desirable.

One possible transitional approach is to retain consumer choice through the availability of ethanol-free petrol where technically and economically feasible, particularly for older vehicles, while the newer fleet progressively moves towards higher blends.

Capacity, Investment and the Next Phase


The rapid expansion of ethanol production has also resulted in substantial investment in distilleries and associated infrastructure. This investment is positive in principle. However, installed capacity must ultimately correspond with sustainable demand. Excess capacity can create pressure for higher blending mandates, additional feedstocks or new markets simply to maintain utilisation.

That is why the move from E20 towards still higher blending levels should be guided by evidence rather than by capacity considerations alone. Before moving further, India would benefit from an independent assessment of the E20 experience—covering energy security, foreign-exchange savings, carbon emissions, agricultural incomes, food availability, water consumption, consumer costs, vehicle performance and the financial health of the ethanol industry.

A More Balanced Way Forward

The case for E20 need not be framed as a choice between supporting ethanol and opposing it.A more constructive approach would recognise that ethanol can be an important component of India’s energy strategy while also acknowledging that every energy policy produces winners, costs and trade-offs.Five areas deserve particular attention:

First, greater transparency. A clear per-litre cost and benefit structure for E20 would allow consumers and policymakers to understand what they are paying for and where the economic value is being created.

Second, better measurement of farmer benefits. The programme should be assessed not simply by the value of ethanol purchased from distilleries, but by its measurable impact on farm incomes, particularly for small and marginal cultivators.

Third, feedstock diversification. Greater emphasis should gradually be placed on agricultural residues, waste biomass and other non-food feedstocks, reducing pressure on food supplies and water resources.

Fourth, consumer protection. The impact of ethanol blending on fuel economy, vehicle compatibility and cost per kilometre should be transparently communicated. Where necessary, appropriate transitional mechanisms could be considered for older vehicles and vulnerable consumers.

Fifth, independent periodic review. The E20 programme should be evaluated on a full lifecycle basis before the country moves towards substantially higher blending levels. The objective should not simply be to maximise the percentage of ethanol in petrol, but to maximise the net national benefit.

Conclusion


India’s ethanol programme deserves recognition for its ambition and for the strategic benefits it can provide. Reducing dependence on imported crude, strengthening domestic energy security, creating agricultural markets and encouraging investment in rural industry are all legitimate national objectives.At the same time, the success of E20 should not be judged solely by the achievement of a blending target.

The more important questions are whether the foreign-exchange savings justify the overall economic cost, whether farmers receive a fair share of the value created, whether food and water security are adequately protected, and whether motorists receive an equitable outcome from the transition.

The debate, therefore, should not be ethanol versus petrol, nor should it become a contest between government policy and its critics. The real objective is to ensure that India’s ethanol strategy remains economically viable, environmentally sustainable, farmer-oriented and fair to consumers.

E20 can be an important force multiplier for India’s energy security. But its long-term credibility will depend on transparency, independent assessment and the willingness to adjust the policy wherever evidence shows that the costs are falling disproportionately on farmers, consumers or natural resources. A successful energy policy must ultimately balance all these interests.

Note: Broad issues discussed in the article need to be specifically be considered by non-oil producing nations with agriculture surplus.

About Patial RC
Patial RC is a retired Infantry officer of the Indian Army and possesses unique experience of serving in active CI Ops across the country and in Sri Lanka. Patial RC is a regular writer on military and travel matters in military professional journals. The veteran is a keen mountaineer and a trekker.
View all posts by Patial RC →

Alcohol consumption abundant in the natural world, study finds

Ian Sample Science editor

THE GUARDIAN
Tue 29 October 2024 

Male fruit flies turn to alcohol when they are rejected as a mate, while females of a closely-related species become less picky about their mates after imbibing. Photograph: Surapol Usanakul/Alamy


Humans may have turned drinking into something of an art form but when it comes to animals putting alcohol away, Homo sapiens are not such an outlier, researchers say.

A review of published evidence shows that alcohol occurs naturally in nearly every ecosystem on Earth, making it likely that most animals that feast on sugary fruits and nectar regularly imbibe the intoxicating substance.

Although many creatures have evolved to tolerate a tipple and gain little more than calories from their consumption, some species have learned to protect themselves with alcohol. Others, however, seem less able to handle its effects.


