The invitation arrived with the reassuring title:

National Roundtable on Ethanol: Building Consensus for India’s Sustainable Energy Future.

Whenever I see national, roundtable, consensus and sustainable in the same sentence, I know the organisers are expecting disagreement.

The Professor was delighted.

“At last,” he said. “A simple subject.”

“Ethanol?”

“Yes. A colourless liquid. How complicated can it be?”

I did not answer. I had attended national roundtables before.

The meeting was held in a Delhi conference room where the air conditioning was designed to prevent both perspiration and independent thought. On stage stood a white-covered table, eleven microphones and fourteen bottles of mineral water.

The moderator announced that the purpose was to develop a “balanced, inclusive and evidence-based understanding” of India’s ethanol programme.

The Professor leaned towards me. “That means nobody will change his mind.”

The first speaker represented the sugar industry. His opening slide showed a smiling farmer in a green sugarcane field beneath a strategically rising sun.

“Ethanol,” he declared, “is fundamentally about farmer prosperity.”

He explained how it could create an additional market for sugarcane, reduce surplus sugar, improve farmer payments, generate rural employment and strengthen energy security.[1]

The Professor nodded. “Very convincing.”

The second speaker, an agricultural economist, displayed a cracked field, an empty reservoir and a worried farmer staring at the sky.

“Ethanol,” he said, “is fundamentally about resource allocation.”

He spoke about land, water, crop choices, food prices, subsidies and the danger of using agricultural resources to fuel cars.[2]

The Professor nodded again. “Also very convincing.”

“You agreed with the previous speaker.”

“I continue to agree with him.”

“But they disagree.”

“That is their problem, not mine.”

The petroleum-sector speaker spoke confidently about reducing crude-oil imports, conserving foreign exchange and increasing domestically produced fuel.

“Every litre of ethanol blended with petrol,” he said, “is a litre of national self-reliance.”[3]

There was applause.

The Professor wrote in his notebook: “Petrol is apparently foreign. Ethanol is patriotic.”

The moderator invited the Managing Director of a large automobile company. He had the composed expression of a man whose company had issued one clarification and was prepared to issue another.

“Let me reassure vehicle owners,” he began. “The automobile industry is fully aligned with the national transition to E20.”

A man in the second row raised his hand. Members of the public were not expected to participate until the vote of thanks.

“I am a vehicle owner,” the man said.

Until then, everybody had represented something. This man represented himself.

“My car was manufactured in 2018. Its manual says E10. The petrol pump gives me E20. The government says there is no reason to worry. The dealer says check the model and year. The service centre says bring the car in. Who should I believe before I start the engine?”

The Managing Director smiled reassuringly.

“Older vehicles were certified under the fuel standard prevailing when sold. In some models, rubber components, seals or gaskets may require earlier replacement. Compatibility varies by manufacturer and model.”[4]

The Professor whispered, “The fuel has been upgraded. The rubber has been placed on a performance-improvement plan.”

“Will my engine be damaged?” asked the owner.

“There is no reason for panic. You must distinguish between material compatibility and engine optimisation.”

The owner looked worried. He had apparently failed to distinguish between them while buying the car.

The Managing Director explained that E20 material-compliant vehicles were planned from April 2023 and E20-tuned engines from April 2025.[5]

“My mileage has fallen,” said the owner.

“Fuel economy depends on driving style, tyre pressure, servicing, air-conditioning, traffic and maintenance.”

“I have changed none of those.”

“In some vehicles, there may be a marginal reduction.”

The petroleum representative intervened. “We should remember the larger national benefit. The country saves foreign exchange.”

The owner nodded. “So the country saves foreign exchange, the farmer earns more, I buy slightly more fuel, and if my pre-2023 car needs a retrofit, I pay for that too. Will there be cost-sharing?”

“That is an unnecessarily narrow interpretation,” said the petroleum representative.

The Managing Director paused. “Cost-sharing will depend on the manufacturer, model, eligibility criteria and any future policy framework.”

