For many farmers and ranchers, the federal agency that best exemplifies the cynical phrase “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” is the Environmental Protection Agency.
During a Senate confirmation committee hearing last week, President Obama’s nominee for EPA Administrator admitted that the relationship between the agency and those working in agriculture could be improved.
“I think the agency has bridges to build with the agriculture community,” said nominee Gina McCarthy in response to questioning by Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska about one particular rule that requires farmers to have an oil spill prevention plan in place to protect against water contamination. McCarthy said she looks forward to addressing the issue with Sen. Fisher and others because “I know just how hard the farming community protects their resources and I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to change the relationship between that community and the EPA.”
This week, EPA’s new senior Agricultural Counselor held a conference call with agriculture media to discuss how that might happen. Sarah Bittleman, who previously served as USDA’s Senior Advisor on energy policy, says she knows that there is a lack of trust in the agency on the part of farmers and ranchers.
“My job is to restore some of that trust,” she said, noting that it might be improved by working more closely with USDA, conservation districts and state departments of agriculture that have a better relationship with producers. “By partnering with these other folks who work so closely with agriculture, we can little by little grow a base of increased and better trust relationships,” Bittleman added.
Bittleman says her goal as EPA advisor is to serve rural America.
Fuels America launched a campaign to set the record straight on the real way to lower prices at the pump yesterday, releasing both a video and an op-ed that ran in Beltway must-read Politico. Using facts to combat the anti-ethanol hype being used in the current assault on the RFS, the multi-pronged push to provide real information is making a splash in the media and with those engaged in the online energy dialogue.
The video, “The Truth Behind High Gas Prices in 60 Seconds”, explains that:
“We can’t drill our way to cheaper gas, but we can get lower gas prices – by stopping the oil industry’s monopoly. First step? We need to fight for other options – like renewable fuel. Watch our video to learn the truth behind the price we pay for gas.”
In an op-ed published in Politico, Growth Energy CEO Tom Bius and Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen looked at volatility in the RINs market, a cause of concern for many on the Hill as of late.
“The story here is simple. Opponents of renewable fuel, led by the oil industry, want to convince Capitol Hill that renewable identification numbers, or RINs, are the harbingers of doom for U.S. gas prices. Three facts every member of Congress should know about RINs: They are free, they are primarily traded by oil refiners to oil refiners, and they were created at the oil companies’ insistence. Early this year, the price of RINs rose dramatically, but since oil companies dominate the RINs market — and since ethanol supplies are increasing — we are hard-pressed to see a reason for that spike in prices.”
To read the editorial in opinion piece in Politico, click here.
Today, a second op-ed by Bius and Dinneen ran in Roll Call. Here, they called for the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as EPA administrator and Eric Munoz as secretary of Energy as these confirmations would help continue the successes already achieved by biofuels under the RFS.
“We’ve done our part: Foreign oil imports are down 10 percent. We’ve added $40 billion to America’s gross domestic product. We’re offering blends from E15 to E85 in some parts of the country. But, as energy analyst Daniel Dicker says, ‘[Oil] refiners don’t make ethanol, so they’re not really all that happy about making E15. What they want to do is make gasoline because that’s what they make money off of.’”
To read the editorial in opinion piece in Roll Call, click here.
The push to get the truth about America’s renewable, environmentally conscious energy source out is growing. To become part of this positive change, click here.
Without question, most Americans have probably wondered at one point or another where some members of the U.S. House of Representatives get their information. Prone to tossing about wildly inaccurate blanket statements, a segment of politicians aiming to bring down the Renewable Fuel Standard and our nation’s energy security are playing fast and loose with the truth.
And it seems like no one is watching.
Just today, CNN Money released a story about how the price for many consumer goods fell. Based upon information released by the Labor Department on changes during March to the Consumer Price Index, the story explained that one major factor contributing to the decreased CPI was a drop in food prices at the grocery store.
“Prices on whole milk, potatoes, lettuce and pork chops all declined during the month,” the article stated. “But food prices at restaurants and cafeterias rose slightly.”
