New York Times Misses the Mark on America’s Fuel

Business News/Analysis, Deliver Dispense, Federal Legislation, Infrastructure, Opinions, Policy

July 30, 2010

Print This Article Share it With Friends

(Growth Energy) The New York Times’ July 29th Editorial “Energy Subsidies – Good and Bad,” mischaracterizes Growth Energy’s proposal to open the American transportation fuels market and fails to acknowledge the technological advancements that have made ethanol production cleaner and more efficient, according to a statement by Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis.

“The New York Times’ editorial misrepresents our Fueling Freedom Plan, which would open the fuels market and let ethanol stand on its own against oil,” said Buis. “The Fueling Freedom Plan would redirect the current Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, the so-called “blender’s tax credit,” to support the build-out of the distribution infrastructure – namely, blender pumps, pipelines and Flex Fuel Vehicles – to give Americans a true choice of fuels at the pump.”

The Fueling Freedom plan establishes a path that would lead to a genuinely free market – an open market that is free of government supports.

Buis noted that the editorial is mistaken in claiming that demand for ethanol will plow under more “grasslands or forests” given the technological advancements that have made farming and ethanol production more efficient and better for the environment.

“Last year, U.S. farmers produced a record corn crop on 7 million fewer acres than the previous record year, proving that farm efficiencies and technology are helping us produce ever greater yields from fewer acres,” Buis added. “The New York Times opinion fails to reflect the facts about modern American agriculture, it’s productivity, and advancements in technology.” READ MORE and MORE (New York Times editorial)

Comments are closed.

Advanced BioFuels USA