Study: Wisconsinites have mixed views on ethanol

Sep 13, 2011

A majority of Wisconsinites support the use of ethanol blends if it keeps dollars and jobs in the United States and reduces air pollution, according to a new study by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers.

But that support dropped substantially if those surveyed were told that ethanol could harm their engine or reduce . About two-thirds said they would not support ethanol under these conditions. It is generally believed that ethanol will not hurt newer engines, but studies have shown that it will cause minimal reductions in mileage compared to gasoline.

"Understandably, this poll indicates mixed attitudes toward the pros and cons of ethanol," says Bret Shaw, assistant professor of life sciences communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and environmental communication specialist for UW-Extension.

Respondents' actual knowledge about ethanol was also mixed. While ethanol does, in fact, burn cleaner than gasoline, only 53 percent believed this to be the case, while 41 percent thought the two were about the same and 6 percent believed ethanol burns dirtier that gasoline.

Asked about ethanol's impact on the environment, 41 percent believed that it causes less damage than , 15 percent thought ethanol was more damaging and 44 percent believe the two were about the same. There is debate among scientists and industry groups on this question. Although ethanol burns cleaner, detractors argue that its environmental benefits are overstated because demand for crops needed to produce it may accelerate the conversion of forests and other natural, carbon-absorbing to .

The survey found considerable doubt about ethanol's . Only 43 percent believed domestically produced ethanol increases U.S. jobs, while 46 percent thought it would have no effect and 10 percent believed ethanol use would decrease jobs. Similarly, relatively few respondents thought ethanol would decrease their own . Thirty-one percent thought it would boost the price at the pump, 41 percent said that it has no impact and 28 percent believed it lowers pump prices. Ethanol blends are generally thought to decrease fuel prices at the pump for Wisconsin consumers.

Overall, support for ethanol was highest among people who were younger, more educated, Democrats and those living in a county where an active biofuels plant was located.

Respondents were interviewed in June and July as part of the most recent UW-Madison Badger Poll. Data was collected from 556 persons chosen at random within households with landline telephones. The overall response rate for the survey is 39.6 percent with a 4.2 percent margin of error. The analysis was conducted by Bret Shaw and Michael Cacciatore, doctoral student in the UW-Madison Department of Life Sciences Communication.

Explore further: Precarious work schedules common among younger workers

More information: www.uwsc.wisc.edu/bpoll.php

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

EPA: ethanol crops displaces climate-friendly ones

May 05, 2009

(AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency says that corn ethanol - as made today - wouldn't meet a congressional requirement that ethanol produce 20 percent less greenhouse gas than gasoline. But the agency said it is ...

Ethanol's agricultural impact is mixed

Oct 19, 2005

Purdue University economists say converting more corn into ethanol might profit many interests, but not all in the agriculture industry would benefit.

Fuel ethanol cannot alleviate US dependence on petroleum

Jul 01, 2005

A new study of the carbon dioxide emissions, cropland area requirements, and other environmental consequences of growing corn and sugarcane to produce fuel ethanol indicates that the "direct and indirect environmental impacts ...

Ethanol production said increasing erosion

Jul 06, 2005

Large-scale farming of sugar cane and corn for ethanol fuel is increasing erosion and reducing biodiversity, Washington State University researchers say.

Economist: 'Blending wall' stands in way of ethanol growth

Dec 22, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Ethanol production opened the door to the renewable fuels industry. The industry now must get past an imposing wall of federal regulations and market conditions if it hopes to grow, said a Purdue University ...

Recommended for you

Precarious work schedules common among younger workers

3 hours ago

One wish many workers may have this Labor Day is for more control and predictability of their work schedules. A new report finds that unpredictability is widespread in many workers' schedules—one reason ...

Girls got game

4 hours ago

Debi Taylor has worked in everything from construction development to IT, and is well and truly socialised into male-dominated workplaces. So when she found herself the only female in her game development ...

Computer games give a boost to English

20 hours ago

If you want to make a mark in the world of computer games you had better have a good English vocabulary. It has now also been scientifically proven that someone who is good at computer games has a larger ...

Saddam Hussein—a sincere dictator?

Aug 28, 2014

Are political speeches manipulative and strategic? They could be – when politicians say one thing in public, and privately believe something else, political scientists say. Saddam Hussein's legacy of recording private discussions ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Necoras
not rated yet Sep 13, 2011
Ethanol costs more per unit than gasoline to produce, and has less energy per unit than gasoline. Those two facts mean that you'll get worse gas mileage and will, over time, spend more money on fuel costs.

Ethanol is also corrosive to conventional plastics, which means that if those plastics are in your fuel line, they will degrade over time. These parts can be replaced (a Flex-Fuel conversion) but it costs a few hundred dollars.

Ethanol does release less particulate matter and less CO2 per unit burned when compared with gasoline, but it releases more NO2. Since NO2 is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, the environmental benefits are debatable.