Yet, only days ago, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) introduced legislation that would remove corn-based ethanol from the federal Renewable Fuels Standard in 2014. Calling the RFS an “unworkable federal policy”, Goodlatte even noted that he plans to introduce legislation which would eliminate the RFS entirely.
How do the bill’s supporters justify this attack?
Fellow sponsor Jim Costa (D-Calif.) explained, “We can’t afford to keep putting food in our fuel tanks. It’s no longer just about agriculture or energy. It’s about putting food on our families’ tables.”
With food prices at the grocery story, presumably the most common place to purchase affordable food for our families’ tables, actually falling and a lower percentage of our income going to food than any other developed nation, how does this justification make sense?
Simply, no one is taking time to connect the dots.
Allegations are thrown out and accepted as fact without any real evaluation. Looking at the news in its totality instead of as a series of unconnected sound bites shows the inherent fallacies in basis upon which these legislators are putting forth a bill that would have a massive impact on our nation’s energy supply.
An attack on the RFS is an attack on legislation that has successfully decreased our dependence on foreign oil while moving our nation toward a renewable, more environmentally friendly fuel. Make no mistake, a step in this direction will have consequences that every American feels in one way or another. Whether it is by paying more at the pump next year or by breathing in more harmful pollutants, handing back the gains made through the RFS will harm American families.
Good policy may be complex. It may not make a snappy sound bite. It is what Americans must protect to ensure a better future for their families.
“I believe we will have a bill this year because we have to have a bill this year.”
That’s what Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said to agricultural journalists meeting in Washington DC. While he is confident there will be a “food, farm and jobs” bill sometime this year, he’s not sure about exactly when that might be. “I don’t know when Congress is going to act,” said the secretary. “I know what the ag chairs have said and that is that they’re anxious to get started now.”
That seems to be the general consensus among the policy watchers on Capitol Hill but that’s just about the same thing that was being said last year at this time. The committees were starting to work and the industry was feeling confident that the work would be getting done before the 2008 bill expired in September. Obviously, it didn’t happen.
Secretary Vilsack had two main reasons why we “have to have a bill” this year. “Producers need solutions and a five year plan to make decisions, but there are certain parts of the bill that will resolve sticky issues for us” the Brazilian WTO case regarding cotton being the primary example.
Of course, we had those same two reasons last year, but it was still okay to “kick the can” down the road for awhile. Hopefully it will be different this year. There has to be a point where the road dead ends.
Currently, the Florida law requires that all gasoline sold or offered for sale by a terminal supplier, importer, blender or wholesaler in Florida contain 9-10 percent ethanol, or other alternative fuel, by volume. Rep. Matt Gaetz of Fort Walton Beach wants to see that ended and he pulled out every one of the ethanol myths during a recent hearing to make his case. Here are some of his comments:
“One of the studies that I read indicates that the average Floridian pays a $75 per year ‘ethanol tax’ because though a gallon of ethanol may cost less than a gallon of fuel it doesn’t take you as far because the fuel density of ethanol is one-third less than that of unblended gasoline.”
“I think we can send the message in Florida that ethanol mandates are not sound public policy, that they’re energy losers, they harm the environment, they increase food prices and they harm engines.”
“On a recent trip to Rwanda, former president Bill Clinton specifically cited ethanol mandates as a reason for food riots and starving people, the poorest people on this planet.”
“The impact of federal subsidies artificially deflate the price of ethanol.”
Listening to the hearing, including the questions asked by other lawmakers and Rep. Gaetz’s answers, it is clear that they need some serious ethanol educating. In a continuation of that same hearing, testimony was presented that refuted the remarks made by Gaetz, but the bill passed through committee anyway and is being taken up by a state Senate committee this week.
The point was made in testimony opposing the bill that the reason such ethanol requirements have been put in place is because of the stranglehold oil companies have on the U.S. transportation fuel market. It’s particularly ironic that Florida is trying to help the same industry that created an environmental disaster on the pristine white sand beaches of the Gulf coast with the BP oil spill, a disaster which cost billions of dollars the state is still working to recoup from BP. You’ll never see beaches closed from an ethanol spill but don’t try to confuse these lawmakers with the facts.