“We’re moving away from this anthropocentric view that alcohol is used by just humans and that actually ethanol is quite abundant in the natural world,” said Anna Bowland, a researcher in the team at the University of Exeter.

After trawling research papers on animals and alcohol, the scientists arrived at a “diverse coterie” of species that have embraced and adapted to ethanol in their diets, normally arising through fermented fruits, sap and nectar.

Ethanol became plentiful on Earth about 100m years ago when flowering plants began to produce sugary fruits and nectar that yeast could ferment. The alcohol content is typically low, at around 1% to 2% alcohol by volume (ABV), but in over-ripe palm fruit the concentration can reach 10% ABV.

In one study, wild chimpanzees in south eastern Guinea were caught on camera bingeing on the alcoholic sap of raffia palms. Meanwhile, spider monkeys on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, are partial to ethanol-laden yellow mombin fruit, revealed to contain between 1% and 2.5% alcohol. “Evidence is growing that humans are not drinking alone,” the authors write in Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

Whether consumption leads to drunkenness is another question. Tales of inebriated animals are abound, from elephants and baboons drunk on marula fruit in Botswana, to a moose found with its head stuck in a tree in Sweden after chomping on fermented apples. But in none of these cases, at least, was alcohol measured in the animals or the fruit.

Many animals seem to have impressive alcohol tolerance. Despite the “prodigious ethanol consumption” of pen-tailed treeshrews, the scientists found no evidence that the animals became intoxicated, but concede it was “unclear how an inebriated treeshrew would behave”.

Animals that regularly eat fermented foods tend to metabolise alcohol rapidly, sparing them its worst effects. But some creatures encounter ethanol less often and can suffer the consequences. Tests on Cedar waxwings, which died from crashing into fences and other structures, found they had been flying under the influence after gorging themselves on the over-ripe berries of the Brazilian pepper tree. “Inebriation is not beneficial in an environment where you are fighting to survive,” Bowland said.

Perhaps the most striking effects of alcohol are seen in insects. Male fruit flies turn to alcohol when they are rejected as a mate, while females of a closely related species become less picky about their mates and have sex with more males after imbibing. Fruit flies lay their eggs in ethanol-rich foods, protecting them from parasites.

Earlier this month, researchers led by Eran Levin at Tel Aviv University found that oriental hornets may be the only animals capable of consuming an unlimited amount of alcohol without suffering ill effects. “They can ingest up to 80% ethanol solution without any negative effects on their mortality or behaviour,” said Dr Sophia Bouchebti, an author on the study.

“Aside from the fruit fly, aye aye and slow loris, it is unclear if animals prefer ethanol-containing food,” said Matthew Carrigan at the College of Central Florida, who worked on the review with Bowland. “One of our next steps is the test whether animals in the wild prefer ethanol-containing food or eat it only when ethanol levels are too low to detect or unfermented fruit is hard to find.”

Alcohol consumption among non-human animals may not be as rare as previously thought, say ecologists

Cell Press

 

image: 

A spider monkey feedings on fruits of spondia mombin

view more 

Credit: Nicholas Chapoy

Anecdotes abound of wildlife behaving “drunk” after eating fermented fruits, but despite this, nonhuman consumption of ethanol has been assumed to be rare and accidental. Ecologists challenge this assumption in a review publishing October 30 in the Cell Press journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution. They argue that since ethanol is naturally present in nearly every ecosystem, it is likely consumed on a regular basis by most fruit- and nectar-eating animals.

“We're moving away from this anthropocentric view that ethanol is just something that humans use,” says behavioral ecologist and senior author Kimberley Hockings (@KJHockings) of the University of Exeter. “It's much more abundant in the natural world than we previously thought, and most animals that eat sugary fruits are going to be exposed to some level of ethanol.”

Ethanol first became abundant around 100 million years ago, when flowering plants began producing sugary nectar and fruits that yeast could ferment. Now, it’s present naturally in nearly every ecosystem, though concentrations are higher, and production occurs year-round in lower-latitude and humid tropical environments compared to temperate regions. Most of the time, naturally fermented fruits only reach 1%-2% alcohol by volume (ABV), but concentrations as high as 10.2% ABV have been found in over-ripe palm fruit in Panama.

