Ethanol a threat to Florida

Regarding "Modernize Florida's renewable fuels standard" by Bradley Kron, president of United States EnviroFuels LLC (Other Views, Dec. 1): Government is lacing our gas with ethanol that is harmful to our engines, our economy and our environment. That's why I've sponsored legislation to repeal Florida's burdensome ethanol mandate. Not surprisingly, ethanol producers who financially gain from having the government force you to buy their product are opposed. Go figure.

The "Big Corn" industry has funded countless studies and lobbyists supporting ethanol mandates. Their studies, however, do not account for all of the energy needed to grow, harvest and refine ethanol.

An independent Cornell University analysis proves that when all fossil fuel inputs are counted, ethanol generates a 50 percent energy loss. It takes 1.5 gallons of gasoline to produce a single gallon of ethanol. Ethanol will increase — not decrease — our reliance on foreign oil.

If an independent Cornell study is not convincing enough, look no further than the EPA, which issued a 2009 report concluding that ethanol mandates will increase carbon emissions in the short term and may need to be in effect for 100 years before significant reductions are realized.

Ethanol production is also highly water-intensive. It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Diverting and polluting large amounts water is hardly an investment in a clean future.

Ethanol mandates do not help Florida farmers. All ethanol used in Florida is corn-based and shipped from other states. In fact, dairy and beef ranchers in Florida suffer when corn prices rise. Higher costs, borne by all Floridians, are needlessly subsidizing corporate welfare for a distant corn industry.

With soaring gas prices impacting our pocketbooks, government should not mandate purchase of a product that reduces miles per gallon — a fact even the ethanol special interests don't bother disputing.

Krohn argues that if auto manufacturers warranty engines for ethanol use, all must be "OK." The fine print tells a different story. Hyundai, for example, warns that "the use of ethanol may result in negative effects to cold starting, as well as engine driveability … it will also result in reduced fuel economy." Hardly a reliable warranty.

Krohn says that these problems can be remedied with mandates for higher ethanol concentrations — such as E15. That's impractical too. Most cars operating in the U.S. are not FlexFuel and cannot use higher than E10 without breaking down in the first 100 miles.

If Krohn is correct that ethanol is a fuel panacea, then let him make his case in the free market just like all other businesses. He shouldn't need the Legislature forcing you to buy his ethanol.

As a nation, we cannot end the search for efficient energy alternatives. Ethanol, however, is an affront to the efficiency we covet.

Special interests such as United States EnviroFuels LLC will continue to oppose my legislation. They want the government to make you buy their product. I'd rather the choice be yours.