document_title: Ethanol fuel in the United States

question_text: when did ethanol start being added to gasoline

question_tokens: when did ethanol start being added to gasoline

text: Ethanol fuel in the United States

text: History[edit]

text: In 1826 Samuel Morey experimented with an internal combustion chemical mixture that used ethanol (combined with turpentine and ambient air then vaporized) as fuel. At the time, his discovery was overlooked, mostly due to the success of steam power. Ethanol fuel received little attention until 1860 when Nicholas Otto began experimenting with internal combustion engines. In 1859, oil was found in Pennsylvania, which decades later provided a new kind of fuel. A popular fuel in the U.S. before petroleum was a blend of alcohol and turpentine called "camphene", also known as "burning fluid."[citation needed] The discovery of a ready supply of oil and unfavorable taxation on burning fluid made kerosene a more popular fuel.

text: In 1896, Henry Ford designed his first car, the "Quadricycle" to run on pure ethanol.[27] In 1908, the revolutionary Ford Model T was capable of running on gasoline, ethanol or a combination.[27][28][29] Ford continued to advocate for ethanol fuel even during the prohibition, but lower prices caused gasoline to prevail.[27]

text: Gasoline containing up to 10% ethanol began a decades-long growth in the United States in the late 1970s. The demand for ethanol produced from field corn was spurred by the discovery that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)  was contaminating groundwater.[27][30] MTBE's use as an oxygenate additive was widespread due to mandates in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1992 to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. MTBE in gasoline had been banned in almost 20 states by 2006. Suppliers were concerned about potential litigation and a 2005 court decision denying legal protection for MTBE.[citation needed] MTBE's fall from grace opened a new market for ethanol, its primary substitute.[27] Corn prices at the time were around US$2 a bushel.[citation needed] Farmers saw a new market and increased production. This demand shift took place at a time when oil prices were rising.

text: The steep growth in twenty-first century ethanol consumption was driven by federal legislation aimed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required use of 7.5×10^9 US gal (28×10^6 m3) of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, to 36×10^9 US gal (140×10^6 m3) of annual renewable fuel use by 2022. Of this requirement, 21×10^9 US gal (79×10^6 m3) had to be advanced biofuels, defined as renewable fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%.[15][31][32]

text: Recent trends[edit]

text:
U.S. fuel ethanol production and imports  (2000–2011)[1][33](Millions of U.S. liquid gallons)

Year

Production

Imports

Demand

2000
1,630
n/a
n/a

2001
1,770
n/a
n/a

2002
2,130
46
2,085

2003
2,800
61
2,900

2004
3,400
161
3,530

2005
3,904
135
4,049

2006
4,855
653
5,377

2007
6,500
450
6,847

2008
9,000
556
9,637

2009
10,600
193
10,940

2010
13,230
10
13,184

2011
13,900
160
n/a(1)

Note: Demand figures includes stocks change and small exports in 2005.(1) Exports in 2011 reached a record 1,100 billion gal.[1]

 Graph of monthly production and net imports of fuel ethanol in the U.S. 1993–2012.  Data from EIA

tag: table

text: The world's top ethanol fuel producer in 2010 was the United States with 13.2 billion U.S. gallons (49.95 billion liters) representing 57.5% of global production, followed by Brazil with 6.92 billion U.S. gallons (26.19 billion liters), and together both countries accounted for 88% of the world production of 22.95 billion U.S. gallons (86.85 billion liters).[2] By December 2010 the U.S. ethanol production industry consisted of 204 plants operating in 29 states,[4][6] and 9 plants under construction or expansion, adding 560 million gallons of new capacity and bringing total U.S. installed capacity to 14.6 billion U.S. gallons (55.25 billion liters).[6] At the end of 2010 over 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the U.S. was blended with ethanol.[4]

text: Production[edit]

text: Beginning in late 2008 and early 2009, the industry came under financial stress due to that year's economic crisis. Motorists drove less and gasoline prices dropped sharply, while bank financing shrank.[17][18][19] As a result, some plants operated below capacity, several firms closed plants, others laid off staff, some firms went bankrupt, plant projects were suspended and market prices declined.[17][18][19] The Energy Information Administration raised concerns that the industry would not meet the legislated targets.[17][34]

text: As of 2011, most of the U.S. car fleet was able to run on blends of up to 10% ethanol, and motor vehicle manufacturers produced vehicles designed to run on more concentrated blends. As of 2015, seven states – Missouri, Minnesota, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington – required ethanol to be blended with gasoline in motor fuels.[35] These states, particularly Minnesota, had more ethanol usage, and according to a source at Washington University, these states accumulated substantial environmental and economic benefits as a result.[36] Florida required ethanol blends as of the end of 2010,[37] but has since repealed it. Many cities had separate ethanol requirements due to non-attainment of federal air quality standards.[38] In 2007, Portland, Oregon, became the first U.S. city to require all gasoline sold within city limits to contain at least 10% ethanol.[39][40] Chicago has proposed the idea of mandating E15 in the city limits, while some area gas stations have already begun offering it.[41][42]

text: Expanding ethanol (and biodiesel) industries provided jobs in plant construction, operations, and maintenance, mostly in rural communities. According to RFA the ethanol industry created almost 154,000 U.S. jobs in 2005, boosting household income by $5.7 billion. It also contributed about $3.5 billion in federal, state and local tax revenues.[16]

text: E85 vehicles[edit]

text: Ford, Chrysler, and GM are among many automobile companies that sell flexible-fuel vehicles that can run blends ranging from pure gasoline to 85% ethanol (E85), and beginning in 2008 almost any type of automobile and light duty vehicle was available with the flex-fuel option, including sedans, vans, SUVs and pickup trucks. By early 2013, about 11 million E85 flex-fuel cars and light trucks were in operation,[7][8] though actual use of E85 fuel was limited, because the ethanol fueling infrastructure was limited.[43]

text: As of 2005, 68% of American flex-fuel car owners were not aware they owned an E85 flex.[9][10] Flex and non-flex vehicles looked the same. There was no price difference. American automakers did not label these vehicles.[10][44] In contrast, all Brazilian automakers clearly labeled FFVs with text that was some variant of the word Flex. Beginning in 2007 many new FFV models in the US featured a yellow gas cap to remind drivers of the E85 capabilities.[45][46] As of 2008, GM badged its vehicles with the text "Flexfuel/E85 Ethanol".[47][48] Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that in 2009 only 504,297 flex-fuel vehicles were regularly fueled with E85, and these were primarily fleet-operated vehicles.[49] As a result, only 712 million gallons were used for E85, representing just 1% of that year's ethanol consumption.[50]

text: During the decade following 2000, E85 vehicles became increasingly common in the Midwest, where corn was a major crop.

text: Fueling infrastructure has been a major restriction hampering E85 sales.[43]  As of  March 2013[update], there were 3,028 fueling stations selling E85 in the U.S.[14] Most stations were in the Corn Belt states. As of 2008 the leading state was Minnesota with 353 stations, followed by Illinois with 181, and Wisconsin with 114. About another 200 stations that dispensed ethanol were restricted to city, state and federal government vehicles.[43]

text:
E85 flexfuel Chevrolet Impala LT 2009.

E85 flexfuel Chevrolet HHR

E85 flexfuel Ford E-250.