Animals already harbored genes that could degrade ethanol before yeasts began producing it, but there is evidence that evolution fine-tuned this ability for mammals and birds that consume fruit and nectar. In particular, primates and treeshrews have adapted to efficiently metabolize ethanol.

“From an ecological perspective, it is not advantageous to be inebriated as you're climbing around in the trees or surrounded by predators at night—that's a recipe for not having your genes passed on,” says molecular ecologist and senior author Matthew Carrigan of the College of Central Florida. “It’s the opposite of humans who want to get intoxicated but don’t really want the calories—from the non-human perspective, the animals want the calories but not the inebriation.”

It’s unclear whether animals intentionally consume ethanol for ethanol’s sake, and more research is needed to understand its impact on animal physiology and evolution. However, the researchers say that ethanol consumption could carry several benefits for wild animals. First and foremost, it’s a source of calories, and the odorous compounds produced during fermentation could guide animals to food sources, though the researchers say it’s unlikely that animals can detect ethanol itself. Ethanol could also have medicinal benefits: fruit flies intentionally lay their eggs in substances containing ethanol, which protects their eggs from parasites, and fruit fly larvae increase their ethanol intake when they become parasitized by wasps.

“On the cognitive side, ideas have been put forward that ethanol can trigger the endorphin and dopamine system, which leads to feelings of relaxation that could have benefits in terms of sociality,” says behavioral ecologist and first author Anna Bowland of the University of Exeter. “To test that, we'd really need to know if ethanol is producing a physiological response in the wild.”

There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding the significance of ethanol consumption to wild animals. In their future research, the team plans to investigate the behavioral and social implication of ethanol consumption in primates and to more deeply examine the enzymes involved in alcohol metabolism.

###

This research was supported by the Primate Society of Great Britain, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, the Canada Research Chairs program, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Bowland et al., “The evolutionary ecology of ethanol” https://cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(24)00240-4

Trends in Ecology & Evolution (@Trends_Ecol_Evo), published by Cell Press, is a monthly review journal that contains polished, concise, and readable reviews and opinion pieces in all areas of ecology and evolutionary science. It aims to keep scientists informed of new developments and ideas across the full range of ecology and evolutionary biology—from the pure to the applied, and from molecular to global. Visit http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution. To receive Cell Press media alerts, please contact press@cell.com.

A capuchin eating fruits

Credit

Julia Casorso

---

Journal

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

DOI

10.1016/j.tree.2024.09.005 

Method of Research

Literature review

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

The evolutionary ecology of ethanol

Article Publication Date

30-Oct-2024

Villagers resist India's biofuel push, fearing hidden health risks


24 November 2023 - BY BHASKER TRIPATHI

“The government might reduce pollution by blending ethanol, but the hidden cost is the pollution that locals like us face wherever its ethanol is produced”.
Image: 123RF/Ralph Fiskness / File photo

On a sunny afternoon last month, two dozen people gathered at the council office in a south Indian village to protest against a new ethanol plant they say is polluting their backyard.

Over a year ago, locals were alarmed when they saw construction begin on the government-sanctioned grain distillery on a vacant plot about a kilometre (0.62 miles) away from their homes.

Touted as a green fuel and a solution to cut tailpipe emissions from vehicles when blended with gasoline, ethanol — a biofuel — is key to India’s action to tackle climate change.

But the residents of Chittanur village in Telangana state say they are not ready to pay for the national clean energy drive with their health.

This September, the plant started operating for a trial period. Villagers told Context that, despite claiming to be a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) facility, it had released hazardous effluent in the stream running near the village.

Effluent discharged by distilleries can contain acids and heavy metals, which if untreated can harm soil fertility, aquatic life and human health, according to Indian researchers.

The stream is an essential source of water for surrounding villages. Local people said a child fell seriously ill after swimming in contaminated water while adults who came into contact with it developed skin rashes.

“The government might reduce pollution by blending ethanol, but the hidden cost is the pollution that locals like us face wherever its ethanol is produced,” said Sugunakar Reddy, a village resident who works in the IT industry in Hyderabad.

Reddy said inhabitants had repeatedly complained about the ethanol plant to the district administration and pollution control bodies, but to no avail.

Jurala Organic Farms and Agro Industries, the company that owns the plant near Chittanur, did not respond to questions about its operations.

Once fully functional, the distillery will use food crops like rice to produce 800,000 litres of ethanol daily to be sold to Indian gasoline retailers.

