Response to Questions About Our Ethanol Advocacy

By Marc J. Rauch
Author of "THE ETHANOL PAPERS" and "YES, TIN LIZZIE WAS AN ALCOHOLIC"
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL

Recently, the online publication RealClearEnergy.org published an anti-ethanol editorial written by Ike Kiefer. The editorial, along with Kiefer's latest "study" is just a rehashing of a garbage study he wrote and published in 2013. Years ago, I rebutted Kiefer's stupidity via email correspondence and published remarks. In the intervening years, Kiefer has shown he has learned nothing. In any event, I responded to the RealClearEnergy.org editorial as best I could, and responded to some of the dolts who have climbed aboard the "Let's Hate Ethanol" bandwagon. Almost all use fictitious screen names to hide their identities and absurd comments, which, to me, signals a lack of real knowledge about a subject and a shaky commitment to the accuracy of the comment they are leaving. The difficulty in responding to a RealClearEnergy.org editorial or their readers' comments is that RealClearEnergy blocks and limits responses that disagree with any position they endorse.

Therefore, I'm going to use the limitless space that I have on TheAutoChannel.com to respond to one person in particular. His screen name is "CapitalistRoader." His questions weren't absurd, and I thought they deserved to be answered in full. I did attempt to post the reply on the RealClearEnergy comments page, but the reply got blocked after two paragraphs. Here are his questions, followed by my response:

From CapitalistRoader to Marc Rauch

"Do you, Ethanol Chronicles, or The Auto Channel receive any funding from the ethanol industry? Either monetary or in-kind.

"Considering that in 2017 the United States was the largest petroleum producer in the world and in 2019 became energy independent, I find an old comment of yours interesting:

    ...It is within all of this that explains why I like ethanol. I can put it best by saying: I'd rather have my fuel money go to American farmers than to terrorists and foreign regimes that hate us. (Dec. 31, 2015)

"Are you happy that the U.S. became the largest oil producer and no longer relies on terrorists and foreign regimes that hate us? I'm agnostic: I prefer whichever receives the least amount of taxpayer subsidies per unit of energy. That said, in total, which receives more federal subsidies per gallon, gasoline or ethanol?"

From Marc Rauch to CapitalistRoader

Good questions, thanks especially for asking about industry funding. But I'm curious, have you asked this same question to Ike Kiefer and RealClearEnergy.org?

Let's say that the ethanol industry pays me, my business partner, and our company $10 million per year. Would that make the information that I present any less true? I ask because the oil industry pays out huge sums every year to people and institutions to spread false and misleading information to hype gasoline and/or denigrate its competition. They've been doing this for decades, even before Standard Oil created the American Petroleum Institute in the 1920s to "professionally" create and spread lies against gasoline's competition.

Over the past couple of decades, I've written two books criticizing gasoline, as well as hundreds of individual reports and essays that attack petroleum-based fuels (although I have written favorably about two petroleum industry fuels - propane and CNG - as replacements for gasoline). My business partner has also authored several advocacy editorials in support of ethanol and other non-petroleum alternative fuels. When I attack gasoline and the oil industry, I don't spend much time criticizing the expenditures, per se. Rather, I concentrate on criticizing their primary product. When I do offer a criticism of their expenditures, it is usually in cases like this when I'm making a comparison because someone like you seems to think that we shouldn't get paid for our work. They feel it's okay for Big Oil to pay people to lie on their behalf, but that it's wrong for someone to get paid to defend ethanol.

In addition to my writings, I've appeared on dozens of radio and TV/video shows advocating ethanol and other alternatives. And, I've travelled fairly extensively to speak at conferences and presentations. My lengthy rebuttals often focus on the books and presentations that attack ethanol and alternative fuels. These books and presentations have been written by naysayers like David Pimentel, Robert Bryce, Ike Kiefer, David Shepardson, John Stossel, Jillian Kay Melchor, Barry Ritholtz, Peter Ferrara, Michael Lynch, Tyler Lark, Marlo Lewis, C Ford Runge, Tim Searchinger, and John DeCicco.

So wouldn't it be fair for us to be paid by the ethanol industry to espouse true and accurate information? From what you've read so far, do you think that $10 million per year for our advocacy is too little or too much?

You may now ask the question, "Why do you say that your ethanol advocacy information is correct and their information is false?"

That would be another good question, if you asked it. Let's pretend you did ask the question, and I'll answer it.

I say that my (our) ethanol advocacy information is correct and that the gasoline shills' derogatory information is false because I have painstakingly written and published lengthy criticisms of the works of these people. I have exposed their lies step-by-step, offered detailed analysis and historical references that support my comments, and sought out opportunities to publicly debate the issue with them in front of an audience.

On the other hand, to my knowledge, none of the people I've mentioned have written any rebuttals to my books and audio/visual presentations. Sure, some readers on the RealClearEnergy message board might take a shot at me, but they are not researched critiques of my work. They are simple, meaningless things like "Oh yeah, well you're short and bald." I am short and bald, I have mirrors in my house; I know what I look like. But so what? Also, these snipey shots are typically written by people who are too afraid to identify themselves and use a real name.

