I was recently reading a copy of Crain’s Chicago Business magazine and came across an article which discussed a battle going on at Capitol Hill for a bill that would increase the amount of ethanol required in the auto market by huge numbers. The farming community and ethanol manufacturers are the ones who are pushing hard for the bill to be passed. The increased use of ethanol recently has shown a hope for the farming market that has the small farm almost obsolete. The use of ethanol has been latched onto by farmers as a savior for the market and many have invested in ethanol refineries across the country. On the other side, fighting against the bill, is the auto industry and some environmental groups. The auto makers complain that the forced increase on ethanol use would hurt their profits too much and would similarly hurt the economy. Environmental groups are against the mandated increase because people who have studied the subject know that ethanol is not a long-term solution to the energy crisis of the world and they would rather see the economy go toward completely renwable and clean fuel sources such as hydrogen, geothermal energy, or electric power in cars. The journalist who wrote the article made a good point, in which he stated that if the ethanol production is the solution to our energy problems, at least for a while, then why should it need a government mandate in order to help it? I thought that was a really good point and made me think about what could be done instead of pushing for ethanol production, such as pushing for other fuel sources that would, in the end, be better for the economy as well as the environment, such as electric cars and hydrogen fueled cars. The article really made me realize how intricately environmental concerns and the economy are tied together and how a balance must be maintained between the two if there is to be the progress needed in order to make the world a cleaner and better place.
