Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of Ethanol Opposition At It Again
I'm excited beyond words
By Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL
I love, love, love, the latest anti-ethanol editorial written by Colin Carter and Henry Miller that was published on July 12th on the City-Journal.org website.
Let me tell fill out the story: Colin A. Carter is a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California at Davis - a school that's just down the road from me. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He had been associated with the Hoover Institution, a contributing writer for Forbes, and was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. He's written in support of a number of things known to be harmful to humans and other living creatures (SEE: https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/why-you-cant-trust-henry-miller-on-gmos/).
Last October 18th, the Washington Examiner published an editorial written by Carter and Miller titled, "Consumers Will Suffer The Hangover From Trump's Ethanol Binge." Two days later I responded with an editorial titled, " Failed Ethanol Critic Takes Another Shot... But Misses Once Again."
My response set forth the long association that Carter and Miller have had in writing fallacious stories about ethanol. I then replied to the points raised by Carter and Miller with the correct and accurate information. All of this can be read by clicking on the two links immediately above.
Now, about ten months later, Carter and Miller try again to denigrate ethanol with a repeat of absurd, juvenile, and preposterous claims. And perhaps the most ignorant part of this new editorial is in the two paragraphs that state:
"U.S. legislators and policymakers seem oblivious to the scientific and economic disadvantages of corn-ethanol production and the mandatory blending of ethanol into the fuel supply. Brazil and other major sugar cane-producing nations enjoy significant advantages over the U.S. in producing ethanol, including ample agricultural land, warm climates amenable to vast plantations, and on-site distilleries that can process sugar cane immediately after harvest.
"Thus, in the absence of cost-effective, domestically available sources for producing ethanol, rather than using corn, it would make far more sense to import limited amounts of ethanol from Brazil and other countries that can produce it efficiently. But none of those rational actions would be a sop to midwestern farmers, so politicians and lobbyists have had to come up with specious justifications to subsidize the growth of corn that otherwise no one would want."
This exasperating statement shows that Carter and Miller have either no understanding and appreciation of America's natural resources and farming community, or they have so little respect for the American public that they think they can get away with publishing such unadulterated rubbish.
America has more land than Brazil, not less land. There is no shortage of ample agricultural land in the U.S. Brazil uses sugar cane for their ethanol because their climate and primary growing regions are suited for sugar. America uses corn for ethanol because our climate and primary growing regions are better suited for corn. Innovative measures used by America's agricultural and ethanol industries have dramatically increased the amount of corn grown, and ethanol produced, each year while reducing the amount of land, fertilizer and water required to do so.
It is true that sugar cane can yield approximately four times more ethanol per acre per year than corn, but that's an irrelevant statistic because Brazil has the requirement for using a much greater amount of ethanol (biofuel) than America. Brazil's mandated fuel is E27, nearly three times more ethanol per gallon than America's E10 (which is not mandated). Brazil has about 50% more flex fuel vehicles than America ( the overwhelming majority of new vehicles sold in Brazil are flex fuel), and they can use E100 - America's flex fuel vehicles only have access to E85. Moreover, nearly two-thirds of Brazil's flex fuel vehicles use higher level ethanol-gasoline blends than those in America (only 2% of all public fueling stations in America offer E85 - all fueling stations in Brazil offer E100). To put it succinctly, Brazil needs more ethanol so ethanol from sugar is a good deal for them. When we get to the point when we need much higher amounts of ethanol, and when we can shut off the flow of anti-ethanol lies from people like Carter and Miller, then our farmers and ethanol industry will turn their attention to additional crops and base materials.
On top of all this, what Carter and Miller have missed is the fact that Brazil has been importing ethanol (produced from corn) from the United States. So their entire argument related to "Brazil's ample agricultural land, warm climates amenable to vast plantations, and on-site distilleries" is baloney.
I have issued an invitation to Colin Carter to debate me, with or without Henry Miller. If he decides to do it and he wants Miller at his side, I'll bring some support, too. We would have a professional moderator and bring in a team of debate moderators to judge the respective arguments. I would really love it if he accepts, but I doubt he will as he and Miller have far too much to lose.