The Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla., haven’t exactly embraced ethanol with open arms. Boxer signed a November letter opposing the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit. Inhofe has been supportive of domestic oil shale development, letting the ban on U.S. offshore drilling expire and allowing the Department of Defense to purchase fuel from the Canadian tar sands, to name some examples.
The first of eight speakers is Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack—someone who has been extremely supportive of both corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol. His presentation will be followed by two representatives from the U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE. More speakers on the pro-biofuels side are Michael McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association, Jan Koninckx, global business director for biofuels for DuPont, and Brooke Coleman, executive director of the Advanced Ethanol Council.
On the other hand, Scott Faber, vice president for federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and Kris Kiser, executive vice president of Outdoor Power Equipment Institute are also speaking at the committee hearing. OPEI has been very vocal in its opposition to ethanol, particularly E15, and, in 2010, joined a coalition formed to file a petition challenging the EPA’s waiver decision. The Grocery Manufacturers Association in March applauded legislation that, if it had been approved, would have ended the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.
Growth Energy, which has said it is “extremely disappointed not to be a participant” in the hearing sent a letter to Boxer and Inhofe April 12, raising a few issues it hopes will be discussed. First off, ethanol’s critics inaccurately depict ethanol, the letter said. “There are over 100 plants across 26 states creating a transportation fuel that is a net energy gain, producing 2.3 btus for every single Btu put into production – that is better than twice the rate of return on gasoline, which is a 1-to-1 Btu ration,” the letter said. “Every day, ethanol production becomes more energy efficient, less water-intensive and more environmentally friendly.”
Growth Energy also listed four questions it believes should be answered during the hearing:
1. As seems to be ignored by the media, what impact has skyrocketing prices of oil had on the price of food?
2. What have been the profits of the world’s largest food makers in the past year?
3. What do you believe is a better alternative for our environment – waiting another 40 years for the perfect solution, continued drilling, refining and pumping of oil shipped from halfway around the world, or simple fermentation of corn starch into ethanol?
4. Does anyone actually believe that No. 2 yellow corn (that which is used to produce ethanol) is edible? Can you boil it or pop it?
A report on food vs. fuel fallacies complied by Growth Energy was sent along with the letter to Boxer and Inhofe. The same report was also sent to every member of U.S. Congress. The two-page report can be seen here.
It points out that though high-ranking representatives of the American Meat Institute and Tyson Foods Inc. both made statements in early March that the cost of feeding livestock and the cost of food are rising due to ethanol, meat processors such as Smithfield Food Co. and Tyson are bringing in record profits. The bottom line is, the report said, “‘Food versus Fuel’ is a fallacy perpetuated by an orchestrated campaign against ethanol that was financed by companies that seek to profit from high grocery store prices.”
No comments:
Post a Comment