The Professor whispered, “The car was private when he bought it, became a national asset when the fuel policy changed, and became private again when the bill arrived.”

“And E85 or E100?” asked the owner. “Can I use those when they arrive?”

“Absolutely not in a conventional petrol vehicle,” said the Managing Director, suddenly abandoning nuance. “Higher blends are for vehicles designed and certified for them.”[6]

The moderator thanked the automobile industry and the consumer representative for bringing the vehicle-owner perspective into the discussion.

The owner sat down, still uncertain whether his car was compatible, manageable, marginally inefficient, temporarily safe or awaiting a kit.

The water expert displayed a map of India in shades from anxious yellow to alarming red. Large parts of the country appeared water-stressed, water-scarce or beyond polite conversation.[7]

“If the feedstock is water-intensive,” she said, “are we saving imported oil by exporting virtual water from our aquifers?”

The petroleum representative adjusted his spectacles. The sugar representative examined his phone. The automobile Managing Director looked relieved that water could not claim warranty.

The Professor drew a petrol pump connected to a dry well.

Then came the climate specialist. Whether ethanol reduced greenhouse-gas emissions, he warned, depended on feedstock, cultivation, fertiliser use, processing efficiency, transport, energy source, land-use change and the assumptions used in lifecycle assessment.[8]

The moderator thanked him for bringing clarity.

“Did you understand?” the Professor asked me.

“Yes.”

“Explain it.”

“It depends.”

“Excellent. You are qualified to speak at the next roundtable.”

By now, every speaker had described the issue as simple.

“Simple,” the Professor observed, “may be the most complicated word in public policy.”

Then Brazil entered the room.

Not physically. Brazil had not been invited. But the sugar representative brought it in on his next slide: green cane fields, yellow-and-green fuel pumps and a motorist unusually pleased to be buying fuel.

“Brazil has demonstrated that a major economy can build a successful ethanol programme,” he said. “It offers India a proven model.”[9]

The petroleum representative switched on his microphone. “Exactly. Brazil shows what long-term policy, large-scale blending, flex-fuel vehicles and a dependable domestic supply chain can achieve.”[10]

The automobile Managing Director nodded. In Brazil, vehicles had completed the transition and motorists had survived.

The agricultural economist leaned forward. “Brazil also shows the importance of geography, rainfall, crop patterns, farm structures and decades of policy continuity.”

The water expert noted that sugarcane in Brazil’s growing belt receives much of its water from rainfall. India’s cane belts, and parts of its grain-based ethanol push, face very different water conditions. The fermentation chemistry may be similar; the water bill is not.[11]

A consultant near the aisle raised his hand. He had been waiting for Brazil.

“I have studied the Brazilian model closely,” he announced.

The Professor looked interested. “How closely?”

“I was part of a delegation that visited Brazil.”

“For how long?”

“Four days. One day was travel.”

The Professor nodded with respect. “Then you must have understood fifty years of policy completely.”

The moderator intervened. “The point is not to copy Brazil mechanically. We must adapt its lessons to Indian conditions.”

The Professor whispered, “Brazil is like the successful cousin at a family gathering. Everyone quotes his achievements. Nobody mentions his circumstances.”

The climate specialist reminded the room that even Brazil’s results depended on cultivation, distillery energy, land use and how emissions were calculated.[12]

The sugar representative said the overall direction was nevertheless clear.

The agricultural economist replied that a clear direction did not necessarily imply a suitable road.

By now, Brazil had been presented as proof, precedent, inspiration, warning and an unsuitable comparison.

The Professor raised his hand.

“Sir, we have heard five different Brazils. Could someone explain what India should do without beginning the answer with Brazil?”

The moderator smiled. “That is precisely why we need an India-specific pathway.”

“And when will that pathway be discussed?”

“At the next roundtable.”

The Professor closed his notebook. “Then consensus has been achieved.”

The meeting ended with calls for farmer welfare, energy security, consumer confidence, sustainability and fiscal prudence.

Outside, our driver waited beside the car.

“So,” I asked, “what did you finally conclude about ethanol?”

