India’s debate over E20 petrol has taken a new turn after Chief Economic Adviser V Anantha Nageswaran and Department of Economic Affairs consultant Akash Poojari argued that older two-wheelers could be allowed to use E10 petrol.
Their larger concern, however, goes beyond the compatibility of ethanol-blended fuel with ageing vehicles. In a column published in The Indian Express, the two authors have questioned whether India should increase ethanol blending beyond 20% without first examining its impact on food supplies, farmland, water use and agricultural patterns.
The column is important because it brings the food-versus-fuel debate into the centre of India’s ethanol policy at a time when E20 petrol is already being used across the country.
What Is E20 Petrol?
E20 refers to petrol containing 20% ethanol and 80% petrol.
India has rapidly increased ethanol blending in petrol as part of its efforts to reduce dependence on imported crude oil.
The government has promoted ethanol because it can help reduce crude oil imports, save foreign exchange and create an additional market for farmers and ethanol producers.
However, producing more ethanol also means that India needs more raw materials, including sugarcane, maize, rice and other grains.
This is where the latest concern begins.
Why Is the Government’s Chief Economic Adviser Raising the Food-Versus-Fuel Issue?
Nageswaran and Poojari argue that if India eventually moves from E20 towards higher blends such as E27 or E30, the country will need significantly more ethanol.
That additional ethanol has to come from somewhere.
If more agricultural crops are diverted towards fuel production, fewer resources could potentially remain available for food, animal feed or other industrial uses.
The authors therefore argue that policymakers need to calculate the wider economic cost before increasing the ethanol target further.
They warn that “fuel begins to crowd out food” when agricultural resources increasingly move towards energy production.
Why Is Maize Important in This Debate?
Maize is particularly important because it has multiple uses.
Apart from being used as an ethanol feedstock, maize is an important ingredient in poultry and livestock feed.
If ethanol producers increase their demand for maize, competition for the crop could increase.
That could affect its price and availability and potentially influence what farmers decide to grow.
In simple terms, the same crop could be competing to serve two different purposes — feeding people and animals or producing fuel for vehicles.
The CEA’s column argues that both uses need to be considered when calculating the actual benefits of ethanol blending.
What Happens If Sugarcane Use for Ethanol Is Reduced?
Sugarcane presents another part of the problem.
The government has also been examining the use of sugarcane for ethanol amid concerns about domestic sugar supplies and prices.
But reducing sugarcane-based ethanol production does not automatically reduce India’s need for ethanol if the country continues to maintain an E20 petrol blend.
The ethanol would still have to come from another source.
That could mean greater dependence on maize and other grains.
This creates a chain reaction: reducing one feedstock can increase pressure on another.
That is why the CEA column argues that policymakers need to examine the entire agricultural system rather than looking at individual crops separately.
The Other Major Issue: Water
The debate is not only about food.
It is also about water.
The environmental and economic benefits of ethanol are usually discussed in terms of reduced crude oil imports, foreign exchange savings, emissions and potential benefits for farmers.
But producing the crops used for ethanol also requires water.
The authors argue that policymakers need to look beyond the water consumed inside an ethanol plant and consider the water required to grow the crops that eventually become ethanol.
This is particularly important for crops such as sugarcane, which require substantial amounts of water.
Why Could Higher Ethanol Blending Become Difficult to Reverse?
One of the strongest arguments in the column concerns long-term agricultural changes.
If farmers begin changing their cropping patterns because ethanol creates a large and reliable market, the change may not be easy to reverse.
Similarly, industries may invest in distilleries and other infrastructure based on expectations of continued ethanol demand.
The authors warn:
“Once land and water are committed to fuel, and distilleries and cropping patterns are built around it, pulling back can be painful.”
In other words, increasing ethanol production could create an economic system that becomes difficult to change later.
What About Older Bikes? Why Is E10 Being Suggested?
The immediate recommendation from Nageswaran and Poojari concerns older two-wheelers.
