E20 concerns are too real to be dismissed as a conspiracy

In a bid to trash the criticism of the government’s E20 blending policy, Road Transport & Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari has taken recourse to politicians’ favourite ploy: Hint at a conspiracy. Indian motorists are concerned about the impact of E20 (fuel containing 20 per cent ethanol) on the performance of their older cars and motorcycles.

Besides, a vehicle owner doesn’t have an option to buy unmixed petrol. Besides, many car manuals permit only E5 or E10 fuels to be used. This has also occasioned concerns over the honouring of warranties and insurance claims would be honoured.

Instead of addressing such concerns at the annual convention of the Society of Automobile Manufacturers, he said, “The way your industry works, so does politics. The social media campaign was paid, it was to target me politically.

There is no fact in it, everything is clear. (Ethanol blending is) import substitute, cost-effective, pollution-free, and indigenous.” But the concerns are real, just dismissing them as “politically” motivated will not make them vanish.

To be sure, ethanol blending is not an entirely new experiment for India. Over the past two decades, the government has gradually moved from E5 (5 per cent ethanol blend) to E10 (10 per cent blend), and is now pushing for E20 across the country.

The stated benefits are hard to contest. Ethanol is a renewable biofuel made from crops such as sugarcane, maize, and surplus food grains. Unlike crude oil, which India must import at great cost, ethanol can be produced domestically, offering an “import substitute” that reduces dependency on foreign suppliers.

From an environmental standpoint, ethanol burns cleaner than pure petrol, emitting fewer greenhouse gases and pollutants. The government argues that large-scale adoption of ethanol-blended fuels will cut carbon emissions, improve air quality, and give a boost to India’s climate commitments.

Economically, ethanol blending promises to benefit farmers by creating a steady demand for agricultural produce that might otherwise go waste. Gadkari has framed the policy as a win-win: “import substitute, cost-effective, pollution-free, and indigenous.”

Yet, while the macroeconomic and ecological logic seems compelling, the micro-level reality for consumers is far more complicated. Ethanol is a more corrosive fuel than petrol. Higher ethanol content can damage rubber seals, fuel lines, and other engine components not designed for it. For older vehicles, this risk is more pronounced.

These are not abstract or politically-motivated concerns, they affect everyday commuters who rely on affordable and reliable transport. Simply dismissing such fears as part of a “targeted campaign” risks alienating the very citizens the policy is supposed to benefit.

Automakers too face a tricky balancing act. On one hand, they are under pressure from the government to produce vehicles compatible with higher ethanol blends. On the other hand, retrofitting existing vehicles or redesigning engines for future models requires significant investment and time. Industry representatives have been cautious in their public statements, but the underlying unease is evident.

The government’s objectives are laudable, but implementation must be sensitive to ground realities. It should introduce E20 in a phased manner. It must also explore subsidies or technical solutions to retrofit older vehicles to be compatible with higher blends.

Regulators, manufacturers, and insurers should formulate clear guidelines on warranties and claims. The E20 policy, therefore, should not be treated as a battle between the government and its critics.