GoodFuels

Shoddy report by Canadian think tank debunked

A few weeks back, the C.D. Howe Institute (a think tank in Canada) released a report that generated a fair bit of news coverage. The report, ‘The Ethanol Trap: Why Policies to Promote Ethanol as Fuel Need Rethinking’, was riddled with errors and flawed assumptions.

In order to demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt the faulty methodology and false conclusions, the CRFA commissioned an independent, arms-length analysis by (S&T)2 Consultants. It demonstrated that our concerns were very well founded. The critique highlights indisputable contradictions in logic and methodology that suggest the report was drafted to support a conclusion rather than to explore the facts in full.

This week, the CRFA has released the full report to the media and public. We have also shared the results with the C.D. Howe Institute and asked that they withdraw the work, given its many obvious errors. Key stakeholders, policymakers, and elected officials have also been provided with the report to ensure that their own impressions are balanced by rigour and fact.

With oil and gas at record prices, we have an economic and environmental imperative to grow beyond oil. That is the indisputable benefit of biofuels. The CRFA will continue to advocate for policies that meet the needs of consumers and that ensure Canada maintains and grows its position of international leadership in developing clean and green fuels for the future.

(To this end, but on a different note, give our new radio ad a quick listen. Enjoy!)

The Eye of the Beholder

Like beauty, statistics are in the eye of the beholder.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report on biofuels policies is the perfect example. According to the report summary on the OECD website, they found that biofuel production “has a limited impact on reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy security, and has a significant impact on world crop prices.”

First, define “limited impact.” According to the report:

Ethanol from sugar cane - the main feedstock used in Brazil – reduces greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent compared to fossil fuels. But emission reductions are much smaller from biofuels based on feedstocks used in Europe and North America.

Biofuels produced from wheat, sugar beet or vegetable oil rarely provide emission savings of more than 30 to 60 percent while savings from corn (maize) based ethanol are generally less than 30 percent. Overall, the continuation of current biofuel support policies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuel by no more than 0.8 percent by 2015.

Why is it that any reduction in greenhouse gases provided by biofuels would be considered limited? The only reason the overall estimate is so low is because they are considering total global emissions reductions. If you take it country by country, the figures would be much higher. Estimates are that in 2006, the use of ethanol in the U.S. reduced greenhouse gas emissions, equal to removing the annual emissions of 1.8 million cars. Sounds significant to me.

Now, define “significant impact on world crop prices.”

At the very bottom of the OECD release it says:

The impact of current biofuel policies on world crop prices, largely through increased demand for cereals and vegetable oils, is significant but should not be overestimated. Current biofuel support measures alone are estimated to increase average wheat prices by about 5 percent, maize by around 7 percent and vegetable oil by about 19 percent over the next 10 years.

In fact, according to the OECD model as reviewed by the Renewable Fuels Association:

Another interesting finding of the OECD model is that a 28% decrease in world oil prices would lead to a 12% decrease in coarse grains prices. This implies there is a strong link between oil prices and grain prices and that the effect of reduced oil prices would be to lower grain prices by about $30 ton, or 75 cents per bushel (using corn as an example). This finding, coupled with the models results on biofuels policy impacts, also supports the finding that oil prices have a more pronounced impact on grain prices than do biofuel policy measures.

As someone once said, statistics can be made to prove anything - even the truth. Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable.

When Polls Are Designed to Deceive

I’ve always maintained that opinion polls can produce desired results simply by the way in which the questions are worded. Yet the results, regardless of how misleading, can have a powerful impact. This is why it is important to look hard at the methodology.

In a recent poll, conducted by the National Center for Public Policy, which in itself makes me skeptical, the headline stated that “Poll Finds Farm Belt Voters Oppose Ethanol Policy.”

I was more than curious because fading support for ethanol in the farm belt would be serious. The press release stated that “Farm-belt Voters Favor Eliminating or Reducing Corn Ethanol Mandate; New Poll Finds 76% of Americans Want Ethanol Law Changed; 41% Want Mandate Repealed Entirely.”

The American public at large is generally not aware, or not interested in the many details that surround a particular issue. I would bet that 85% of Americans have no idea that the mandate is being challenged right now. In fact, I would also bet that more than 50% are not even aware that a mandate exists. So how did the National Center for Public Policy, a conservative Washington think-tank with ties to major oil, achieve these results?

(more…)

Oil and Water

A Renewable Fuels Now article calls it the “Franken-Stat.”

“It’s the monster stat that will never die: 1,700 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol.”

Unfortunately, it gets quoted as fact by the media, even though it is not true. It actually takes less than four gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol. The twisted “fact” quoted by the media was made up by the infamous Cornell University entomologist David Pimentel.

He gets the number by adding in the water needed to grow corn — never mind the fact that as little as 4 percent of the corn used for ethanol production in the United States requires irrigation. Rainfall is enough for the other 96 percent.

By comparison, it takes 1,851 gallons of water to refine a barrel of crude oil. That’s 44 gallons of water per gallon of crude.

Meanwhile, there is now apparently an environmental movement to get rid of bottled water. This story from the News Tribune in Jefferson City, Missouri talks about a local hospital that pulled bottled water from it’s vending machines in the name of “non-violence toward our environment.”

The reason:

In 2006, Americans spent almost $11 billion on more than 8 billion gallons of bottled water. More than 22 billion bottles were thrown into the trash.

In the United States, people drink more than 70 million bottles of water each day. That takes 1.5 million barrels of oil to produce.

Interesting.

Need 4 FoodB4Fuel Disclosure

“Full disclosure” is a term often used by bloggers or other commentators – sometimes even by regular media – to note when they are talking about a subject in which they have a vested interest.

If you look at this site, for example, you will find on the side bar a link to our contributors. They include myself, my husband and partner Chuck, and two staff members of the Renewable Fuels Association – the sponsors of this blog. That is full disclosure. It tells you who we are and what we do. Yes, we have an agenda. It is to tell the good news about ethanol that often gets overlooked in all the negative hype that is being regurgitated by the media these days.

It seems like there is a need for full disclosure on a blog called “Foodb4fuel.com.” This “Recent News/Blog” link off the main “Foodb4fuel” website offers NO disclosure about its contributors, who are identified only as “foodb4fuel” or “kernel.”

Even the main website offers no information about who is behind the effort, although there are clues. Under the “Take Action” link, they offer a way to “compose and edit a letter to Administrator Johnson of the EPA and send cc faxes to your US Senators and Governor.” They’ll even start the letter for you and let you edit it!

They ask you to choose a category that “best represents your perspective.” Those choices include: consumer, poultry producer, cattle rancher, restauranteur (their incorrect spelling, not mine), environmentalist, concerned Texan, protein industry employee (what is that?), and supermarket employee.

According to informed sources, the website and blog are creations of the Glover Park Group, the PR firm hired by the Grocery Manufacturers Association for the express purpose of smearing ethanol. It would be nice if that were transparent.