U.S. ethanol plants are allowed to pollute more than oil refineries

This article does a great job of muddying the distinction of the CO2 output of corn production in general and the output of an actual ethanol plant.<p>To focus on the claim in the title, calling the CO2 byproduct of yeast fermentation of a grain, in which its carbon all came from atmospheric sources in the first place comparable to the pollution of an oil refinery is absurd.

The US spends enormous amounts every year subsidizing corn, it&#x27;s the reason for corn-based ethanol, high-fructose corn syrup instead of sugar, and so on. I&#x27;ve noticed this through SwiftOnSecurity on Twitter pointing this out. An interesting rabbithole.

&gt; 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.<p>Great. They should just stop this charade then. There are 30 million acres planted with corn used for bioethanol production. Out of 90 million total acres planted with corn. For comparison, the US has about 800 million acres of forests.

And they&#x27;re allowed to produce a product that gets less miles per gallon, goes bad quickly, breaks engines, is more expensive and energy intensive to transport, and doesn&#x27;t do what the epa claims in terms of reducing emissions. In other words, the typical government solution.