Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of Ethanol Opposition at It 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."

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.

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. READ MORE