THE E20 DEBATE: FACTS VS HYPOCRISY. HERE'S AN UNDENIABLE FACT: The E20 programme did not begin under the Modi government. Ethanol blending was approved years earlier, during the UPA. The difference is in execution. Blending remained stuck at roughly 1–1.5% for years before accelerating significantly under the NDA. So,... let's first get the politics out of the way. If ethanol blending was acceptable in principle then, why is it suddenly portrayed as anti-people now? Now, let's look at the arguments being presented by critics: CRITICS ARGUMENT 1: E20 FUEL IS BEING PUSHED BY NDA TO KEEP SUGAR CANE FARMERS HAPPY. There's no doubt Ethanol is creating an additional income stream for sugarcane farmers. But governments have always handed out subsidies or incentives to farmers. + MSP exists for 23 crops. Sugar cane farmers get SAP or State Advised Price. + Fertiliser subsidies. + Cheap or free electricity. + Irrigation subsidies. + Procurement policies. If these benefits to farmers are accepted as legitimate public policy, why is E20 policy being targeted in isolation for market distortion? CRITICS ARGUMENT 2: ETHANOL PRODUCTION IS WATER CONSUMING. Yes, sugarcane consumes a great deal of water. But so do + Paddy cultivators. Just look at the tumbling water tables in Punjab, Haryana. + AI and data centers. + Semiconductor manufacturing. + Steel and cement production. The question is not whether something uses water, but whether the benefits justify the costs. Again why are critics holding E20 alone to a test that they don't set for others? CRITICS ARGUMENT 3: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT MAKE E20 MANDATORY. LEAVE IT TO CHOICE. We're in a democracy and choice matters. But governments routinely make decisions that we, the people have no choice but to accept. + Taxation rates + Emission norms. + Fuel quality standards. + Safety regulations. + Identity Proof. These are often choices imposed to achieve broader national goals. Shouldn't E20 should be judged in the same way? Here's how E20 usage serves NATIONAL INTEREST: + India imports 85–90% of its crude oil. E20 seeks to address that by replacing up to 20% of petrol volume with domestically produced ethanol, helping diversify the fuel mix and reducing import costs. + With E20 NDA estimates saving Rs 1 lakh crore in foreign-exchange. CRITICS ARGUMENT 4: COST OF CAR ENGINE WEAR AND TEAR, MILEAGE INEFFICIENCY OUTWEIGHS BENEFITS. It is true that Ethanol has about 34% less energy per litre than petrol. But because E20 contains only 20% ethanol, the overall energy content of the fuel falls by roughly 4%–7%. So at 5% a car that gives 20 km/L on pure petrol will give 19km/L. But usage also improves air quality. Which increases longevity in humans and lowers healthcare costs over time. That is s fair trade-off. CONCLUSION: Every policy is a trade off. E20 isn't perfect. But if agricultural subsidies, procurement, irrigation policy and fuel regulations are accepted as legitimate public policy, then judge ethanol using the same yardstick.show more

Rahul Shivshankar

317,417 subscribers

Teilen Herunterladen