The Auto Channel
The Largest Independent Automotive Research Resource
The Largest Independent Automotive Research Resource
Official Website of the New Car Buyer

Open Letter to Jillian Kay Melchor and the National Review About the Iowa Primary and Ethanol


PHOTO

By Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL


Hi Jillian:

PHOTO
Marc J. Rauch

I read your recent article in National Review titled "Trump's Support for Ethanol Is Bad for Taxpayers and Their Cars" and I'm perplexed as to why you would take the subject on? The article is written as if you understand the subject matter, but the information you present shows that you don't know anything about it. Was this simply your personal contribution to the National Review's effort to scuttle Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the editors at National Review didn't think that anyone would read your article? Were they just looking to beef up the edition with whatever fodder they could?

What ethanol subsidy are you complaining about? The blender subsidy, which went to the blenders, not the ethanol producers, ended in 2011. Federal tax credits ended in 2014. If you are against subsidies then you should be howling mad at the oil industry. They receive many, many times more subsidies than the ethanol industry ever did, and oil subsidies and tax credits have been going on for over 100 years.

Ethanol opponents always said that ethanol subsidies should be removed and that if ethanol is so good that it should be able to stand on its own. Well, it has. But the truth is that all subsidies to the oil industry should be removed and then let's see how it can stand on it's own. If all oil subsidies were removed gasoline would probably cost $15 or more per gallon.

You write that (ethanol) tax credits allowed between "1978 and 2012 cost the Treasury as much as $40 billion." In the same time frame, oil tax credits cost the Treasury several times that amount. In addition, over the past century, our country's dependency on petroleum oil has been responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen, not to mention millions of injuries - many of which caused permanent disabilities. To date, not one American soldier, sailor or airman has been killed defending the production and distribution of domestic ethanol fuel. Doesn't the well-being of American servicemen fit into the National Review's definition of patriotism?

Incidentally, the mandate that you refer to doesn't mandate that corn ethanol be used, it mandates that a renewable substance be used. Ethanol is simply the best, safest and least expensive to use.

You say that ethanol negatively affects the food market and prices. This is false. The originator of this theory was The World Bank in a report they published about 10 years ago. The World Bank has since officially retracted that report on at least two occasions. It is the cost of petroleum oil and its finished fuels that have caused food prices to rise.

You write that "Vehicles can drive fewer miles per gallon using ethanol blends than they would with pure gasoline. So Americans end up spending an extra $10 billion per year for fuel." This is false. The lower cost per gallon of ethanol-gasoline blends versus ethanol-free gasoline makes the ethanol-gasoline blends more economical. Ethanol-free gasoline can cost anywhere from about 50 cents to 3 or 4 dollars more per gallon than an ethanol-gasoline blend. If a vehicle gets 5% fewer miles per gallon by using E10, but the ethanol-free gasoline costs 20% to 100% more than E10, then the use of E10 saves the consumer money. Higher level ethanol-gasoline blends such as E85 results in bigger savings.

Incidentally, there is no such thing as "pure gasoline." Gasoline is not like extra virgin olive oil, it's a combination of ingredients, and in order for gasoline to work safely in high compression internal combustion engines it must have an anti-knock ingredient.

You write that "Ethanol also guzzles 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop, and the resulting scarcity drives up the price of food." This statement is pure drivel and shows that you have no concept of how commerce works. American farmers grow as much corn as they do specifically because they have sales orders to do so. If there was no market for corn ethanol they wouldn't grow so much.

In 2000, U.S. corn production was 251,854 metric tons; with 226,668 MT going to feed people and livestock. In 2013, because of the market for corn ethanol, U.S. corn production was estimated to be 353,715 metric tons. If 40% went to produce ethanol it left approximately the same amount for human and animal consumption, and there was still a surplus. Moreover, a significant by-product of ethanol production is the creation of distillers-grains, which is widely used for animal consumption. Therefore, no American went without corn chips, corn flakes, or corn-on-the-cob.

You intimate that ethanol production has caused human food prices to rise. This is also false. The originator of the theory that ethanol production raises the price of food was The World Bank in a report they published about 10 years ago. The World Bank has since officially retracted that report on at least two occasions. It is the cost of petroleum oil and its finished fuels that have caused food prices to rise.

You then launch into the oil-industry invented lie that ethanol causes engine problems and top it off by writing "In fact, many vehicle manufacturers will no longer offer warranties when ethanol comprises 10 percent or more of fuel..." Ethanol does not cause engine problems, it solves engine problems. Ethanol cleans internal combustion engines; it prolongs the life of internal combustion engines. It removes excess water that would cause fuel-line freezing in cold climates. Ethanol allows gasoline to be safely used in internal combustion engines. If ethanol was not blended with gasoline for use in automobiles some other anti-knock agent would have to be used. The choices are tetraethyl lead, MTBE, or a cocktail of so-called aromatics. We already know that lead is poisonous, and after 6 decades of being forced to use it, it was finally banned in most instances. MTBEs are also poisonous and banned. The concoction of aromatics used in ethanol-free gasoline is as poisonous as tetra-ethyl lead, and ethanol-free gasoline is more expensive than gasoline blended with ethanol. If no anti-knock agent is used in an automobile engine it would literally knock itself apart.

In addition, more and more vehicle manufacturers are now warranting the use of E15 (along with warranting E10), and more vehicle manufacturers are supporting the move towards E30 as being the most optimum fuel to help support new engine designs and achieve future emissions goals. I can't imagine where you received the information that fewer manufacturers are warranting ethanol-gasoline blends, but you should steer away from that source. Oh, and gasoline requires more energy to produce than ethanol, so your source is wrong on this point as well.

You paint your entire erroneous article as if there is something wrong with Trump trying to win the support of Iowans by appealing to an issue that is dear to them. So what's the problem; that's what politics are about. The reason that politicians stump in any area is to appeal to voters regarding issues that are dear to them. Trump isn't doing anything that every other Republican and Democrat politician hasn't done, and that definitely includes whatever loser the National Review is supporting.

Lastly, I resent your and the National Review's allusion that you speak for Conservatives or Republicans or American patriots. I am a Conservative Republican, a true free-market, balls-to-the-wall capitalist, entrepreneur, and American patriot. You don't know the first thing about business, and you certainly don't know anything about ethanol. We've had to endure 8 years of Barack Obama and 8 years of Bill Clinton because of people like you. The National Review is not doing America any favors. You should suggest to the publishers of National Review to change the name to National Lampoon.

Want to learn the truth about ethanol? Read TRUTH ABOUT ETHANOL.