E85 flexfuel Ford Escape

tag: ul

text: E15 blend[edit]

text: In March 2009 Growth Energy, a lobbying group for the ethanol industry, formally requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow the ethanol content in gasoline to be increased to 15%, from 10%.[51] In October 2010, the EPA granted a waiver to allow up to 15% blends to be sold for cars and trucks with a model year of 2007 or later, representing about 15% of vehicles on the roads.[11][12] In January 2011 the waiver was expanded to authorize use of E15 to include model year 2001 through 2006 passenger vehicles. The EPA also decided not to grant any waiver for E15 use in any motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles, or non-road engines because current testing data does not support such a waiver. According to the Renewable Fuels Association the E15 waivers now cover 62% of vehicles on the road in the country.[13][52] In December 2010 several groups, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, filed suit against the EPA in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[53] In August 2012 the federal appeals court rejected the suit against the EPA ruling that the groups did not have legal standing to challenge EPA's decision to issue the waiver for E15.[54][55] In June 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from industry groups opposed to the EPA ruling about E15, and let the 2012 federal appeals court ruling stand.[56]

text: According to a survey conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA) in 2012, only about 12 million out of the more than 240 million light-duty vehicles on the U.S. roads in 2012 are approved by manufacturers are fully compliant with E15 gasoline. According with the Association, BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen warned that their warranties will not cover E15-related damage.[57] Despite the controversy, in order to adjust to EPA regulations, 2012 and 2013 model year vehicles manufactured by General Motors can use fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol, as indicated in the vehicle owners' manuals. However, the carmaker warned that for model year 2011 or earlier vehicles, they "strongly recommend that GM customers refer to their owners manuals for the proper fuel designation for their vehicles." Ford Motor Company also is manufacturing all of its 2013 vehicles E15 compatible, including hybrid electrics and vehicles with Ecoboost engines.[8] Also Porsches built since 2001 are approved by its manufacturer to use E15.[57] Volkswagen announced that for the 2014 model year, its entire lineup will be E15 capable.[58] Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced in August 2015 that all 2016 model year Chrysler/Fiat, Jeep, Dodge and Ram vehicles will be E15 compatible.[59]

text: Despite EPA's waiver, there is a practical barrier to the commercialization of the higher blend due to the lack of infrastructure, similar to the limitations suffered by sales of E85, as most fuel stations do not have enough pumps to offer the new blend, few existing pumps are certified to dispense E15, and there are no dedicated tanks readily available to store E15.[11][12]  In July 2012 a fueling station in Lawrence, Kansas became the first in the U.S. to sell the E15 blend. The fuel is sold through a blender pump that allows customers to choose between E10, E15, E30 or E85, with the latter blends sold only to flexible-fuel vehicles.[60] This station was followed by a Marathon fueling station in East Lansing, Michigan.[citation needed] As of  June 2013[update], there are about 24 fueling stations selling E15 out of 180,000 stations operating across the U.S.[56]

text: As of  November 2012[update], sales of E15 are not authorized in California, and according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the blend is still awaiting approval, and in a public statement the agency said that "it would take several years to complete the vehicle testing and rule development necessary to introduce a new transportation fuel into California's market."[61]

text: Legislation and regulations[edit]

text: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, directed DOE to assess the feasibility of using intermediate ethanol blends in the existing vehicle fleet.[62] The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) evaluated the potential impacts on legacy vehicles and other engines.[62] In a preliminary report released in October 2008, NREL described the effects of E10, E15 and E20 on tailpipe and evaporative emissions, catalyst and engine durability, vehicle driveability, engine operability, and vehicle and engine materials.[62][63] This preliminary report found that none of the vehicles displayed a malfunction indicator light; no fuel filter plugging symptoms were observed; no cold start problems were observed at 24 °C (75 °F) and 10 °C (50 °F) under laboratory conditions; and all test vehicles exhibited a loss in fuel economy proportional to ethanol's lower energy density. For example, E20 reduced average fuel economy by 7.7% when compared to gas-only (E0) test vehicles.[62]

text: The Obama Administration set the goal of installing 10,000 blender pumps nationwide by 2015. These pumps can dispense multiple blends including E85, E50, E30 and E20 that can be used by E85 vehicles. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a rule in May 2011 to include flexible fuel pumps  in the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This ruling provided financial assistance, via grants and loan guarantees, to fuel station owners to install E85 and blender pumps.[64][65]

text: In May 2011 the Open Fuel Standard Act (OFS) was introduced to Congress with bipartisan support. The bill required that 50 percent of automobiles made in 2014, 80 percent in 2016, and 95 percent in 2017, be manufactured and warrantied to operate on non-petroleum-based fuels, which included existing technologies such as flex-fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric and fuel cell. Considering the rapid adoption of flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil and the fact that the cost of making flex-fuel vehicles was approximately $100 per car, the bill's  primary objective was to promote a massive adoption of flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on ethanol or methanol fuel.[66][67][68]

text: In November 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency opened for public comment its proposal to reduce the amount of ethanol required in the US gasoline supply as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The agency cited problems with increasing the blend of ethanol above 10%. This limit, known as the "blend wall," refers to the practical difficulty in incorporating increasing amounts of ethanol into the transportation fuel supply at volumes exceeding those achieved by the sale of nearly all gasoline as E10.[69][70]

text: Contractual restrictions[edit]

text: Gasoline distribution contracts in the United States generally have provisions that make offering E15 and E85 difficult, expensive, or even impossible. Such provisions include requirements that no E85 be sold under the gas station canopy, labeling requirements, minimum sales volumes, and exclusivity provisions. Penalties for breach are severe and often allow immediate termination of the agreement, cutting off supplies to retailers. Repayment of franchise royalties and other incentives is often required.[71]

text: Energy security[edit]

text: One rationale for ethanol production in the U.S. is increased energy security, from shifting supply from oil imports to domestic sources.[31][72] Ethanol production requires significant energy, and current U.S. production derives most of that energy from domestic coal, natural gas and other non-oil sources.[73] Because in 2006, 66% of U.S. oil consumption was imported, compared to a net surplus of coal and just 16% of natural gas (2006 figures),[74] the displacement of oil-based fuels to ethanol produced a net shift from foreign to domestic U.S. energy sources.

text: Effect on gasoline prices[edit]

text: The effect of ethanol use on gasoline prices is the source of conflicting opinion from economic studies, further complicated by the non-market forces of tax credits, met and unmet[75] government quotas, and the dramatic recent increase in domestic oil production.[76]  According to a 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis, ethanol, and biofuel in general, does not materially influence the price of gasoline,[77] while a runup in the price of government mandated Renewable Identification Number credits has driven up the price of gasoline.[78]  These in contrast to a May, 2012, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development study which showed a $0.29 to $1.09 reduction in per gallon gasoline price from ethanol use.[79]

text: The U.S. consumed 138.2×10^9 US gal (523×10^6 m3) of gasoline in 2008, blended with about 9.6×10^9 US gal (36×10^6 m3) of ethanol, representing a market share of almost 7% of supply by volume. Given its lower energy content, ethanol fuel displaced about 6.4×10^9 US gal (24×10^6 m3) of gasoline, representing 4.6 percent in equivalent energy units.[15]

text: The EPA announced in November, 2013, a reduction in mandated U.S. 2014 ethanol production, due to "market conditions."  [80][81]

text: Tariffs and tax credits[edit]

text: Since the 1980s until 2011, domestic ethanol producers were protected by a 54-cent per gallon import tariff, mainly intended to curb Brazilian sugarcane ethanol imports. Beginning in 2004 blenders of transportation fuel received a tax credit for each gallon of ethanol they mix with gasoline.[82][83] Historically, the tariff was intended to offset the federal tax credit that applied to ethanol regardless of country of origin.[84][85]  Several countries in the Caribbean Basin imported and reprocessed Brazilian ethanol, usually converting hydrated ethanol into anhydrous ethanol, for re-export to the United States. They avoided the 2.5% duty and the tariff, thanks to the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) and free trade agreements. This process was limited to 7% of U.S. ethanol consumption.[86]

text: As of 2011, blenders received a US$0.45 per gallon tax credit, regardless of feedstock; small producers received an additional US$0.10 on the first 15 million US gallons; and producers of cellulosic ethanol received credits up to US$1.01. Tax credits to promote the production and consumption of biofuels date to the 1970s. For 2011, credits were based on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.[31]

text: A 2010 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that in fiscal year 2009, biofuel tax credits reduced federal revenues by around US$6 billion, of which corn and cellulosic ethanol accounted for US$5.16 billion and US$50 million, respectively. A 2010 study by the Environmental Working Group estimated that the cumulative ethanol subsidies between 2005 and 2009 were US$17 billion. The same study estimated the future cost to taxpayers at US$53.59 billion if these tax credits were extended until 2015, yielding 15 billion US gallons (56.8 billion liters).[87]

text: In 2010, CBO estimated that taxpayer costs to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon were $1.78 for corn ethanol and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol. In a similar way, and without considering potential indirect land use effects, the costs to taxpayers of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through tax credits were about $750 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent for ethanol and around $275 per metric ton for cellulosic ethanol.[31]

text: On June 16, 2011, the U.S. Congress approved an amendment to an economic development bill to repeal both the tax credit and the tariff, but this bill did not move forward.[82][83] Nevertheless, the U.S. Congress did not extend the tariff and the tax credit, allowing both to end on December 31, 2011.[88][89] Since 1980 the ethanol industry was awarded an estimated US$45 billion in subsidies.[88]

text: Feedstocks[edit]

text: Corn[edit]

text: Corn is the main feedstock used for producing ethanol fuel in the United States.[27][90] Most of the controversies surrounding U.S. ethanol fuel production and use is related to corn ethanol's energy balance and its social and environmental impacts.[citation needed]

text: Cellulose[edit]

text: Cellulosic sources have the potential to produce a renewable, cleaner-burning, and carbon-neutral alternative to gasoline.[citation needed] In his State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006, President George W. Bush stated, “We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks or switchgrass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.”

