"As Congress makes final decisions on the energy bill, one of the most important decisions to be made is whether or not to implement a more aggressive national renewable fuels standard (RFS). This is a no-brainer… Opponents of the RFS– and we all know who they are– have decided that the best way to avoid one is to smear corn ethanol… This clever campaign is loaded with half-truths and red herrings. Along with misleading claims that ethanol contributes to global warming, or relies too heavily on public subsidies– subsidies which are a rounding error compared to government subsidization of the oil industry– it is often said that ethanol is not produced in a renewable manner or that it increases food prices… The fact that fossil fuels are required to produce ethanol from these renewable feedstocks is a given, because the production of any source of energy requires energy, and the U.S. energy sector is fossil-fuel based. But ethanol producers are increasingly efficient, and some are beginning to co-fire their plants with biomass. Most importantly to me, the feedstocks for biofuels are domestic. No U.S. soldier will ever die defending a cornfield… Government support for corn ethanol is miniscule compared to the $3 billion U.S. taxpayers spend each week fighting wars in the Middle East… Corn ethanol can take us only so far. I look forward to the day when the next generation of biofuels are commercialized and widely available… But to get to tomorrow we need to make pragmatic choices today. That means a strong renewable fuel standard in this year''s energy bill to ensure that the next generation of biofuels becomes a reality." 

The tide may be turning against bio-fuels– at least amongst the chattering classes. The semi-prestigious Smithsonian magazine has just published a piece by Richard Conniff that rips the bio-fuels industry to bits, piece by bloody piece. After laying out the case for growing go-juice– renewabilty, carbon neutrality, recycling waste– Conniff takes bio-fuels to task for all the right reasons. We're talking food price inflation ("Cargill's chief predicted that reallocation of farmland due to biofuel incentives could combine with bad weather to cause food shortages around the world"); CO2 pollution ("when ethanol refineries burn coal to provide heat for fermentation, emissions are up to 20 percent worse for the environment than gasoline"); supply unreliability ("Switching to corn ethanol also risks making us dependent on a crop that's vulnerable to drought and disease"); soil erosion ("…growing corn requires large amounts of nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides and fuel. It contributes to massive soil erosion, and it is the main source, via runoff in the Mississippi River, of a vast "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico"); and wildlife destruction ("The United Nations recently predicted that 98 percent of Indonesia's forests will be destroyed within the next 15 years, partly to grow palm oil"). Other than that, he loves it! The article concludes with the usual conservation mantra and a plug for solar energy (so to speak). But I gotta tip my hat to Conniff for this gem: "…the switch to corn ethanol sound[s] about as smart as switching from heroin to crystal meth." 

Bill Reinhert is Toyota USA's national manager-advanced technology group. He wants you to know that Toyota's decision to offer an E85-compatible (a.k.a. flex fuel) Tundra pickup has nothing to do "greenwashing." “It’s a longer-term strategy," Reinhert told WardsAuto. "What we’re not going to do, in the short-term, is say: ‘Look at us! Aren’t we green?’” Bob Carter, ToMoCo NA's group vice president and general manager, seconds the motion. He claims Toyota's decision to develop the flex-fuel full-sizer was designed to help the company capture more sales in the American heartland; where corn is grown, ethanol subsidies flourish and E85 stations abound ('cause they don't have to schlep the pipeline aversive juice cross country). Be that as it may, the Midwest is certainly a key battleground for the new Tundra. "The Midwest is where we’re seeing our strongest sales growth percentage-wise, not volume-wise.” Oh, and the fact that inexpensively converted E85 Tundras will boost Toyota's CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) ratings may have a little something to do with it too. 

The European Union (EU) wants to see 10 percent of Eurozone transportation powered by bio-fuels by 2020. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has come out in opposition, claiming biofuels’ ability to tackle global warming is strictly limited. Cooperate and develop this: the organization concludes that biofuels are only economically viable with large state subsidies (surprise!). What’s more, they reckon the mandated European bio-fuel surge could lead to “rising food prices and damage to forests and wildlife.” The OECD wants the EU to rescind its biofuels targets. Their alternative? Legislate energy-saving and more efficient vehicles. “You cannot feed people and soak up carbon and protect biodiversity and fuel cars,” says Brice Lalonde, the former French environment minister who chairs the OECD’s round table on sustainable development. C’est la verite.