The Professor adjusted the conference folder under his arm.

“The same one litre of ethanol is simultaneously green, brown, strategic, wasteful, patriotic, inflationary, climate-friendly and thirsty.”

Endnotes

Sources accessed 17 July 2026.

[1]    Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, “Cabinet approves Mechanism for procurement of ethanol by Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies under the Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme,” Press Information Bureau, 29 January 2025. The release links ethanol blending with remunerative prices, agricultural benefits, foreign-exchange savings and reduced crude-oil dependence. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2097307

[2]     NITI Aayog and Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, “Roadmap for Ethanol Blending in India 2020-25,” June 2021. The roadmap discusses feedstock availability, land and water implications, vehicle readiness and the transition to E20. https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-06/EthanolBlendingInIndia_compressed.pdf

[3]     Press Information Bureau, 29 January 2025. The Government reported that, during the ten years to 31 December 2024, ethanol blending by public-sector oil marketing companies had generated estimated foreign-exchange savings exceeding Rs 1,13,007 crore and substituted about 193 lakh metric tonnes of crude oil. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2097307

[4]     Government and manufacturer statements are not identical for every older vehicle. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas stated in August 2025 that certain older vehicles may require earlier replacement of some rubber parts and gaskets. Skoda India, for example, states that components of its BSVI petrol cars sold after 1 April 2020 are E20-compatible, while cars sold earlier were not evaluated for E20. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2155558 and https://www.skoda-auto.co.in/owners-information/e20-compatibility

[5]    Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, “Auto Industry fully aligned for Ethanol Adoption,” 12 December 2022. SIAM stated that E20 material-compliant vehicles would be rolled out from April 2023 and E20-tuned engine vehicles from April 2025. The same staging appears in the NITI Aayog roadmap. https://www.siam.in/pressrelease-details.aspx?mpgid=48&pgidtrail=50&pid=528

[6]     Government of India notification framework requires manufacturers to declare vehicle compatibility with E20, E85, E100 or other ethanol blends. Higher ethanol blends are intended for vehicles designed and certified for those fuels. See Ministry of Road Transport and Highways notification reported by PIB, 31 December 2021, and NITI Aayog’s ethanol roadmap. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1786527

[7]     NITI Aayog, “Composite Water Management Index,” 2018. The report documents India’s severe and uneven water stress, declining per-capita availability and groundwater pressures. https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-03/CompositeWaterManagementIndex.pdf

[8]     International Council on Clean Transportation, “Life-Cycle Analyses,” research programme. Lifecycle results depend on system boundaries and assumptions covering feedstock production, fertilisers, energy, transport, direct and indirect land-use change and other factors. https://theicct.org/decarbonizing/life-cycle-analyses/

[9]     International Energy Agency, “Brazil’s Ethanol Production Programme (Proalcool),” IEA Policies Database. Brazil’s programme began in the 1970s and combined long-term policy, production incentives, fuel distribution and vehicle-market development. https://www.iea.org/policies/17753-brazils-ethanol-production-programme

[10]  International Council on Clean Transportation, “Comparison of the Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Combustion Engine and Electric Passenger Cars in Brazil,” October 2023. The report describes Brazil’s mature flex-fuel vehicle market and the importance of the actual gasoline-ethanol mix in lifecycle results. https://theicct.org/publication/comparison-of-life-cycle-ghg-emissions-of-combustion-engines-and-electric-pv-brazil-oct23/

[11]  For the contrast between rainfed and irrigated sugarcane conditions, see P.B. Laclau and J.P. Laclau, “Growth of the whole root system for a plant crop of sugarcane under rainfed and irrigated environments in Brazil,” Field Crops Research 114 (2009): 351-360; and NITI Aayog’s ethanol roadmap for Indian feedstock and water considerations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378429009002391

[12]  Constanza Valdes, “Brazil’s Ethanol Industry: Looking Forward,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2011. The report discusses Brazil’s natural advantages, policy support, productivity, land-use concerns and the sensitivity of lifecycle emissions estimates to methodology. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/35829