“RINsanity” is fueling speculation about speculators driving up the price of the credits given to refiners upon the purchase of renewable fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which some are claiming increased gasoline prices earlier this year.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) recently spoke on the House floor about the volatility of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINS) prices this year. “There are questions that need to be asked on why such swift dramatic price shifts are being reported in the market,” he added. “Are speculators at work? There is an excess of over two billion RINs. Why is that not proving and providing stability? I encourage the media to ask these types of questions, but to simply jump on and blame the renewable fuels sector is incorrect.”
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) believes speculation is the cause of higher RINS prices this year. “I don’t know whether there is a conspiracy on the part of oil companies or whether it’s just plain old speculation but it doesn’t seem like it’s the marketplace,” he said.
A new analysis conducted by Informa Economics, Inc. released last week shows that RINS are not a factor in higher retail gasoline prices. Renewable Fuels Association vice president of research and analysis Geoff Cooper, says RINS only exist because the oil companies asked for them. “The EPA allowed third parties with no blending obligation to participate in the RIN trading market and we believe that much of the volatility that we’ve seen in recent weeks can be explained, at least in part, by speculative activity.”
Cooper says it is easy to disprove the correlation between higher RINS prices and retail gas price increases. “If you overlay retail gas prices, what you see very clearly is that gas prices jumped long before RIN prices began to increase.”
RIN credits were seven cents at the beginning of the year, but spiked in March at over a dollar for two trading days. The average this year, according to Cooper, is less than 40 cents. The Senate Energy Committee is expected to hold a hearing to look into the RINS price volatility.
Growing corn in areas where water is scarce and soil is toxic may soon be a reality thanks to research being done at major universities.
Purdue University scientists recently received a grant of over $1 million to find ways to increase corn tolerance to heat, which would help farmers in this country when we have a drought like last year, but would be a real boon for farmers in Asia. The work will be done through the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center with funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Purdue professor Mitch Tuinstra (pictured) said finding ways to grow maize in the hotter climates of South Asia could help combat malnutrition and hunger issues in those countries. Understanding ways to adapt the crop to heat and drought could also help growers in the United States where climate change is expected to increase stress on crops. “There is a lot of concern about how climate change will affect crops, but we know almost nothing about thermal tolerance in corn,” Tuinstra said.
Meanwhile, over at Cornell University, researchers are working to grow stress-tolerant crops on formerly non-farmable land with high levels of toxic aluminum in the soil.
Plant scientists searched the maize genome for clues as to why some plants can tolerate toxic aluminum and found three copies of the same gene known to affect aluminum tolerance, according to new USDA/Cornell-led research.
Aluminum toxicity comes close to rivaling drought as a food-security threat in critical tropical food-producing regions.
Acidic soils dissolve aluminum from clays in the soil, making it toxic to plant roots in half the world’s arable lands. The MATE1 gene, which was found in triplicate in aluminum-tolerant maize, turns on in the presence of aluminum ions and expresses a protein that transports citric acid from root tips into the soil, which binds to and locks up aluminum, thereby preventing it from harming roots.
Beginning in summer 2012, the prices of ethanol and corn reached levels where production costs at relatively simple ethanol plants exceeded revenue. These simple plants, which are not able to recover corn oil, make up a diminishing portion of the ethanol industry. Reacting to the market conditions, several ethanol plants temporarily shut down. By January 2013, the number of idled ethanol plants had grown to at least 20.
Relatively simple ethanol plants produce ethanol and distillers grains from corn. More advanced plants are able to recover other products, like corn oil, from a portion of the distillers grains. Ethanol plants with corn oil recovery units are able to earn more revenue, so they usually have higher profit margins than plants without corn oil recovery, even if their production costs are slightly higher.