text: On July 7, 2006, DOE announced a new research agenda for cellulosic ethanol. The 200-page scientific roadmap cited recent advances in biotechnology that could aid use of cellulosic sources. The report outlined a detailed research plan for additional technologies to improve production efficiency. The roadmap acknowledged the need for substantial federal loan guarantees for biorefineries.

text: The 2007 federal budget earmarked $150 million for the research effort – more than doubling the 2006 budget. DOE invested in enzymatic, thermochemical, acid hydrolysis, hybrid hydrolysis/enzymatic, and other research approaches targeting more efficient and lower–cost conversion of cellulose to ethanol.

text: The first materials considered for cellulosic biofuel included plant matter from agricultural waste, yard waste, sawdust and paper. Professors R. Malcolm Brown Jr. and David Nobles, Jr. of the University of Texas at Austin developed cyanobacteria that had the potential to produce cellulose, glucose and sucrose, the latter two easily converted into ethanol. This offers the potential to create ethanol without plant matter.[citation needed]

text: Sugar[edit]

text:
United States fuel ethanol imports by country (2002–2007)[91](Millions of U.S. liquid gallons)

Country

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

 Brazil
188.8
433.7
31.2
90.3
0

 Jamaica
75.2
66.8
36.3
36.6
39.3

 El Salvador
73.3
38.5
23.7
5.7
6.9

 Trinidad and Tobago
42.7
24.8
10.0
0
0

 Costa Rica
39.3
35.9
33.4
25.4
14.7

text: Producing ethanol from sugar is simpler than converting corn into ethanol. Converting sugar requires only a yeast fermentation process. Converting corn requires additional cooking and the application of enzymes. The energy requirement for sugar conversion is about half that for corn.[citation needed] Sugarcane produces more than enough energy to do the conversion with energy left over. A 2006 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report found that at market prices for ethanol, converting sugarcane, sugar beets and molasses to ethanol would be profitable.[92] As of 2008 researchers were attempting to breed new varieties adapted to U.S. soil and weather conditions, as well as to take advantage of cellulosic ethanol technologies to also convert sugarcane bagasse.[93][94]

text: U.S. sugarcane production occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. The first three plants to produce sugarcane-based ethanol were expected to go online in Louisiana by mid-2009. Sugar mills in Lacassine, St. James and Bunkie were converted to sugarcane ethanol production using Colombian technology to enable profitable ethanol production. These three plants planned to produce 100×10^6 US gal (380×10^3 m3) of ethanol per year within five years.[94][95][96]

text: By 2009 two other sugarcane ethanol production projects were being developed in Kauai, Hawaii and Imperial Valley, California. The Hawaiian plant was projected to have a capacity of between 12–15 million US gallons (45×10^3–57×10^3 m3) a year and to supply local markets only, as shipping costs made competing in the continental US impractical. This plant was expected to go on line by 2010. The California plant was expected to produce 60×10^6 US gal (230×10^3 m3) a year and it was expected in 2011.[93]

text: In March 2007, "ethanol diplomacy" was the focus of President George W. Bush's Latin American tour, in which he and Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, promoted the production and use of sugarcane ethanol throughout the Caribbean Basin. The two countries agreed to share technology and set international biofuel standards.[97] Brazilian sugarcane technology transfer was intended to permit various Central American, such as Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, several Caribbean countries, and various Andean Countries tariff-free trade with the U.S., thanks to existing trade agreements. The expectation was that such countries would export to the United States in the short-term using Brazilian technology.[98]

text: In 2007, combined exports from Jamaica, El Salvador, Trinidad & Tobago and Costa Rica to the U.S. reached a total of 230.5×10^6 US gal (873×10^3 m3) of sugarcane ethanol, representing 54.1% of imports. Brazil began exporting ethanol to the U.S. in 2004 and exported 188.8×10^6 US gal (715×10^3 m3) representing 44.3% of U.S. ethanol imports in 2007. The remaining imports that year came from Canada and China.[91]

text: Other feedstocks[edit]

text: Cheese whey, barley, potato waste, beverage waste, and brewery and beer waste have been used as feedstocks for ethanol fuel, but at a far smaller scale than corn and sugarcane ethanol, as plants using these feedstocks have the capacity to produce only 3 to 5 million US gallons (11×10^3 to 19×10^3 m3) per year.[90]

text: Comparison with Brazilian ethanol[edit]

text: Sugarcane ethanol has an energy balance 7 times greater than corn ethanol.[99] As of 2007, Brazilian distiller production costs were 22 cents per liter, compared with 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[100] Corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before distillation into alcohol.[84] However, corn-derived ethanol offers the ability to return 1/3 of the feedstock to the market as a replacement for the corn used in the form of Distillers Dried Grain.[27]  Sugarcane ethanol production is seasonal:  unlike corn, sugarcane must be processed into ethanol almost immediately after harvest.[101]

text:
Comparison of key characteristics between  the ethanol industries in the United States and Brazil

Characteristic
 Brazil
 U.S.
Units/comments

Main feedstock
Sugar cane
Corn
Main cash crop for ethanol production, the US has less than 2% from other crops.

Total ethanol fuel production (2011)[1]
5,573
13,900
Million U.S. liquid gallons

Total arable land[102]
355
270
Million hectares. Only contiguous U.S., excludes Alaska.

Total area used for ethanol crop (2006)[27][102]
3.6(1%)
10 (3.7%)
Million hectares (% total arable)

Productivity[27][99][102][103]
6,800–8,000
3,800–4,000
Ethanol yield (liter/hectare). Brazil is 727 to 870 gal/acre (2006), US is 321 to 424 gal/acre (2003–05)

Energy balance (input energy productivity)[27][27][84][104]
8.3 to 10.2
1.3 to 1.6
Ratio of the energy obtained from ethanol/energy expended in its production

Estimated greenhouse gas emission reduction[20][24][27]
86–90%(1)
10–30%(1)
 % GHGs avoided by using ethanol instead of gasoline, using existing crop land, without ILUC effects.

EPA's estimated 2022 GHG reduction for RFS2.[105]
61%(2)
21%
Average % GHGs change as compared to gasoline and considering direct and indirect land use change effects.

CARB's full life-cycle carbon intensity[21][106]
73.40
105.10(3)
Grams of CO2 equivalent released per MJ of energy produced, includes indirect land use changes.[24]

Estimated payback time for greenhouse gas emission[22]
17 years(4)
93 years(4)
Brazilian cerrado for sugar cane and US grassland for corn. Land use change scenarios by Fargione et al.[23]

Flexible-fuel vehicles produced/sold(includes autos, light trucks and motorcycles)[107][108][109]
16.3 million
10 million
 All fleets as of December 2011. The Brazilian fleet includes 1.5 million flex fuel motorcycles.[110][111][112] USDOE estimates that in 2009 only 504,297 flex-fuel vehicles were regularly fueled with E85 in the US.[49]

Ethanol fueling stations in the country
35,017 (100%)
2,749(1.6%)
As % of total gas stations in the country. Brazil by December 2007,[113] U.S. by May 2011.[14] (170,000 total.[44])

Ethanol's share within the gasoline market[5][114][115][116]
50%(5)
10%
As % of total consumption on a volumetric basis. Brazil as of April 2008. U.S. as of December 2010.

