5 ms·
That was the point of my second paragraph. Mandating the use of a particular product to mitigate environmental damage should still be considered a subsidy. The
by mikeash 8y ago
That was the point of my second paragraph. Mandating the use of a particular product to mitigate environmental damage should still be considered a subsidy. The right way to do it without subsidies is to mandate the mitigation, and let the market figure out what to use.
- maxerickson 8y agoOne of the mitigations in this case is not allowing MTBE to enter the environment. Turns out if you ban MTBE people use ethanol to reduce tailpipe emissions.
- mikeash 8y agoAre you saying that ethanol is not actually required now, and is chosen freely to meet emissions requirements? Or are you just saying that a hypothetical situation like that would ultimately have the same effect as a requirement to use ethanol?
- maxerickson 8y agoStates are required to meet a certain annual quota of biofuels sales. There's no federal requirement that ethanol be added to a particular gallon of fuel. later: note that current US ethanol production exceeds those requirements by several billion gallons.
- bluGill 8y agoSome states require ethanol some do not. However states that don't require ethanol still use a lot of ethanol because it is cheaper than the alternatives
- mikeash 8y agoThe Feds still require a certain amount to be sold. They don’t specify that it has to be blended with gasoline, but that’s the easiest way to achieve the requirement. That doesn’t tell us much about what would happen in the absence of such a requirement.