resource

Additional Resources

Additional resources to understand the implications of use of ethanol compared to the use of ethers as oxygenates can be found here.

INTERNATIONAL

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  • “Since for some biofuels, indirect emissions—including from land use change—can lead to greater total emissions than when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be considered on a case by case basis”

 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

  • “Results from a completed study indicate that such blends [ethanol blended gasolines] reduce a vehicle’s fuel economy (i.e., fewer miles per gallon) and may cause older automobiles to experience higher emissions of some pollutants and higher catalyst temperatures. Results from another completed study indicate that such blends may cause some non-road engines to run at higher temperatures and experience unintentional clutch engagement, which could pose safety hazards.”

 

The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

Katherine Blumberg, Mexico Lead, on the NOM-016 (on fuel quality) public consultation process

  • “Due to the great risk associated with high VOC emissions in Metropolitan Areas, we recommend that the CRE considers restricting or prohibiting the use of ethanol in gasoline commercialized in the Valley of Mexico and in any another city where the production of ozone may be correlated to the availability of VOCs.”

 

Environmental Working Group

  • “Using the EPA’s own estimate, we calculate that the corn ethanol mandate has been worse for the climate than projected emissions from the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. … So far the federal corn ethanol mandate has resulted in a massive influx of dirty corn ethanol, which is bad for the climate and bad for consumers. The only interest it benefits is the ethanol industry. As we’ve said before, it’s time for Congress to correct course and reform the broken RFS to make way for truly green biofuels.”

 

Natural Resource Defense Council

  • “[W]e don’t need an additional 1.4 billion gallons of corn ethanol, or the higher prices for grains and more deforestation that come with it It’s time to transition from corn ethanol’s pollution and pork to a new generation of more sustainable biofuels that brings us closer to real energy independence.”

 

Clean Air Task Force

  • The (ethanol) program’s main achievement to date—shepherding an enormous scale-up in corn ethanol consumption—has pushed up food prices in the US and around the world and increased GHG emissions, air pollution, water pollution, and habitat destruction.… Worse, CATF’s review of the EPA data found that US corn ethanol production is actually increasing, not decreasing, GHG emissions.”

 

MEXICO

Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources

On the NOM-016 (on fuel quality) public consultation process

  • “Ethanol in fuels increases the potential formation of ground-level ozone. Exceeding the acceptable concentration of said contaminant, can increase negative impacts on the environment and public health, particularly in the three metropolitan zones (Valley of Mexico, Guadalajara and Monterrey).”
  • “Ethanol, being hygroscopic, must be blended (into fuels) at the final stage of the supply chain… it (may) modify the fuel characteristics (such as RVP), there must be evidence that regulatory specifications are fully complied with after (ethanol is added).”

 

Mexican Center for Environmental Law

Top environmentalist NGO and member of the NOM-016 on fuel quality working group.
Official statement on the NOM-016 results

  • “It has been proven that 10 percent of ethanol in gasolines increases ozone formation by as much as 640 percent in vehicles with Tier 1 technologies and 400 percent among Tier 2.”
  • “With 5.8 percent ethanol, the maximum allowed by NOM-016, it has been proven that hydrocarbons penetration (sic) increases in 60 percent among Tier 0 and Tier 1 vehicles, compared to unoxygenated fuels.”

 

Mexican Center for Environmental Law

Top environmentalist NGO and member of the NOM-016 on fuel quality working group.
Gustavo Alanis, General Director, op-ed on fuel quality issues

  • “(ethanol) blending should be prohibited in metropolitan zones and member states of the Megalopolis, due to the critical air quality conditions and in line with the latest measures taken by the federal government regarding air quality in the Megalopolis (the pending verification standard, the definitive standards) since using ethanol in these percentages would cause an increase in ozone formation… per vehicle, per day, worsening air quality.”

 

Mexican Center for Environmental Law

Top environmentalist NGO and member of the NOM-016 on fuel quality working group.
Gabriela Niño, Public Policy Director, on the NOM-016 (on fuel quality) public consultation process

  • “Because of its high potential for ozone formation, we suggest that the use of ethanol in gasoline blending should be banned in metropolitan areas (ZM) and in the states part of the Environmental Commission of Megalopolis (CAMe), in line with the latest measures taken by the federal government regarding air quality in the megalopolis.”

 

National Chemical Industry Association

Leading Mexican trade association in the chemistry industry.
On the NOM-016 (on fuel quality) public consultation process

  • “The potential introduction of ethanol as a gasoline component in metropolitan areas (MZ), especially in Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey, would worsen the air quality crisis. Ethanol is highly corrosive and known to degrade fuel system seals and increase the permeability of gasoline plastic tanks. This would increase greatly fugitive emissions of hydrocarbons in contrast to gasoline blended with MTBE, currently in use in the MZ.”

 

Gabriel Quadri, environmental expert

Op-ed on ethanol risks in Mexico

  • “Identifying what is best for the environment can be difficult in a world full of ‘green’ marketing. This is especially true with ethanol’s decades-long campaign to portray itself as a ‘green’ renewable fuel. While many in the U.S. have been drawn to its siren song, thankfully Mexico has examined it with clear eyes and made a wise choice for its future.”
  • “Ethanol’s hygroscopic and corrosive nature makes it incompatible with Mexico’s current distribution infrastructure and vehicle fleet. This was instrumental in CRE reaching its decision to reduce the permissible limits for ethanol, from an implicit 8% maximum under the previous standard, to an explicit 5.8% cap in the new one.”
  • “A series of studies show that ethanol use among older vehicle fleets, like Mexico’s, significantly increase emissions that form ground-level ozone (smog).”

 

Mexican Institute for Competitiveness

Leading independent think tank on public policy and economic and social performance
Gabriela Alarcón, Director of Urban Development, interview on fuel quality issues

  • “(Potential ethanol use) greatly worries us, that could even end up increasing ozone levels in metropolitan zones. This has proven to not only have negative effects, but also to generate more emissions that are precursors to ozone.“

 

Luis Carriles, leading energy journalist

About the NOM-016 on fuel quality

  • “The current NOM, and the liberalization of the fuels market, opens the door to the use of ethanol despite the fact that it’s been extensively demonstrated that it increases the potential for ozone formation. Remembering what the last Pemex CEO explained about why it’s a bad idea to use is not trivial.
  • “Do not be fooled by the fools who believe that ethanol is the solution to ozone; a fact, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, when not used by drought and lack of product fell ozone.”