When I publish a criticism about the gasoline shills and their works, I always contact them directly and call their attention to my rebuttals, while offering them the opportunity to respond. Sometimes they do, and we append their responses to the editorials. Mostly, they don't reply and perhaps more importantly, I've never been threatened with a libel or slander lawsuit, or a punch in the nose.

My arguments in support of ethanol are the best there are. They are not the best because they come from me, but because they are an aggregate of information that comes from the many very knowledgeable ethanol advocates around the world, which is then combined with my own significant research, extensive hands-on experimentation and experience, and an award-winning ability to articulate the information. If an ethanol opponent could defeat me in a public debate, he, she, or they as a team, would go a long way to putting the supportive arguments about ethanol to rest. But the gasoline shills can't do it. They don't have the facts, the history, or common sense on their side. They merely repeat the nonsense created by API or invent some other drivel that blames ethanol for problems caused by gasoline and aromatics.

Okay, so now I'll answer your initial question(s) about funding. Neither I, my business partner, nor our company receives any funding from the ethanol industry. I was not paid to write my two books advocating ethanol. We were not paid for me to write and publish the "almost daily" Ethanol Chronicles you asked about, or any of the hundreds of individual stories that advocate ethanol fuel.I've never been paid to appear on a TV or radio show, or feature film documentary. When I am invited to speak at a conference, I am occasionally reimbursed for the airfare and lodging, but I mostly have covered the expense myself without ever being reimbursed. On a couple of occasions, my wife has accompanied me to the event. I have always paid for her airfare myself, and have never been reimbursed for this expense. On one occasion, I received an honorarium for speaking at an industry conference. This was because the organization was giving honorariums to all of its featured speakers. When the Department of Agriculture asked me to go to Asia to speak on their behalf about ethanol, they paid for my airfare and lodging. They never paid me anything to go do it, and I received no honorarium from the organizations in Taiwan and Australia for being there. There have been occasions when ethanol companies or advocacy groups bought display ads on my company's website, but there hasn't been any such advertising on TheAutoChannel.com for several years. Any such advertising was never a requirement for our support, and if you visit The Auto Channel website today, you'll notice that we have no display advertising on any of our one million+ pages of content. We also do not require anyone to subscribe and pay to access any of the content on our website. We unilaterally chose to support ethanol based solely on facts, history, and performance. I seriously doubt that you'd find the same commitment to the betterment of America and the world from any of the naysayers I mentioned above.

In response to your other questions: The ethanol industry receives no subsidies from the Federal Government. Farmers receive subsidies for all crops, but not for ethanol-corn specifically. There was a "blender's subsidy" that expired in 2011 (15 years ago). However, this subsidy did not go to the farmers or the distillers; it went to the oil industry blenders. Conversely, the oil industry receives many subsidies from the U.S. Federal Government, and has received them continuously for at least 100 years. If you dislike Federal subsidies, then you should be very angry at the oil industry.

You ask if I'm happy that the U.S. has become the largest producer of oil. This is an inaccurate and irrelevant question to ask because the U.S. does not produce any oil. America is not a communist or socialist country, thank God, so America does not own any oil production facilities.

If you mean to ask if I'm happy that no communist country or dictator-run country can make the claim to be the largest producer, yes, I am. Moreover, if the shift means that it hurts the communist and dictator-run countries, then I am positively ecstatic!

But, remember that the price of oil today is still largely based on, or influenced by, the OPEC nations, and we still require some oil from other countries. People in Venezuela pay well under the equivalent of one American dollar for a gallon of gasoline. Libyans pay the equivalent of 10 cents for a gallon of gasoline. So saying that America (or American oil companies) is the largest producer of oil doesn't buy us very much...yet!

What I would like is for all American Oil-Gasoline companies to become American Energy companies that produce and sell the best, safest, healthiest, cleanest, and most economical fuels. There should be no need to bash one fuel over another; the decisions on which type of fuel to use should be based solely on what is the best fuel for any particular area of America. If gasoline with just enough ethanol to stop engine knock fits the description (best, safest, healthiest, cleanest, and most economical) for Texas, then let it be gasoline. If it requires that this gasoline in Texas be made of 50% ethanol to meet the goal, then that's what it should be. If Oregon needs their fuel to be 60% ethanol to meet the goal, then that's what it should be in Oregon. If Vermont needs its gasoline to have only 20% ethanol to meet the goal, then that's what it should be in Vermont. The fact is that every spark-ignited internal combustion engine can safely, cleanly, and efficiently use any and every ethanol-gasoline blend. The only reason a fuel injected non-flex fuel car may run a little rough on a high ethanol-gasoline blend is because the onboard computer doesn't recognize the mixture. A very inexpensive software upgrade will fix that. An older carburetor car may need a carburetor adjustment, so what? Get it Done! All older cars can handle it. This is proven by the decades of successful use of ethanol-gasoline blends in Europe and Brazil. If you don't know about the decades of successful ethanol-gasoline blend use in Europe and Brazil, read these two reports:

• The Hypocrisy of Big Oil

• UK's Department for Transport Uses Boogeyman Allusions to Sidetrack E10 Adoption

And, if American farmers can become rich helping to make my vision happen, then it's all for the best. Without farmers, we don't eat. If we don't eat, we die. As I've said for many years, I'd rather have my fuel money go to American farmers than to terrorists and foreign regimes.