For the third time in nine days, Forbes Magazine has published a misleading and negative editorial about the only viable, affordable, high-tech alternative to oil today: American ethanol.
Not surprisingly, while these editorials fail to reference a single alternative to ethanol, they also gloss over the truth of what industry is the biggest fuel recipient of taxpayer dollars in the United States: oil.
At Growth Energy, we work to educate the press, opinion makers and the general public about the benefits of domestic ethanol. American ethanol, as anyone who is paying attention knows, strengthens our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, helps our economy by creating U.S. jobs, and helps clean the environment because grain ethanol is at least 59 percent cleaner than conventional gasoline.
We have sent two letters to the editor of Forbes in an effort to set the record straight with the facts about domestic, renewable ethanol. Growth Energy has yet to hear back on whether they will run our letters – and so we have decided to publish our responses on our blog for the public to read.
Below are our original letters to Forbes.
Response # 1:
December 6, 2010
Dear Editor,
Henry Miller’s recent commentary suggests that former Vice President Gore’s support for ethanol was a “whopper” of a mistake (Gore, Gobbledygook and Global Warming, Dec. 6). But the real whopper here is Miller’s omission of the facts.
First, the concept of “food vs. fuel” is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by vested interests, with no basis in fact, that has been dispelled by numerous objective economic analyses, including a recent World Bank paper which proves that the skyrocketing grocery bills of two years ago were not caused by ethanol, but rather, by rampant market speculation and record fossil fuel prices.
USDA chief economist Joseph Glauber confirmed as such when he testified before the U.S. Senate, stating that ethanol demand had, at most, a “moderate” impact on food prices.
Second, not one kernel of food fit for humans goes to ethanol production. The corn used to make ethanol in this country is field corn. In fact, a co-product of ethanol production are the Dried Distiller’s Grains which go right back into the food chain in the form of a high-quality livestock feeds. So, ethanol production does not take food away from people.
Finally, Mr. Miller conveniently omits the only reason that the “food vs. fuel” rhetoric gained traction with the general public: a multi-million dollar misinformation campaign waged by the Grocery Manufacturers Association with one of Washington, D.C.’s premier public relations agencies, Glover Park.
Facts are facts. And there is no credible “food versus fuel” debate, except in the minds of Big Food and Big Oil.
Sincerely,
Tom Buis
CEO Of Growth Energy
Response # 2
December 9, 2010
Dear Editor,
If Matt Kibbe wants to do away with “runaway spending” (Let Ethanol Subsidies Expire For Good, Dec. 9) let’s include Big Oil.
Globally, more than $280 billion in taxpayer dollars are given to Big Oil and other fossil fuel producers every year in the form of subsidies and other financial incentives, according to recent DTN and World Energy Outlook analyses, not factoring in the estimated $50 billion in U.S. military spending to protect the shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf.
The main reason the ethanol industry needs government support today is because we are denied access to all but ten percent of the fuel market which is tightly controlled by the oil industry. Growth Energy’s Fueling Freedom plan would redirect tax credits to build out a national ethanol infrastructure including “blender pumps” and “flex-fuel” vehicles, to allow access to fair and open market.
Every year we pay $300 billion annually – the equivalent of a thousand-dollar-a-person tax—to foreign countries for oil. Increasing the production of ethanol that is produced right here in America will reduce the role that foreign oil plays in our economy and in our national security. Every gallon of clean burning ethanol that we produce in this country decreases the demand for foreign oil, keeps our hard-earned money here at home and helps create good jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.
Ethanol is 59 percent cleaner than gasoline, and the latest studies from the United States Department of Agriculture show that ethanol is more energy efficient to produce than conventional gasoline. Furthermore, for those repeating that disproven “food v. fuel” fiction, I can only urge them to look at the series of academic, economic and government studies, including a recent World Bank study, that have all debunked this myth. Wall Street speculators, high oil prices and the costs of manufacturing, packaging and transportation all have far more impact than ethanol on the grocery prices that everyday Americans pay.
Ethanol is the only available, affordable alternative to oil today and in a truly open market, ethanol can compete – and beat – foreign oil. Extending the current ethanol incentives today will provide certainty in the market and give Congress the opportunity to consider longer term reforms, like our Fueling Freedom Plan, next year. As a result, consumers would have real choices. Our air would be cleaner. Our prosperity would be enhanced. And our security would be strengthened.
Sincerely,
Tom Buis
CEO Of Growth Energy
This is part of a series of posts on distributed renewable energy that will be posted to Renewable Energy World. It originally appeared on Energy Self-Reliant States, a resource of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's New Rules Project.
Home
AstronomyEnvironmentEarthGlobal-WarmingActivistHealthMens-HealthWomens-HealthPollutionAir PollutionSoil PollutionWater PollutionPublicationGlobal Warming BookRecyclingGreen-GuideWildlifeWorldAgricultureEconomicNatural-DisasterTravel Sponsored LinksSponsored LinksSponsored LinksGreen Energy Projects to Damage Environment
March 15th, 2010 | 
MacProjects to develop renewable energy sources including solar and wind power are paradoxically damaging the environment despite their intent to cut CO2 emissions, a state-run think tank said.The Korea Environment Institute said, “A solar power plant built in Bonghwa County, North Gyeongsang Province, that will cut carbon dioxide volume will produce a smaller value than the environmental value lost due to environmental degradation stemming from the project. Hence, 15 years of plant operation will cause 38.1 billion won (34 million U.S. dollars) in net value losses.”
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\The Alternative to Fossil Fuels\life\bookmark.gif)
Related PostsTop Ten Environmental Losses Of 2009Tropical Regions To Be Hardest Hit By Fisheries Shifts Caused By Climate ChangeNow Eco Friendly Shrouds Introduced to Reduce Cremation EmissionsTips on Having a ‘Green’ ChristmasObama Aims High on Energy, Global WarmingDo British Bananas Show Global Warming is Accelerating?From the Global Warming CafeWork On Climate Change For New FieldFuture Shock: The EnvironmentCAG To Audit Water Pollution In India
Environment 
Tags: Bonghwa-Plant, Carbon-Dioxide, CO2-Emissions Korea, Eco-Friendly, Environment, Environmental, Environmental-Degradation, Environmental-Friendly, Forestry-Damage, Green-Energy, Korea-Environment, Renewable-Energy, Solar-Power, Wind-Power Leave a ReplyClick here to cancel reply.\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\The Alternative to Fossil Fuels\life\gltr_image_map.png)
By N2HWe will keep You Updated...Sign up to receive breaking news 
Sponsored LinkImportant Links...
\ABS\Auto Blog Samurai\data\The Alternative to Fossil Fuels\life\kidney_failure.gif)
World Kidney Day 2010
CAG To Audit Water Pollution In India
The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever
Going To London