|
American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)
Relying upon recently published studies that have been discredited by numerous scientific reviewers, Grunwald misrepresents the facts by inexplicably linking demand for corn-based ethanol in the U.S. to clearing of the Amazon rainforest - leading to more global warming. This is an especially bizarre conclusion in light of the fact that Brazilian deforestation dropped to a 20 year low in 2007 at the same time U.S. ethanol production reached an all-time high. According to the National Institute of Space Research, deforestation in the Amazon has decreased by two-thirds since 2004, just as U.S. ethanol production began to grow significantly. In other words, statistics indicate that Amazon deforestation is decreasing as ethanol production increases – a truth perhaps too inconvenient for Mr. Grunwald to acknowledge in his article.
Click here for more truth.
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)
On its face, Mr. Grunwald’s assertion that ethanol and biofuels are worse for the planet than gasoline is patently absurd. The reports published in Science on which Mr. Grunwald builds his case have been called into question by a host of academic researchers, notably the notion that an acre of corn used for ethanol in the U.S. results in an acre cleared rainforest. As Dr. Michael Wang from Argonne National Laboratories wrote in response to the studies, “At this time, it is not clear what land use changes could occur globally as a result of U.S. corn ethanol production.”
Click here for more truth.
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), Journalistic Scam
Time’s editorial relies heavily on papers recently published in Science that portray a dubious scenario in which biofuels lead directly to the destruction of the rain forests and release more greenhouse gas emissions than they reduce. However, numerous scientists have questioned the assumptions made in these papers, and have reaffirmed the conclusion that biofuels do help to address global climate change. Time made no mention of these critical issues.
Click here for more truth.
American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest (ALA-UM)
There is a clear scientific consensus that vehicles using E85 or biodiesel emit significantly less air pollution than those using traditional fuels. A typical E85 user prevents 4 tons of lifecycle carbon dioxide (CO2) and other harmful pollutants from entering our air every year. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports that biodiesel (B100) use reduces lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions by 78 percent. Space does not allow for me to point out the many errors in fact, rampant speculation, and use of discredited data and opinion contained in Grunswell’s article.
Click here for more truth.
National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), April 2008
Time’s article on biofuels (“The Clean Energy Myth,” April 7 issue), would have been more balanced and less inflammatory had it taken a broader view of ethanol’s place in the energy environment, and not spent so much time citing discredited research. To suggest, for example, that every incremental acre of corn used for ethanol in the United States will induce cultivation of an acre of some other crop somewhere else in the world is a gross oversimplification of the issue. Interestingly, Peter Zuurbier, a researcher in Brazil who organized a global conference to discuss issues around land use and the impact of biofuels, sees things differently than the Time reporter’s questionable sources. Deforestation leads to soybean production near the Amazon, Zuurbier says, not the other way around.
Click here for more truth.
25 x ’25 Response
Time’s message of concern is undermined by misinformation about biofuels and an over-simplified analysis of complex systems. The implication that biofuel production is responsible for the destruction of the Amazon rain forest ignores the reality that ever increasing worldwide demand for food and fiber is the primary cause of land use change in this and other regions. Simply eliminating biofuels will not stop land use changes from occurring, and in countries like Haiti that have already lost their forests, biofuels could help reestablish forests and offer more affordable and sustainable energy options.
Click here for more truth.
25 x ’25 Talking Points
Mr. Grunwald acknowledges but cites as "flawed" Department of Energy studies that show burning corn ethanol as fuel results in a 19-percent reduction in harmful emissions when compared with gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol, such as that made from switchgrass, has the potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 86 percent. However, Mr. Grunwald fails to acknowledge that corn ethanol is fully biodegradable, unlike some fuel additives, such as MTBE. And he fails to take into account other studies, including a recent, five-year University of Nebraska project that shows switchgrass grown for biofuel production produced 540 percent more energy than that needed to grow, harvest and process it into cellulosic ethanol.
Click here for more truth.
Traders Group
The idea of clearing rain forest is an environmental attention grabber. Where as, planting more soybeans in the Mato Grosso just isn't as ecologically threatening, therefore not as sexy. It just won't turn heads as sharply or attitudes against biofuel as effectively as "destroying rain forest." If biofuel was actually driving the deforestation of the Amazon, the rate of deforestation should have been climbing, yet since 2004, it's fallen sharply with square miles being cleared annually, declining by over half since 2004.
Click here for more truth.
|