Cost of production (USD/US gallon)[99]
0.83
1.14
2006/2007 for Brazil (22¢/liter), 2004 for U.S. (35¢/liter)

Notes: (1) Assuming no land use change.[24] (2) Estimate is for U.S. consumption and sugarcane ethanol is imported from Brazil. Emissions from sea transport are included. Both estimates include land transport within the U.S.[105] (3) CARB estimate for Midwest corn ethanol. California's gasoline carbon intensity is 95.86 blended with 10% ethanol.[21][106] (4) Assuming direct land use change.[23] (5) If diesel-powered vehicles are included and due to ethanol's lower energy content by volume, bioethanol represented 16.9% of the road sector energy consumption in 2007.[117]

text: Environmental and social impact[edit]

text: Environmental effects[edit]

text: Energy balance and carbon intensity[edit]

text: Until 2008, several full life cycle ("Well to Wheels" or WTW) studies had found that corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions as  compared to gasoline. In 2007 a team led by Farrel from the University of California, Berkeley evaluated six previous studies and concluded corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by only 13 percent.[118][119][120] However, a more commonly cited figure is 20 to 30 percent, and an 85 to 85 percent reduction for cellulosic ethanol.[119][121] Both figures were estimated by Wang from Argonne National Laboratory, based on a comprehensive review of 22 studies conducted between 1979 and 2005, and simulations with Argonne's GREET model. All of these studies included direct land use changes.[120][122]

text: The reduction estimates on carbon intensity for a given biofuel depend on the assumptions regarding several variables, including crop productivity, agricultural practices, and distillery power source and energy efficiency. None of these studies considered the effects of indirect land-use changes, and though their impact was recognized, its estimation was considered too complex and more difficult to model than direct land use changes.[119][123]

text: Effects of land use change[edit]

text:
Summary of Searchinger et al. comparison of corn ethanol and gasoline GHG emissionswith and without land use change   (CO2 release rate (g/MJ))[24][124]

Fuel type(U.S.)
Carbonintensity
ReductionGHG
Carbonintensity + ILUC
ReductionGHG

Gasoline
92
-
92
-

Corn ethanol
74
-20%
177
+93%

Cellulosic ethanol
28
-70%
138
+50%

Notes: Calculated using default assumptions for 2015 scenario for ethanol in E85.Gasoline is a combination of conventional and reformulated gasoline.[124]

text: Two 2008 studies, both published in the same issue of Scienceexpress, questioned the previous assessments.[23][24][125] A team led by Searchinger from Princeton University concluded that once direct and indirect effect of land use changes (ILUC) are considered, both corn and cellulosic ethanol increased carbon emissions as compared to gasoline by 93 and 50 percent respectively.[24] The study limited the analysis to a 30-year time horizon, assuming that land conversion emitted 25 percent of the carbon stored in soils and all carbon in plants cleared for cultivation. Brazil, China and India were considered among the overseas locations where land use change would occur as a result of diverting U.S. corn cropland, and it was assumed that new cropland in each of these regions correspond to different types of forest, savanna or grassland based on the historical proportion of each natural land converted to cultivation in these countries during the 1990s.[24]

text: A team led by Fargione from The Nature Conservancy found that clearing natural lands for use as agricultural land to produce biofuel feedstock creates a carbon debt. Therefore, this carbon debt applies to both direct and indirect land use changes. The study examined six scenarios of wilderness conversion, Brazilian Amazon to soybean biodiesel, Brazilian Cerrado to soybean biodiesel, Brazilian Cerrado to sugarcane ethanol, Indonesian or Malaysian lowland tropical rainforest to palm biodiesel, Indonesian or Malaysian peatland tropical rainforest to oil palm forest, and U.S. Central grassland to corn ethanol.[23]

text: Low-carbon fuel standards[edit]

text: On April 23, 2009, the California Air Resources Board approved specific rules and carbon intensity reference values for the California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that was to go into effect on January 1, 2011.[126][127][128] The consultation process produced controversy regarding the inclusion and modeling of indirect land use change effects.[129][130][131][132][133] After the CARB's ruling, among other criticisms, representatives of the ethanol industry complained that the standard overstated the negative environmental effects of corn ethanol, and also criticized the inclusion of indirect effects of land-use changes as an unfair penalty to home-made corn ethanol because deforestation in the developing world had been tied to US ethanol production.[127][134][135][136][137][138][139] The emissions standard for 2011 for LCFS meant that Midwest corn ethanol would not meet the California standard unless current carbon intensity is reduced.[126][137][139][140]

text: A similar controversy arose after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on May 5, 2009, its notice of proposed rulemaking for the new Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).[141][142][143] EPA's proposal included the carbon footprint from indirect land-use changes.[144][145] On the same day, President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Directive with the aim to advance biofuel research and commercialization. The Directive asked a new Biofuels Interagency Working Group comprising  the Department of Agriculture, EPA, and DOE,[146][147] to develop a plan to increase flexible fuel vehicle use, assist in retail marketing and to coordinate infrastructure policies.

text: The group also was tasked to develop policy ideas for increasing investment in next-generation fuels, and for reducing biofuels' environmental footprint.[146][147][148]

text: In December 2009 two lobbying groups, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and Growth Energy, filed a lawsuit challenging LCFS' constitutionality. The two organizations argued that LCFS violates both the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, and "jeopardizes the nationwide market for ethanol."[149][150] In a press release the associations announced that “If the United States is going to have a low carbon fuel standard, it must be based on sound science and it must be consistent with the U.S. Constitution..."[151]

text: On February 3, 2010, EPA finalized the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) for 2010 and beyond.[152] EPA incorporated direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as emissions from land use changes along with comments and data from new studies.[153] Adopting a 30-year time horizon and a 0% discount rate[105] EPA declared that ethanol produced from corn starch at a new (or expanded capacity from an existing) natural gas-fired facility using approved technologies would be considered to comply with the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold.[153] Given average production conditions it expected for 2022, EPA estimated that corn ethanol would reduce GHGs an average of 21% compared to the 2005 gasoline baseline. A 95% confidence interval spans a 7-32% range reflecting uncertainty in the land use change assumptions.[105]

text: The following table summarizes the mean GHG emissions for ethanol using different feedstocks estimated by EPA modelling and the range of variations considering that the main source of uncertainty in the life cycle analysis is the GHG emissions related to international land use change.[154]

text:
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyLife cycle year 2022 GHG emissions reduction results for RFS2 final rule[154](includes direct and indirect land use change effects and a 30-year payback period at a 0% discount rate)

Renewable fuel pathway(for U.S. consumption)
MeanGHG emissionreduction(1)
GHG emissionreduction95% confidence interval(2)
Assumptions/comments

Corn ethanol
21%
7–32%
New or expanded natural gas fired dry mill plant, 37% wet and 63% dry DGS it produces, and employing corn oil fractionation technology.

Corn biobutanol
31%
20–40%
Natural gas fired dry mill plant, 37% wet and 63% dry DGS it produces, and employing corn oil fractionation technology.

Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass
110%
102–117%
Ethanol produced using the biochemical process.

Cellulosic ethanol from corn stover
129%
No ILUC
Ethanol produced using the biochemical process. Ethanol produced from agricultural residues does not have any indirect land use emissions.