Ah, the politics of American sugar. I once read that Caribbean cane growers protected their power by lobbying the English parliament to prevent America's colonists from achieving political representation. Nice. Flash forward two hundred fifty years or so and The New York Times reports that a "little-noticed provision in the new farm bill would oblige the Agriculture Department to buy surplus domestic sugar caused by the expected influx of Mexican sugar next year. Then the government would sell it, most likely at a steep discount, to ethanol producers to add to their fermentation tanks." Note the word "surplus." in other words, the feds would be legally obliged to buy U.S. sugar at a price determined by the U.S. sugar industry, to provide the somewhat-less-than impoverished, already heavily subsidized industry an "insurance policy" against the impact of cheap NAFTA-enabled imports. It gets worse. The ethanol industry doesn't event want the sugar; they'd have to invest in new machinery to use it. “In today’s grain-based biorefineries, the amount of sugar you could introduce into the process would be fairly small,” said Matt Hartwig, spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association. Our tax money hard at work. 

No seriously. The Kingdom of Norway may become the first nation on God's green Earth to ban all gasoline-only cars. Citing Brazil's success with bioethanol as their rationale, Norwegian lawmakers are considering ditching petrol-only machines completely, in favor of biofuel-powered transportation. The United Press International reports that Center Party committee member Jenny Klinge feels banning sales of gasoline-powered cars to her country's 4.7m residents "would pressure the automobile industry into developing technology faster than it otherwise would." The Norwegian Transport ministry is trying to determine if such a ban would be legal. Meanwhile, Norway's many corn, soybean, and sugar cane farmers are excited about the prospects of a new market for their crops.

No good deed (or government subsidy) goes unpunished. The New York Times reports what we surmised many moons ago: without a national network of ethanol-compatible pipelines, the corn-based fuel can't be distributed in sufficient quantities to impact America's dependence on Arab-sourced fuel. In other words, trucks and trains aren't getting it done. Add in the large number of E85 plants coming on stream and the rising price of corn and there you it: expensive raw materials, a transportation bottleneck AND oversupply leading to falling prices. Over the last two years, the price of ethanol has slumped form two bucks a gallon to $1.55. At least the ethanol industry can rely on their friends in Congress to prop-up demand through "conservation legislation." For now. Aaron Brady, a director at the consulting firm Cambridge Energy Research Associates, warns that "unintended consequences" may hurt popular support for home-grown gas. He's talking pressure on corn and other food prices, water shortages, and soil and fertilizer runoff. Without Washington's support for ethanol, what then? 

Who said you can't have your cake and drive it too? Wired Magazine continues the top ten transport trend (thanks Forbes) with its list of "The 10 Fastest Green Cars on the Planet." They range from the ridiculous (muscle-powered FM-4 HumanCar) to the ridiculous (1200hp, ethanol-powered SVS Power Dodge Viper). The list also includes Audi's LeMans-winning diesel R-10 TDI, Ford's record-setting fuel-cell Focus and (of course) the "Where is it Now?" Tesla Roadster. Unfortunately, very few of the cars on Wired list are street-legal or in production. Even fewer qualify as anything remotely resembling practical transportation. Still, gearheads and greenies together forever? As Rodney King famously enquired, "Why can't we all just get along?"

Under the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1998, federal, state, and public utility fleets can meet their alternative fuel requirements by tanking-up with biodiesel. As a direct result, The National Biodiesel Board reports sales of the vegetable oil and and diesel brew have risen to 225m gallons per year, heading for an estimated 2b gallons by 2015. Carpe-ing the diem, Green Earth Fuels has started production of biofuels in Houston. Using a proprietary system, Green Earth's aiming to cook-up some 45 million gallons of biodiesel per year. "The time has come for a national biodiesel infrastructure that is safe, sustainable, progressive and commercially viable," says Greg Bafalis, Green Earth’s president and CEO. Wall Street tycoons (The Carlyle Group, Riverstone Holdings and Goldman Sacks) are bankrolling Bafalis' faith in alt. fuel serendipity. But the rising price of vegetable oils and the possibility that Uncle Sam may remove its biofuel "incentives" have some investors spooked– while Washington lobbyists continue to cash large checks.  

A new study that concludes that rainforests absorb more CO2 than can be saved by clearing the land for biofuel crops. Razing rainforests for bio-fuels? Surely not! Uh-huh. U.S. and European government legislation mandating huge increases in ethanol consumption is already amping-up ethanol production in developing countries. Wired Science reports "In Indonesia, for example, environmentalists estimate that foreign biofuel demand will drive energy companies to clear the country's remaining peat rainforests, a valuable CO2 sink. The resulting slash-and-burn could release 50 billion tons of CO2 — nearly a decade's worth of US greenhouse emissions — into the atmosphere." Renton Rightelato, co-author of the aforementioned study, said the West's focus on biofuels distracts its citizenry from the real problem. "People feel they're saving the planet [by encouraging bio-fuels]. They're not. Biofuels are essentially being used as a way of avoiding the real problem: reducing the use of fossil fuels." Doh!