P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

One of the more vexing issues that has been largely absent from the various political debates, town hall meetings and Politics and Eggs extravaganzas is the pernicious effect of the federal government’s ethanol mandate. It is really hard to discern where most of the candidates currently stand on this issue.

It’s widely known that gasoline diluted with ethanol provides poorer fuel mileage than does ethanol-free fuel. On Nov. 10, the New Hampshire Union Leader’s Dave Solomon published a recent estimate that New Englanders are paying $500 million per year in extra fuel costs due to the ethanol mandate. And New Englanders are paying extra not only at the pump, but also at the meat counter, because the mandated demand for ethanol for motor fuels has driven up the cost of feed for livestock.

The nominal rational for the ethanol mandate was to reduce the U.S. dependence on imported oil, whose supplies were thought to be undependable. But now the world, led by booming U.S. production, is awash in oil, thereby putting an end to that argument for the ethanol mandate. Some also argued that ethanol could help slow climate change, but it is now clear that the production of ethanol produces enough carbon dioxide to fully offset any reductions in tailpipe emissions. Furthermore, it is also widely known that ethanol in motor fuels seriously damages engines – particular smaller engines used in boats, motorcycles and in older automobiles, adding significantly – and needlessly – to their maintenance costs.

So, given the forgoing prima facie case against the ethanol subsidies, why do they persist? One argument is that the government mandate encouraged a lot of investments that would become stranded if the mandate were removed. That argument is similar to the argument for keeping coal-fired electric plants operating – an argument that suggests a need for fair adjudication, not for continuation of patently harmful practices.

But the less esoteric and more important explanation of the continuation of the ethanol mandate is the perceived importance of the Iowa caucuses. Given its lead-off position in the presidential primary batting order, the Iowa caucuses weigh heavily on the campaign strategies of all candidates. In past years some candidates have expressed strong opposition to the mandates and deliberately avoided campaigning in Iowa. This year it seems that all the candidates still have their eyes on Iowa, with the result that no one is talking about ethanol. It’s really a shame that none of the debate moderators to date seem to have raised this issue.

This is a topic that New Hampshire voters should sink their teeth into at every town hall meeting, neighborhood house party, Holiday Stroll and other opportunity. Getting the candidates to deal openly with this economically important issue would be a real contribution to the public dialogue that is uniquely available to the retail politics practiced in New Hampshire.

Gene Porter is a 35-year Nashua resident and retired federal executive who is active in state waterway issues, including trying to prevent ethanol damage to the engines in vintage motor boats.

</