Notes: (1) Percent reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions compared to the average lifecycle GHG for gasoline or diesel sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005.(2) Confidence range accounts for uncertainty in the types of land use change assumptions and the magnitude of resulting GHG emissions.

text: Water footprint[edit]

text: Water-related concerns relate to water supply and quality, and include availability and potential overuse, pollution, and possible contamination by fertilizers and pesticides. Several studies concluded that increased ethanol production was likely to result in a substantial increase in water pollution by fertilizers and pesticides, with the potential to exacerbate eutrophication and hypoxia, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.[155][156][157][158]

text: Growing feedstocks consumes most of the water associated with ethanol production. Corn consumes  from 500–2,000 litres (110–440 imp gal; 130–530 US gal) of water per liter of ethanol, mostly for evapotranspiration.[155] In general terms, both corn and switchgrass require less irrigation than other fuel crops. Corn is grown mainly in regions with adequate rainfall. However, corn usually needs to be irrigated in the drier climates of Nebraska and eastern Colorado. Further, corn production for ethanol is increasingly taking place in areas requiring irrigation.[155] A 2008 study by the National Research Council concluded that "in the longer term, the likely expansion of cellulosic biofuel production has the potential to further increase the demand for water resources in many parts of the United States. Biofuels expansion beyond current irrigated agriculture, especially in dry western areas, has the potential to greatly increase pressure on water resources in some areas."[156]

text: A 2009 study estimated that irrigated corn ethanol implied water consumption at between 50 US gal/mi (120 L/km) and 100 US gal/mi (240 L/km) for U.S. vehicles. This figure increased to 90 US gal/mi (210 L/km) for sorghum ethanol from Nebraska, and 115 US gal/mi (270 L/km) for Texas sorghum. By contrast, an average U.S. car effectively consumes between 0.2 US gal/mi (0.47 L/km) to 0.5 US gal/mi (1.2 L/km) running on gasoline, including extraction and refining.[157]

text: In 2010 RFA argued that more efficient water technologies and pre-treated water could reduce consumption.[90] It further claimed that non-conventional oil "sources, such as tar sands and oil shale, require far more water than conventional petroleum extraction and refining."[90]

text: U.S. standard agricultural practices for most crops employ fertilizers that provide nitrogen and phosphorus along with herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and other pesticides.

text: Some part of these chemicals leaves the field. Nitrogen in forms such as nitrate (NO3) is highly soluble, and along with some pesticides infiltrates downwards toward the water table, where it can migrate to water wells, rivers and streams. A 2008 National Research Council study found that regionally the highest stream concentrations occur where the rates of application were highest, and that these rates were highest in the Corn Belt. These flows mainly stem from corn, which as of 2010 was the major source of total nitrogen loading to the Mississippi River.[156]

text: Several studies found that corn ethanol production contributed to the worsening of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. The nitrogen leached into the Mississippi River and out into the Gulf, where it fed giant algae blooms. As the algae died, it settled to the ocean floor and decayed, consuming oxygen and suffocating marine life, causing hypoxia. This oxygen depletion killed shrimp, crabs, worms and anything else that could not escape, and affected important shrimp fishing grounds.[155][156][158]

text: Social implications[edit]

text: Effect on food prices[edit]

text: Some environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, expressed fears that the marketplace would convert crops to fuel for the rich, while the poor starved and biofuels caused environmental problems.[125][159][160][161][162] The food vs fuel debate grew in 2008 as a result of the international community's concerns regarding the steep increase in food prices. On April 2008, Jean Ziegler, back then United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeated his claim that biofuels were a "crime against humanity",[163][164] echoing his October 2007 call for a 5-year ban for the conversion of land for the production of biofuels.[165][166] Also in April 2008, World Bank President Robert Zoellick stated that "While many worry about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs. And it's getting more and more difficult every day."[167][168][169]

text: A July 2008 World Bank report[170] found that from June 2002 to June 2008 "biofuels and the related consequences of low grain stocks, large land use shifts, speculative activity and export bans" accounted for 70–75% of total price rises. The study found that higher oil prices and a weak dollar explain 25–30% of total price rise. The study said that "...large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices."[171][172] The report argued that increased production of biofuels in these developed regions was supported by subsidies and tariffs, and claimed that without such policies, food price increases worldwide would have been smaller. It also concluded that Brazil's sugarcane ethanol had not raised sugar prices significantly, and recommended that both the U.S. and E.U. remove tariffs, including on many African countries.[170]

text: An RFA rebuttal said that the World Bank analysis was highly subjective and that the author considered only "the impact of global food prices from the weak dollar and the direct and indirect effect of high petroleum prices and attribute[d] everything else to biofuels."[173]

text: A 2010 World Bank study concluded that its previous study may have overestimated the impact, as "the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called ”financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike."[174]

text: A July 2008 OECD economic assessment[175] agreed about the negative effects of subsidies and trade restrictions, but found that the impact of biofuels on food prices was much smaller. The OECD study found that existing biofuel support policies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no more than 0.8 percent by 2015. It called for more open markets in biofuels and feedstocks to improve efficiency and lower costs. The OECD study concluded that "...current biofuel support measures alone are estimated to increase average wheat prices by about 5 percent, maize by around 7 percent and vegetable oil by about 19 percent over the next 10 years."[176]

text: The 2008 financial crisis illustrated corn ethanol's limited impact on corn prices, which fell 50% from their July 2008 high by October 2008, in tandem with other commodities, including oil, while corn ethanol production continued unabated. "Analysts, including some in the ethanol sector, say ethanol demand adds about 75 cents to $1.00 per bushel to the price of corn, as a rule of thumb. Other analysts say it adds around 20 percent, or just under 80 cents per bushel at current prices. Those estimates hint that $4 per bushel corn might be priced at only $3 without demand for ethanol fuel.".[177]


document_title: Billy Vera

question_text: who sings theme song for king of queens

question_tokens: who sings theme song for king of queens

root

text: Billy Vera

text: Life and career[edit]

text: Vera was born in Riverside, California, and is the son of the radio and television announcer Bill McCord. His mother, singer Ann Ryan, was a member of the Ray Charles Singers backing Perry Como on his TV show and his hit records.

tag: p

text: He began his recording career in 1962 as a member of the Resolutions followed by the regional hit "My Heart Cries"/"All My Love" as Billy Vera & the Contrasts. He went on to a songwriting career in the 1960s, writing for Barbara Lewis, Fats Domino, The Shirelles and Ricky Nelson. He also wrote the garage band classic "Don't Look Back", performed by the Remains and later covered by Robert Plant.

text: In 1967 Vera, with Chip Taylor, penned "Storybook Children" and brought it to Atlantic Records. The groundbreaking decision to place former gospel singer Judy Clay with Vera in a white-black duet to record the song was a commercial and artistic success.[2] The duo became big favorites at Harlem's Apollo Theater and their follow-up, "Country Girl-City Man" also charted. He had a solo hit single later that same year with the Bobby Goldsboro penned "With Pen in Hand", which was also the name of his next album.

text: 1970s thru 1990s[edit]

text: The 1970s were a slow period for Vera but 1979 began with his song "I Really Got the Feeling," a number 1 hit for Dolly Parton. During that decade he served as conductor for many oldies acts, including the Shirelles and Ronnie Spector as well as fronting the band at the 1972 Reunion concert of Dion & the Belmonts. Before moving to Los Angeles in 1979, he played many New York area clubs with his band which included Ben Beckley on drums, Tommy Wolk on bass, John Levanthal on guitar, and Joe Renda on keyboards.

text: Living in Los Angeles and writing songs for Warner Bros. Records, Vera and his old friend, bass player Chuck Fiore decided to put together a band to play the local club scene. Modeling their band on Ray Charles's 1950s band, The Beaters were born. They featured a horn section, as well as a pedal steel guitar, along with drums, piano, Fiore's bass, and Vera on guitar and vocals. As a result of the buzz the band generated from their now-legendary Monday midnight shows at the Troubadour, they were offered a recording contract by Alfa Records, a major Japanese record company that had recently opened an American office in Los Angeles. They recorded the band live,[3] at the Roxy and in 1981 yielded the minor hits "I Can Take Care of Myself," which reached number 39 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the U.S., and "At This Moment", which (initially) charted at number 79. Both songs were credited as Billy & The Beaters.

text: The band's record deal evaporated when Alfa Records closed its U.S. offices in July 1982, but Vera and the Beaters continued to play the clubs of Southern California. In 1985, a producer from the television show Family Ties was in the audience and heard the band play "At This Moment". The song was featured in 1985 as a backdrop for romantic interludes between characters Alex (Michael J. Fox) and Ellen (Tracy Pollan). Viewers responded by clamoring for the song, and in 1986, Rhino Records released By Request: The Best of Billy Vera & the Beaters, which featured the song. The single became a number one hit on its re-release,[4] reaching the top in January 1987, and remained on the charts for 15 weeks.