They estimate that around 75 million to 80 million older two-wheelers, particularly pre-BS-IV vehicles equipped with carburettors, are still operating in India.
The authors distinguish these older vehicles from newer vehicles designed and tested with higher ethanol blends in mind.
What Is the Problem With Carburettor Bikes?
Older motorcycles and scooters often use carburettors to regulate the air-fuel mixture.
According to the column, a carburettor cannot automatically detect the additional oxygen associated with higher ethanol content and adjust the fuel mixture in the same way a modern electronic fuel-injection system can.
This can potentially result in a leaner air-fuel mixture, which may cause the engine to operate at higher temperatures.
The authors also point to older rubber components that may not have been designed specifically for ethanol-blended petrol.
Does E20 Damage Every Old Vehicle?
No. The argument presented by the authors is more specific.
They do not claim that E20 automatically causes widespread engine damage in every older vehicle.
Instead, they identify particular concerns for older carburettor-equipped vehicles and ageing components.
They also note that retrofitting older vehicles with ethanol-compatible parts is possible.
The difficulty is the enormous size of India’s older vehicle fleet and the amount of time and effort required to retrofit tens of millions of vehicles.
Why Bring Back E10?
The proposed solution is to make E10 petrol available for older two-wheelers alongside E20.
Under this approach, newer vehicles could continue using E20 while owners of older motorcycles and scooters could have access to a lower ethanol blend.
The authors argue that this would give owners of older vehicles more time to upgrade or retrofit their vehicles.
It could also reduce the total amount of ethanol India needs compared with forcing the entire vehicle fleet to operate on E20.
Is the Government Planning to Bring Back E10?
The CEA’s column should not be interpreted as a government announcement that E10 is being restored nationwide.
E20 remains the government’s policy.
The government has defended E20 after testing and has said there is no evidence of widespread engine damage caused by the fuel.
It has also argued against creating a nationwide system where consumers can freely choose between different petrol blends, citing the additional logistical and distribution challenges that such a system could create.
Therefore, the E10 proposal currently represents an argument put forward by Nageswaran and Poojari in their column, rather than a confirmed change in the national fuel policy.
Another Column Has Questioned Ethanol’s Benefits
The broader debate has also appeared in other opinion pieces.
In a July 10 India Today column titled “The ethanol statistics that cannot stand up”, in-house columnist and satirist Kamlesh Singh, popularly known as Tau of Teen Taal, questioned some of the headline claims surrounding ethanol blending.
His argument focused on whether calculations of ethanol’s benefits adequately account for inputs such as fertilisers, energy, water and the alternative uses of crops diverted towards fuel production.
This is broadly connected to the concern raised by Nageswaran and Poojari: the benefits of ethanol should be assessed alongside the full cost of producing it.
Why Does the Government Support E20?
The government has consistently highlighted several benefits of ethanol blending.
These include:
- Reducing India’s dependence on imported crude oil
- Saving foreign exchange
- Creating an additional market for agricultural produce
- Supporting ethanol producers
- Potentially reducing emissions compared with conventional petrol
The government has also defended E20 on technical grounds, saying testing has not shown evidence of widespread engine problems.
So, What Is the Real Issue?
The E20 debate is actually about two separate questions.
The first is whether older vehicles, particularly ageing two-wheelers, should have access to a lower ethanol blend such as E10.
The second is whether India should increase ethanol blending beyond 20% without fully assessing the consequences for agriculture.
Nageswaran and Poojari are not simply arguing against ethanol.
Their concern is that India should calculate the complete economic cost of producing more ethanol — including the land, water and crops required to make it.
For older vehicle owners, they favour an E10 option while vehicles are gradually upgraded.
For India’s larger ethanol policy, their message is caution: before moving towards E27 or E30, policymakers should examine whether the country’s agricultural resources can support the additional demand without putting pressure on food and water security.
That makes the E20 debate much bigger than a question of petrol mileage or engine performance. It is increasingly becoming a debate about how India uses its land, water and agricultural production.