Many countries around the world, from the US to Indonesia and Brazil, blend biofuels with gasoline to reduce their fossil-fuel import burden and curb climate-heating emissions from the transport sector.

Starting from the early 2000s, India used sugar cane to ramp up ethanol production to 4 billion litres annually to meet a target of blending 10% ethanol into gasoline.

In addition, about five years ago, it decided to harness food crops — rice and maize — to increase production for a higher 20% blend target that took effect in 2021, requiring 12 billion litres of ethanol each year.

Since 2020, the government has approved nearly 200 new grain-based distilleries, nine of them sited in Telangana.

It has eased the way for such facilities by weakening regulations to exempt them from public hearings before getting environmental clearance, offering financial support and putting in place long-term purchase agreements for their output.

The biofuel push has seen experts flag the risks of increased pollution impacts and warn that over-use of crops for ethanol production could threaten food security for the poor and hurt a sector already hit by climate change.

India's Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which also steers biofuel policy, did not respond to a request for comment.

WATER AND FOOD DIVERTED FOR FUEL

The Chittanur protests, which started a year ago, foreshadow the risk of local conflicts erupting in other areas with ethanol distilleries.

Farmer Vakiti Ramanji said residents found out that the Chittanur plant had been given the green light without public consultation, triggering demonstrations and a village council resolution against it.

Locals fear toxic effluent from the plant could contaminate groundwater in the future. “This will have scary outcomes for our health and the crops we grow,” Ramanji said.

After they raised objections, residents said the plant's operator started taking effluent out in tankers and releasing it on the roadside, sparking angry protests and clashes between villagers and police which led to many arrests in October.

Locals are also worried about how ethanol production will affect their food and water supplies in a drought-prone region.

Farmer Puttapalli Murli noted that producing one litre of ethanol takes three kilos of rice and six litres of water.

While the ethanol company has been given permission by the government to take water from a nearby dam, farmers are not getting enough for their irrigation needs, he added.

According to government data, sugar cane and rice use up to 70% of India's irrigation water

Murli said the plant had promised to buy rice directly from villagers but the government is already selling subsidised rice from public stocks to ethanol producers, undercutting farmers.

The Food Corporation of India, which maintains national food stocks, released 2.5 million tonnes of rice to 100 distilleries from March 2020 to July 2023, according to data requested by Context.

The body is also responsible for allocating rice and wheat to India’s public food distribution system for the poor.

With India ranking 111 out of 125 countries in the 2023 Global Hunger Index, the national policy of diverting food crops for ethanol has been criticised by experts.

“The use of rice for food should be prioritised over its use as fuel,” wrote Siraj Hussain, a former Indian agriculture secretary, and agricultural economist Shweta Saini in an opinion piece published in June by online news platform The Wire.

In August, the government stopped releasing subsidised rice for ethanol production amid concerns over depleting stocks, but the halt may only be temporary, according to Indian media.

LOW-EMISSIONS FUEL?

Promit Mookherjee, an associate fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, a Delhi-based think-tank, said the government should not set an ambitious biofuels target and then make changes to the “fragile” agriculture sector to achieve it.

Instead it should assess how much ethanol can be produced sustainably from existing farmland and then seek other efficient ways to boost ethanol production, he said.

Incentivising farmers to grow feedstock for ethanol will deter them from diversifying into new crops and cultivation methods needed to adapt to climate change, while the policy could increase planet-heating emissions from land-use change, he added.

A 2022 study published in the journal of the National Academy of Sciences in the US — which produces most of its ethanol from corn — found that expanding crop production for biofuel intensified the use of fertiliser and water.

This resulted in the carbon footprint of corn-based ethanol being “no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher”, the researchers wrote.

While using food crops to produce ethanol — known as “first-generation” biofuel — is easier, technology now allows the use of agricultural waste to produce “second-generation” ethanol.

Several companies have successfully demonstrated this new method in India but are struggling to scale it up, Mookherjee said, calling for a government road map for sustainable ethanol production.

In the meantime, Chittanur residents are refusing to be pushed aside in the race to hit national biofuel targets.

“Everyone tells us that this plant is for the development of India,” said IT worker Reddy. “Is our village, our farmers not a part of India? Do we not have the right to live a healthy life?”

Reuters

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BIOFUELS 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BIOFUEL