text: Before "At This Moment," Vera had a small career in movies and television including appearances in The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai, Late for Dinner, The Doors and soap opera Days of Our Lives. "At This Moment" propelled his movie career as he and the Beaters were featured prominently in the Bruce Willis movie Blind Date. He appeared in one episode of a TV series, Wiseguy and had several other roles on shows such as Baywatch, Boy Meets World, and a recurring role as Duke on Beverly Hills, 90210 as well as nine appearances on The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson. These roles would lead him into singing theme songs for TV shows, such as Empty Nest and The King of Queens, as well as voice acting on Cartoon Network cartoons. He served as band leader on Rick Dees' short-lived late-night talk show Into the Night on ABC in 1990.

text: During that period, Vera co-produced three Lou Rawls albums with his friend Michael Cuscuna, for Blue Note Records, including At Last, which reached number 1 on the Billboard jazz chart. Vera also produced Rawls's final album, Rawls Sings Sinatra, which remained on the jazz chart for over six months.[5] Rawls recorded seven of Vera's songs, including "If I Were A Magician" (1989), "Room With A View" and "You Can't Go Home". In 1990, Vera's tune "Papa Come Quick (Jody & Chico)" was included on Bonnie Raitt's album, Luck Of The Draw. Vera also recorded as a duo with Nona Hendryx on the 1992 album You Have To Cry Some Time.[2]

text: 2000s and 2010s[edit]

text: Currently the Beaters are still playing the Southern California club scene, and Vera continues his work as a music historian. He has helped produce, archive, and write liner notes for over 200 reissue albums and sets, from artists such as Little Richard, Sam Cooke, Louis Jordan, Ray Charles, Louis Prima, among others.[citation needed]

text: Vera has been the voice for AM/PM Mini Mart commercials since 1999 and is one of the top voice-over artists in Los Angeles. "At This Moment" was included on Michael Bublé's number one album, Crazy Love. Vera's CD Hopeless Romantic: The Best Of Billy Vera & The Beaters, was issued on Shout Factory Records, and The Billy Vera Story was released on Rock Beat Records. With his old friend Evie Sands, Billy recorded "Queen of Diamonds/Jack of Hearts," a CD featuring songs by their early mentor Chip Taylor.[citation needed]

text: In 2015, Vera released Billy Vera: Big Band Jazz, a tribute to the black songwriters of the 1920s, 30s and 40s. It was issued on Varese-Sarabande Records, and Vera has appeared with a big 18 piece band in New York City, Hollywood and at various jazz festivals.[6]

text: Vera also has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at the corner of Vine Street and Yucca Street, right in front of the Capitol Records Building in Hollywood. He won a 2013 Grammy Award for Best Album Notes for the Ray Charles box set Singular Genius: The Complete ABC Singles".[7]

text: Book publishing came calling and in 2016 his first effort, Vintage Neon: Los Angeles, 1979, featuring photographs from Vera's nocturnal hunts for old neon signs was released. His second book, a memoir entitled Harlem to Hollywood was released in 2017. Reviews hailed it as "an astounding story...the purest treatise on the subject ever produced." Award winning documentarian Alan Swyer has directed a documentary on Billy Vera, also titled Harlem to Hollywood due out this year.

text: Discography[edit]

text: Chart singles[edit]

text:
Year
Single
Chart Positions

US Pop[8]
US AC
US
R&B[9]
US
Country[10]
CAN
CAN AC
NL

1967
"Storybook Children"
Billy Vera & Judy Clay
54
-
20
-
-
15
-

1968
"Country Girl - City Man"
Billy Vera & Judy Clay
36
-
41
-
-
-
-

"When Do We Go"
Billy Vera & Judy Clay
107
-
-
-
-
-
-

"With Pen in Hand"
43
25
-
-
12
-
-

"I've Been Loving You Too Long"
121
-
-
-
-
-
-

1969
"The Bible Salesman"
112
-
-
-
-
-
-

1981
"I Can Take Care of Myself"
Billy & The Beaters
39
-
-
-
-
-
-

"At This Moment"
Billy & The Beaters
79
-
-
-
-
-
-

1987
"At This Moment"
Billy Vera & The Beaters (reissue)
1
1
70
42
1
1
26

"She Ain't Johnnie"
-
-
-
93
-
-
-

1988
"Between Like and Love"
-
9
-
-
70
6
-

1992
"Something Like Never Before"
-
-
-
-
-
-
53

text: Albums[edit]

text:
Storybook Children (with Judy Clay, Atlantic, 1968)
With Pen In Hand (Atlantic, 1968)
Out Of The Darkness (Midsong International, 1977)
Billy & the Beaters (Alfa, 1981) (US #118)
Billy Vera (Alfa, 1982)
The Billy Vera Album (Macola, 1977 - re-released 1987)
By Requestː The Best of Billy Vera and the Beaters (Rhino, 1987) (US #17, CAN #13)
Retro Nuevo (Billy & the Beaters, Capitol, 1988)
You Have To Cry Sometime (with Nona Hendryx, Shanachie, 1992)
Out of the Darkness (Unidisc, 1994)
Oh What a Night (Billy & the Beaters, Pool Party, 1996)
Not For Sale (Billy Vera, Chance, 1999)
Something Like Nothing Before (Classic World Productions, 2002)
At This Moment: A Retrospective (Varese-Sarabande, 2002)
Hopeless Romantic: The Best of Billy Vera & the Beaters (Shout! Factory, 2008)
The Billy Vera Story (Rock Beat, 2011)
Big Band Jazz (Billy Vera, Varese-Sarabande, 2015)

text: TV show theme songs[edit]

text:
"Life Goes On", Empty Nest (TV series)
"Answers", Roomies (TV series)
"You've Got Me", Baja Oklahoma (TV movie)
"Baby All My Life I Will Be Driving Home To You", The King of Queens


document_title: Political correctness

question_text: when was the term political correctness first used

text: Political correctness

text: History[edit]

text: The term "politically correct" was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage. In 1793, the term "politically correct" appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political lawsuit.[25] The term also had use in other English-speaking countries in the 1800s.[26] William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the typical modern sense is by Toni Cade Bambara in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.[27][clarification needed] The term probably entered use in the United Kingdom around 1975.[8][clarification needed]

text: Early-to-mid 20th century[edit]

text: In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase "politically correct" was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between Communist Party members and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line, which provided "correct" positions on many political matters. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

text: The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

text: In the 1970s, the American New Left began using the term "politically correct".[28] In the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that "a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too." Thereafter, the term was often used as self-critical satire. Debra L. Shultz said that "throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives... used their term 'politically correct' ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts."[4][28][29] PC is used in the comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, which was followed by the term ideologically sound, in the comic strips of Bart Dickon.[28][30] In her essay "Toward a feminist Revolution" (1992) Ellen Willis said: "In the early eighties, when feminists used the term 'political correctness', it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement's efforts to define a 'feminist sexuality'."[31]

text: Stuart Hall suggests one way in which the original use of the term may have developed into the modern one:

text: According to one version, political correctness actually began as an in-joke on the left: radical students on American campuses acting out an ironic replay of the Bad Old Days BS (Before the Sixties) when every revolutionary groupuscule had a party line about everything. They would address some glaring examples of sexist or racist behaviour by their fellow students in imitation of the tone of voice of the Red Guards or Cultural Revolution Commissar: "Not very 'politically correct', Comrade!"[32]

text: 1980s and 1990s[edit]

text: Critics, including Camille Paglia[33] and James Atlas,[34] have pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind[15] as the likely beginning of the modern debate – about what was soon named "political correctness" – in American higher education.[4][6][16][35] Professor of English literary and cultural studies at CMU Jeffrey J. Williams wrote that the "assault on...political correctness that simmered through the Reagan years, gained bestsellerdom with Bloom's Closing of the American Mind." [36] According to Z.F. Gamson, "Bloom's Closing of the American Mind...attacked the faculty for 'political correctness'."[37] Prof. of Social Work at CSU Tony Platt goes further and says the "campaign against 'political correctness'" was launched by the book in 1987.[38]

text: A word search of six "regionally representative Canadian metropolitan newspapers", found only 153 articles in which the terms "politically correct" or "political correctness" appeared between 1 January 1987 and 27 October 1990.[12]

text: An October 1990 New York Times article by Richard Bernstein is credited with popularizing the term.[11][13][14][39][40] At this time, the term was mainly being used within academia: "Across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities".[9] Nexis citations in "arcnews/curnews" reveal only seventy total citations in articles to "political correctness" for 1990; but one year later, Nexis records 1532 citations, with a steady increase to more than 7000 citations by 1994.[39][41] In May 1991, The New York Times had a follow-up article, according to which the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena:

text: What has come to be called "political correctness," a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life.

