GoodFuels

There is an easier way to explain the fact that ethanol production in Brazil has nothing to do with the Rain Forest.

Sugar Cane is grown in the southern part of Brazil near Sao Paulo state and Minas Geras state just north of Sao Paulo.

The Rain Forest is in the far north of Brazil, at least 1500 miles away. Sugar Cane must go through a dry season before it can be harvested. Such seasons occur in the southern part of Brazil but they do not occur anywhere even near the rain forest nor in any area which is heavily forested.

How people can be so ignorant of basic facts is stunning.

Please call or contact UNICA, the ethanol association of Brazil for the facts.

Gary Schwendiman, Ph.D.
520 247 0858

House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson criticized the EPA for low-balling environmental footprint credits for byproduct distiller’s grains and corn oil, and also for ignoring dramatic energy efficiency improvements installed in the newest wave of ethanol refineries.

Peterson criticized the EPA for “being in bed with the oil industry”. He objected to the EPA’s attempt to restrict the biofuels industry, without holding the oil industry to the same high standards. Peterson reacted strongly to EPA’s unfair application of Indirect Land Use Change, an unproven, unscientific theory based on false assumptions, introduced by an attorney. Thousands of scientists have scoffed at it.

During the past few years, the rate of rain forest deforestation has actually gone down, while biofuels production has increased. This invalidates Indirect Land Use Change theory. The ravenous paper pulp industry in Indonesia, and the illegal hit and run timber taking in the Amazon Rainforest are the origins of deforestation, not biofuels. Palm plantations are another factor in Indonesia, however, over 70% of palm oil is used for human consumption, not biofuels. The majority of rainforest that has been destroyed in the Amazon, is being used for cattle ranching and subsistence farming, not biofuels. This has been going on for decades, long before biofuels expanded. Green Peace reports the same findings.

The EPA has been caught following UN policy, rather than its own domestic policy based on in-house factual scientific research. This is a strategy that covertly favors big oil, by blaming competing biofuels for Climate Change. Collin Peterson and many others do not want the EPA to restrict our growing domestic biofuels industry, which is an important part of National Security and Energy Independence.

The EPA is secretly playing games and twisting information: See “EPA Official Wrong on Ethanol and Biodiesel Yields” by Cindy Zimmerman, Domestic Fuel. Margo Oge, the EPA official responsible for regulating the entire U.S. biofuels industry for emissions, cannot tell you how many gallons of ethanol you get out of an acre of corn, or how many tons of byproduct livestock feed you get. Yet when it comes to calculating emissions, those figures are vital. It appears that the people in the shadows of the EPA are spoon-feeding Margo Oge. When it comes to basic biofuel facts, she doesn’t have a clue.

Another story just broke exposing the EPA: Expert senior research analyst, Dr. Alan Carlin, having worked at the EPA for 38 years, wrote an in-house report criticizing the agency’s stance on Global Warming. Carlin’s report was suppressed by fellow EPA officials, who also instructed him to remain silent and not to talk to the press.

Carlin went ahead and broke his silence anyway. Carlin’s banned in-house report exposed the EPA for following UN policy, instead of policy based on their own research. Regarding global warming and unproven indirect land use change theory, UN policy is an instrument infiltrated by big oil – used to blame biofuels - using manipulated information and premature conclusions. Contrary to Global Warming CO2 theory, Carlin presented evidence that global temperatures have been dropping over the years, not warming. So, is the EPA creating unfair restrictions and steering us prematurely into CO2 cap and trade, based on inaccurate data? - See “Suppressed EPA scientist breaks silence, speaks on Fox News”, by Mark Tapscott.

The EPA is also playing the omission game. EPA way underestimates the cost and the environmental impact of petroleum based fuels – as they compare to biofuels. By omission, EPA fails to include the cost and the environmental impact to secure and protect American Foreign Oil Interests. A Rand Report called “Does Imported Oil Threaten U.S. National Security?” states that protecting America’s Middle East oil interests costs the United States 12-15% of its entire 2008 defense budget every year – A huge amount of money, resources, bunker fuel and diesel fuel burned, and a long distance supply line to provide this protection.

The EPA also disguises the true environmental impact of Petroleum based fuels by using old or slanted information. For the footprint of petroleum, the EPA used pre-tar sands data. This does not reflect more recent crude oil extracted from Canadian tar sands – which consumes twice the energy of conventional ground wells. And we import more crude oil from Canada than any other country. Tar sands oil extraction is also a major source of deforestation. Imported Oil is also transported thousands of miles (from the Middle East and numerous foreign countries) by ocean going ships burning Bunker Fuel, a major cause of global pollution and Black Carbon.

Our concept of Global Warming itself is flawed. A one or two degree temperature change, every twenty-five years, is not going to melt glaciers and polar ice caps. We have been making the assumption that they have been receding due to excessive CO2 suspended in the atmosphere. That may be a factor, but it’s not the main cause.

It’s Black Carbon, from burning Dirty Coal, Dirty Bunker Fuel, Dirty Diesel, Dirty Jet Fuel, partially burned Gasoline, and anything that suspends particulate SOOT into the atmosphere - Soot precipitating out of the air and onto the surface of snow and ice. The heat of the sun is absorbed by this layer of Black Carbon, and this is what’s causing the melting of snow and ice, not the higher levels of CO2 we have today.

What we need to do is reduce and eliminate Black Carbon Soot. Mainly from burning fossil fuels.

To fulfill its hidden agenda, the EPA is cooking the books on fuels causing Black Carbon Soot, and instead, fingering the biofuels which replace them.

President Obama, with all due respect, you need to get your house in order. Start by auditing and purging the corruption in the EPA.