California Ethanol Coverage a Little Lacking

Back in my home state, the Los Angeles Times has a story about a state program that invests in renewable fuels projects and a grant that provides some support to a California-based ethanol company. The story is rife with political allegations, but I’m going to set that aside to talk about a few remarks made about ethanol.

The story talks about the California Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program, created by former Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nuñez. In the article, he said that the program was designed to specifically not include supporting ethanol: There were “public assurances” made, the reporter writes. And Nuñez’s quote seems to support this:

“It’s appalling. We gave them a very clear direction where these funds should be going. Ethanol is yesterday’s news. It seems like there’s some inside deal going on.”

Of course, a visit to the website of the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program tells a different story. Why, there on top of the page is a logo representing E-85 ethanol, the strongest available for FFVs.

And there are also handy links to the legislation Nuñez authored to create the program, AB 118 of 2007 and AB 109 of 2008. Ethanol projects are clearly mentioned in both as suitable projects for funding.

Perhaps the reporter can follow this up in future stories. I somehow doubt it, because there are the comments from the reporter himself in the second paragraph, where he shows a little bias in how he picks and chooses his facts:

“When the fund was set up, its backers said it would not be used for corn ethanol, a decades-old gas additive that many environmental scientists argue is at least as bad for the planet as oil.”

Keep in mind, the advisory committee includes members of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists, two organizations notorious for their unblinking opposition to corn ethanol.  In fact, the NRDC representative was quoted indirectly saying that “converting one farmer’s corn into fuel means that another farmer would have to fire up a tractor to grow more food.” Obviously, this person needs an education on yield trends, but maybe he’s just not keeping up with what’s been going on in the Corn Belt.

But there are others the reporter could have spoke with, such as Brooke Coleman at the New Fuels Alliance, also an advisory committee member. And the writer also could have looked beyond the Golden State for a broader perspective.

Had he done so, he would have seen that ethanol production is becoming a model of efficiency. He would have seen that it’s got a solidly positive energy balance. And he would have seen a good reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the only domestic alternative fuel source available in large enough quantities.