text: The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[5][42] Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as "politically correct".[17] In May 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, then U.S. President George H.W. Bush used the term in his speech: "The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits."[43]

text: After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US.[5] It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term "thought police" in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which "captured the press's imagination."[5] Similar critical terminology was used by D'Souza for a range of policies in academia around victimization, supporting multiculturalism through affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority hate speech, and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as "canon busting").[5][44][not in citation given] These trends were at least in part a response to multiculturalism and the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received funding from conservative foundations and think tanks such as the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded several books such as D'Souza's.[4][17]

text: Herbert Kohl, in 1992, commented that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term "politically correct" in the early 1990s were former Communist Party members, and, as a result, familiar with the Marxist use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended "to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic."[3]

text: During the 1990s, conservative and right-wing politicians, think-tanks, and speakers adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideological enemies – especially in the context of the Culture Wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed Frederick Crews's view that PC is best described as "Left Eclecticism", a term defined by Kimball as "any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought from structuralism and poststructuralism, deconstruction, and Lacanian analyst to feminist, homosexual, black, and other patently political forms of criticism."[18][36] Jan Narveson wrote that "that phrase was born to live between scare-quotes: it suggests that the operative considerations in the area so called are merely political, steamrolling the genuine reasons of principle for which we ought to be acting..."[2]

text: In the American Speech journal article "Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming" (1996), Edna Andrews said that the usage of culturally inclusive and gender-neutral language is based upon the concept that "language represents thought, and may even control thought".[45] Andrews' proposition is conceptually derived from the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis, which proposes that the grammatical categories of a language shape the ideas, thoughts, and actions of the speaker. Moreover, Andrews said that politically moderate conceptions of the language–thought relationship suffice to support the "reasonable deduction ... [of] cultural change via linguistic change" reported in the Sex Roles journal article "Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Attitudes Toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language" (2000), by Janet B. Parks and Mary Ann Robinson.[citation needed]

text: Liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination – such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality – against people whom conservatives do not consider part of the social mainstream.[4][20][46] Commenting in 2001, one such British journalist,[47][48] Polly Toynbee, said "the phrase is an empty, right-wing smear, designed only to elevate its user", and, in 2010, "the phrase 'political correctness' was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer".[49] Another British journalist, Will Hutton,[50] wrote in 2001:

text: Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid–1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism.... What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism – by levelling the charge of "political correctness" against its exponents – they could discredit the whole political project.

text: Glenn Loury described the situation in 1994 as such:

text: To address the subject of "political correctness," when power and authority within the academic community is being contested by parties on either side of that issue, is to invite scrutiny of one's arguments by would-be "friends" and "enemies." Combatants from the left and the right will try to assess whether a writer is "for them" or "against them."

text: Modern usage[edit]

text: Media[edit]

text: In the US, the term has been widely used in the intellectual media, but in Britain, usage has been confined mainly to the popular press.[52] Many such authors and popular-media figures, particularly on the right, have used the term to criticize what they see as bias in the media.[2][17] William McGowan argues that journalists get stories wrong or ignore stories worthy of coverage, because of what McGowan perceives to be their liberal ideologies and their fear of offending minority groups.[53] Robert Novak, in his essay "Political Correctness Has No Place in the Newsroom", used the term to blame newspapers for adopting language use policies that he thinks tend to excessively avoid the appearance of bias. He argued that political correctness in language not only destroys meaning but also demeans the people who are meant to be protected.[54] Authors David Sloan and Emily Hoff claim that in the US, journalists shrug off concerns about political correctness in the newsroom, equating the political correctness criticisms with the old "liberal media bias" label.[55]

text: Jessica Pinta and Joy Yakubu caution against political incorrectness in media and other uses, writing in the Journal of Educational and Social Research: "...linguistic constructs influence our way of thinking negatively, peaceful coexistence is threatened and social stability is jeopardized." What may result, they add as example "the effect of political incorrect use of language" in some historical occurrences:

text: Conflicts were recorded in Northern Nigeria as a result of insensitive use of language. In Kaduna for instance violence broke out on the 16th November 2002 following an article credited to one Daniel Isioma which was published in “This Day” Newspaper, where the writer carelessly made a remark about the Prophet Mohammed and the beauty queens of the Miss World Beauty Pageant that was to be hosted in the Country that year (Terwase n.d). In this crisis, He reported that over 250 people were killed and churches destroyed. In the same vein, crisis erupted on 18th February 2006 in Borno because of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in Iyllands-posten Newspaper (Terwase n.d). Here over 50 people were killed and 30 churches burnt.

text: Education[edit]

text: Much of the modern debate on the term was sparked by conservative critiques of liberal bias in academia and education,[4] and conservatives have used it as a major line of attack since.[5] University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate connect speech codes in US universities to philosopher Herbert Marcuse. They claim that speech codes create a "climate of repression", arguing that they are based on "Marcusean logic". The speech codes, "mandate a redefined notion of "freedom", based on the belief that the imposition of a moral agenda on a community is justified", a view which, "requires less emphasis on individual rights and more on assuring "historically oppressed" persons the means of achieving equal rights." They claim:

text: Our colleges and universities do not offer the protection of fair rules, equal justice, and consistent standards to the generation that finds itself on our campuses. They encourage students to bring charges of harassment against those whose opinions or expressions "offend" them. At almost every college and university, students deemed members of "historically oppressed groups" – above all, women, blacks, gays, and Hispanics – are informed during orientation that their campuses are teeming with illegal or intolerable violations of their "right" not to be offended. Judging from these warnings, there is a racial or sexual bigot, to borrow the mocking phrase of McCarthy's critics, "under every bed."[57]

text: Kors and Silverglate later established the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which campaigns against infringement of rights of due process, in particular "speech codes".[58][unreliable source?] Similarly, a common conservative criticism of higher education in the United States is that the political views of the faculty are much more liberal than the general population, and that this situation contributes to an atmosphere of political correctness.[59][how?]

text: Jessica Pinta and Joy Yakubu write that political correctness is useful in education, in the Journal of Educational and Social Research:

text: Political correctness is a useful area of consideration when using English language particularly in second language situations. This is because both social and cultural contexts of language are taken into consideration. Zabotkina (1989) says political correctness is not only an essential, but an interesting area of study in English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. This is because it presents language as used in carrying out different speech acts which provoke reactions as it can persuade, incite, complain, condemn, and disapprove. Language is used for communication and creating social linkages, as such must be used communicatively. Using language communicatively involves the ability to use language at the grammatical level, sociolinguistic level, discourse and strategic levels (Canale & Swain 1980). Understanding language use at these levels center around the fact that differences exist among people, who must communicate with one another, and the differences could be religious, cultural, social, racial, gender or even ideological. Therefore, using language to suit the appropriate culture and context is of great significance.

