Campaign to vilify ethanol revealed

ethanol producer Magazine ^ | May 16, 2008 | By Kris Bevill

[Kevin J waldroup]

The “food versus fuel” debate being waged in the United States has been nothing more than a cleverly planned public relations campaign. A request for a public relations proposal put forth by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the media campaign response by the Glover Park Group prove that there has been a concerted effort to attack the ethanol industry. Both documents were recently made public by long-time ethanol advocate, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

The GMA represents more than 300 food, beverage and consumer household goods companies in the United States. The association released a request for a public relations campaign to combat the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The request states: “GMA has concluded that rising food prices, global shortages of basic commodities, and new studies on the environmental impacts of corn ethanol create a window to change perceptions about the benefits of bio-fuels and the mandate and, ultimately, to build a groundswell in support of freezing or reversing some provisions of the 2007 Energy Bill…”

The response to the GMA’s request by the Glover Park Group lays out a strategy to undermine the ethanol industry: “First, we must obliterate whatever intellectual justification might still exist for corn-based ethanol among policy elites.”

[org.whodat]

The “food versus fuel” debate being waged in the United States has been nothing more than a cleverly planned public relations campaign.

What a crock, no one is telling these thieves that they cannot make ethanol, just make it on your own dime without mandates. Stop sucking on the government tit!!

[BOBTHENAILER]

nothing more than a cleverly planned public relations campaign.

Even if it were, ethanol DESERVES TO BE VILIFIED!!!!!!

[upchuck]

This morning gasoline is $3.59/gal here in Aiken, SC. E85 ethanol is $3.18/gal.

Gee, I wonder who's paying the difference? </sarcasm>

[Rudder]

I was against it before the GMA began their campaign. More drilling for domestic oil is the only way to go. Subsidizing farmers to grow non-food crops is not the way to go.

[stylin_geek]

You have to love the slant this is given. Laying out the facts regarding ethanol is considered “vilification.”

I, for one, don’t care to put something in my tank that is only 70% as efficient as gasoline. Not like I’m going to pay 70% less for ethanol.

[Kevin J waldroup]

PS Grow mole food!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[muir_redwoods]

using food for fuel when the petroleum we have in the ground is as massive as it is is just plain stupid. Drill it out and let’s get back to exporting food at a reasonable price. It’s beyond stupid and immoral.

[caseinpoint]

So PR campaigns are not okay. However did ethanol get the blessings of Congress without PR work? Or is this another case of okay for me, not okay for you?

[Cicero]

If it’s such a great idea, it doesn’t need a subsidy. Get out of the way and let the market work.

Sheesh, our taxpayer dollars are PAYING for this propaganda outlet disguised as a “magazine.”

[org.whodat]

So PR campaigns are not okay. However did ethanol get the blessings of Congress without PR work? Or is this another case of okay for me, not okay for you?

Excellent post, however, some of the pr work given in congress was nothing but out right lies.

[stylin_geek]

I wonder if those who are paying for E85 realize they aren’t saving any money? If I remember correctly, ethanol is only 70% as efficient as gasoline. Which means a pretty good drop in mileage.

Break even works out to $2.51/gal. (I took 70% of the price of gasoline to arrive at my figure.)

[Sherman Logan]

So the whole effort to get subsidies passed for ethanol wasn’t a PR campaign?

[Swiss]

E85 is at least a dollar cheaper here than gasoline at the pump, around $2.40 a week or so ago. I suspect transportation has something to do with why it is so much higher there.

[Gorzaloon]

The “food versus fuel” debate being waged in the United States has been nothing more than a cleverly planned public relations campaign.

No, actually it is just that too many people have studied Chemistry, and the scam is falling apart.

[pnh102]

Ethanol is this century’s snake oil.

[mad_as_he$$]

Yup spend more fossil fuels to deliver a 70% less bang for the buck solution. Liberal economics (the real voodoo econ).

[Wings-n-Wind]

FOOD vs. FUEL

Likewise....
STATISTICS vs. STUPIDITY!!!

****************

ALL my vehicles have lost mileage and performance since the ethanol requirements showed up at the fuel pump!!

**************

TIME TO....
Drill... Distill... Drive!!

JMHO!

[jjw]

I wonder if those who are paying for E85 realize they aren’t saving any money? If I remember correctly, ethanol is only 70% as efficient as gasoline. Which means a pretty good drop in mileage. Break even works out to $2.51/gal. (I took 70% of the price of gasoline to arrive at my figure.)

I think everyone here needs to get out of this bizarre hype and do their own math. Correctly.

E85 is only 15% ethanol. So do reduce your mileage you need to reduce to 85% (the part from gas) and 70% of 15% = 10.5% (the part from ethanol. This would make the efficiency of E85 95.5% that of gasoline.

[SeaWolf]

Excellent!

How about the Eviro-Facist Left next?