text: Science[edit]

text: Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have said that PC liberal orthodoxy of academia is the reason why their perspectives of those matters have been rejected by the scientific community.[60] For example, in Lamarck's Signature: How Retrogenes are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm (1999), Prof. Edward J. Steele said:

text: We now stand on the threshold of what could be an exciting new era of genetic research.... However, the 'politically correct' thought agendas of the neo–Darwinists of the 1990s are ideologically opposed to the idea of 'Lamarckian Feedback', just as the Church was opposed to the idea of evolution based on natural selection in the 1850s![61]

text: Zoologists Robert Pitman and Susan Chivers complained about popular and media negativity towards their discovery of two different types of killer whales, a "docile" type and a "wilder" type that ravages sperm whales by hunting in packs: "The forces of political correctness and media marketing seem bent on projecting an image of a more benign form (the Free Willy or Shamu model), and some people urge exclusive use of the name 'orca' for the species, instead of what is perceived as the more sinister label of "killer whale."[62]

text: Stephen Morris, an economist and a game theorist, built a game model on the concept of political correctness, where "a speaker (advisor) communicates with the objective of conveying information, but the listener (decision maker) is initially unsure if the speaker is biased. There were three main insights from that model. First, in any informative equilibrium, certain statements will lower the reputation of the speaker, independent of whether they turn out to be true. Second, if reputational concerns are sufficiently important, no information is conveyed in equilibrium. Third, while instrumental reputational concerns might arise for many reasons, a sufficient reason is that speakers wish to be listened to." The Economist commented: "Mr Morris's model suggests that the incentive to be politically correct fades as society's population of racists, to take his example, falls."[63]

text: Conservative political correctness[edit]

text: "Political correctness" is a label typically used for liberal terms and actions, but not for equivalent attempts to mold language and behavior on the right.[64] However, the term "right-wing political correctness" is sometimes applied by commentators,[65] especially when drawing parallels: in 1995, one author used the term "conservative correctness" arguing, in relation to higher education, that "critics of political correctness show a curious blindness when it comes to examples of conservative correctness. Most often, the case is entirely ignored or censorship of the Left is justified as a positive virtue. [...] A balanced perspective was lost, and everyone missed the fact that people on all sides were sometimes censored."[21]

text: In 2003, the Dixie Chicks, a U.S. country music group, criticized the then U.S. President George W. Bush for launching the war against Iraq.[66] Some conservative US commentators (including Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly) said they were treasonous.[22] Three years later, claiming that at the time "a virulent strain of right wing political correctness [had] all but shut down debate about the war in Iraq," journalist Don Williams wrote that "[the ongoing] campaign against the Chicks represents political correctness run amok" and observed, "the ugliest form of political correctness occurs whenever there's a war on."[22]

text: In 2003, French fries and French toast were renamed "Freedom fries" and "Freedom toast" in three U.S. House of Representatives cafeterias in response to France's opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq; this was described as "polluting the already confused concept of political correctness."[67] In 2004, then Australian Labor leader Mark Latham described conservative calls for "civility" in politics as "the new political correctness."[68]

text: In 2012, Paul Krugman wrote: "the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which – unlike the liberal version – has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order."[23]

text: In a 2015 Harris poll it was found that "Republicans are almost twice as likely – 42 percent vs. 23 percent – as Democrats to say that “there are any books that should be banned completely.”...Republicans were also more likely to say that some video games, movies and television programs should be banned."[69]

text: After Mike Pence was booed at a November 2016 performance of Hamilton, president-elect Trump called it harassment and asked for "safe place".[70] Chrissy Teigen commented that it was "the very thing him and his supporters make fun of as liberal political correctness."[71]

text: Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute defined the right's own version of political correctness as “patriotic correctness”.[72] Vox editor Dara Lind summarized the definition as "a brand of right-wing hypersensitivity that gets just as offended by insults to American pride and patriotism (like protests against the president-elect or “The Star-Spangled Banner”) as any college activist gets over insults to diversity."[73] Jim Geraghty of National Review replied to Nowrasteh, stating that "There is no right-wing equivalent to political correctness."[74][why?]

text: 2016 US presidential election[edit]

text: In 2015 and 2016, leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, Republican candidate Donald Trump used political correctness as a common target in his rhetoric.[73][75][76] According to Trump, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were willing to let ordinary Americans suffer because their first priority was political correctness.[77]

text: In a column for the Huffington Post, Eric Mink characterized Trump's concept of "political correctness":

text: Political correctness is a controversial social force in a nation with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, and it raises legitimate issues well worth discussing and debating. But that’s not what Trump is doing. He’s not a rebel speaking unpopular truths to power. He’s not standing up for honest discussions of deeply contentious issues. He’s not out there defying rules handed down by elites to control what we say. All Trump’s defying is common decency.[76]

text: In the light of the sexual assault allegations and the criticism the alleged victims faced from Trump supporters, Vox notes that after railing so much against political correctness they simply practice a different kind of repression and shaming: "If the pre–“political correctness” era was really so open, why is it only now that these women are speaking out?"[78] Following the 2016 election, LA Times columnist Jessica Roy wrote that "political correctness" is one of the terms used by the American alt-right.[79]

text: As a conspiracy theory[edit]

text: Some conservative commentators in the West argue that "political correctness" and multiculturalism are part of a conspiracy with the ultimate goal of undermining Judeo-Christian values. This theory, which holds that political correctness originates from the critical theory of the Frankfurt School as part of a conspiracy that its proponents call "Cultural Marxism", is generally known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory by academics.[80] The theory originated with Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'", published in a Lyndon LaRouche movement journal.[81] In 2001, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote in The Death of the West that "political correctness is cultural Marxism", and that "its trademark is intolerance".[82]

text: False accusations[edit]

text: In the United States, left forces of "political correctness" have been blamed for censorship, with Time citing campaigns against violence on network television as contributing to a "mainstream culture [which] has become cautious, sanitized, scared of its own shadow" because of "the watchful eye of the p.c. police", even though in John Wilson's view protests and advertiser boycotts targeting TV shows are generally organized by right-wing religious groups campaigning against violence, sex, and depictions of homosexuality on television.[83]

text: In the United Kingdom, some newspapers reported that a nursery school had altered the nursery rhyme "Baa Baa Black Sheep" to read "Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep" and had banned the original.[84] But it was later reported that in fact the Parents and Children Together (PACT) nursery had the children "turn the song into an action rhyme.... They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep etc."[85] This story was widely circulated and later extended to suggest that other language bans applied to the terms "black coffee" and "blackboard".[86] Private Eye magazine reported that similar stories had been published in the British press since The Sun first ran them in 1986.[87]

text: Satirical use[edit]

text: Political correctness is often satirized, for example in The PC Manifesto (1992) by Saul Jerushalmy and Rens Zbignieuw X,[88] and Politically Correct Bedtime Stories (1994) by James Finn Garner, which presents fairy tales re-written from an exaggerated politically correct perspective. In 1994, the comedy film PCU took a look at political correctness on a college campus.

text: Other examples include the television program Politically Incorrect, George Carlin’s "Euphemisms" routine, and The Politically Correct Scrapbook.[89] The popularity of the South Park cartoon program led to the creation of the term "South Park Republican" by Andrew Sullivan, and later the book South Park Conservatives by Brian C. Anderson.[90] In its Season 19 (2015), South Park poked fun at the principle of political correctness, embodied in the show's new character, PC Principal.[91]

text: The Colbert Report's host Stephen Colbert often talked, satirically, about the "PC Police".[92]

text: Usage in selected regions[edit]

text: Canada[edit]

text: Graham Good, an academic at the University of British Columbia, wrote that the term was widely used in debates on university education in Canada. Writing about a 1995 report on the Political Science department at his university, he concluded: "Political correctness" has become a popular phrase because it catches a certain kind of self-righteous and judgmental tone in some and a pervasive anxiety in others – who, fearing that they may do something wrong, adjust their facial expressions, and pause in their speech to make sure they are not doing or saying anything inappropriate. The climate this has created on campuses is at least as bad in Canada as in the United States.[93]

text: Hong Kong[edit]

text: In Hong Kong, as the 1997 handover drew nearer, greater control over the press was exercised by both owners and the Chinese state. This had a direct impact on news coverage of relatively sensitive political issues. The Chinese authorities exerted pressure on individual newspapers to take pro-Beijing stances on controversial issues.[94] Tung Chee-hwa's policy advisers and senior bureaucrats increasingly linked their actions and remarks to "political correctness." Zhaojia Liu and Siu-kai Lau, writing in The first Tung Chee-hwa administration : the first five years of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, said that "Hong Kong has traditionally been characterized as having freedom of speech and freedom of press, but that an unintended consequence of emphasizing political 'correctness' is to limit the space for such freedom of expression."[95]

text: New Zealand[edit]

text: In New Zealand, controversies over PC surfaced during the 1990s regarding the social studies school curriculum.[96][97]

text: Use in research[edit]

text: According to ThinkProgress, the "ongoing conversation about P.C. often relies on anecdotal evidence rather than data".[98] In 2014, researchers at Cornell University reported that political correctness increased creativity in mixed-sex work teams,[99] saying "the effort to be P.C. can be justified not merely on moral grounds but also by the practical and potentially profitable consequences."[98][clarification needed]