According to the EIA report, corn oil recovery is one of several strategies that the ethanol industry is developing to improve margins. “Others involve switching to processes that are more advantageous under the renewable fuels standard (RFS). For instance, Aemetis in Keyes, California, is changing its feedstock from corn to sorghum and replacing its natural gas consumption with biomass. Other companies plan to produce butanol rather than ethanol, or integrate cellulosic feedstock, such as wood waste or corn stover (e.g., leaves, stalks, and leftover cobs after the corn harvest). These approaches allow their products to qualify as advanced biofuels under the RFS, a category that specifically excludes ethanol produced from cornstarch, which has been the dominant feedstock for the U.S. ethanol industry.”
Read more here.
Whether critics of biotechnology in agriculture are being intentionally obtuse or honestly believe that it is acceptable to rage against proven technology while basing accusations in willful ignorance, the current backlash against Section 733 of the Fiscal Year 2013 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act has painted an inaccurate picture of the provision and panicked many sensible Americans. Anti-biotech vigilantes using a truly ridiculous combination of ominous implications and arguments based in their own carefully cultivated ignorance have misled the masses and, in doing so, furthered the lack of understanding that makes many fearful of their food.
Section 733, in its essence, protects American family farmers who, due to frivolous lawsuits based in procedural arguments and directed at major corporations, could face serious economic harm. The provisions of this Act would assure farmers that they could plant and harvest crops developed through biotechnology already approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under a temporary stewardship agreement in the event of litigation against the agencies decision.
In simple terms, Section 733 removes a potentially significant financial risk facing farmers. Today, the regulatory process for biotechnology leaves the family farmers who purchase seeds approved by their government vulnerable to costly losses should an activist group choose to legally challenge the government’s decision. Without this provision, these men and women, acting in good faith, become collateral damage in an ideological battle between those who embrace and eschew science.
The need for such protection has been made evident over the past several years as opponents of agricultural biotechnology have repeatedly filed lawsuits against the USDA on procedural grounds. In filing these suits, the anti-activists aim to disrupt the regulatory process and, in a broader fashion, undermine the science-based regulation of biotech ag products. These lawsuits strain USDA resources and delay the approval of new, innovative products America’s farmers need to grow abundant, affordable food and remain internationally competitive.
Furthermore, the anti-modern ag groups flaunt their use of the legal system as a weapon, openly admitting their intention of continuing to impede the availability of new products to the detriment of our nation’s farmers and consumers. In previous cases, these litigants have tied up the regulatory pipeline for years. Even when the Supreme Court has decided in favor of the defendants, these constant complainers continue creating controversy and threatening not only further delay but even the destruction of the crop grown by law abiding farmers.
While anti-activists may not understand sound science and live in constant denial of the overwhelming evidence that biotechnology is not only safe but is beneficial, they intrinsically understand how to engineer panic and fear. They expertly manufacture the perception of public outrage and then use it as grounds on which to attack a provision intended to protect America’s farm families from their assault on science. The scorched-earth mentality of their assault dictates that their ability to inflict collateral damage be maintained.
Don’t fall for the self-serving hype disguised as righteous indignation. Assaults on biotechnology in general and Section 733 specifically are assaults on America’s farm families.
Taking first place in the Student Corn Innovation Contest is a team that created a fireworks casing that is biodegradable, lighter and less expensive than what is now available. Pictured here are Alexander Parobek and Rachel Clayton, with a fireworks rocket containing the casing, and Polina Navotnaya and Jake Hoeing, with the casing. They received a $20,000 prize for their efforts.
The second-place corn team received a $10,000 prize for their creation called Fog-Away, an anti-fog glass and mirror cleansing solution. Members are Anbo Wang of Jingdezhen, China, a junior in agricultural economics; Mitch French of Pittsboro, Ind., a sophomore in biological engineering; Hannah Doren of Northfield, Ill., a junior in food science; and Benjamin Lins of Racine, Wis., a sophomore in chemical engineering.
The winning soybean team produced Nature Loft, a soy protein fiber insulation that can be used in bedding, including sleeping bags; apparel such as hats, gloves and footwear; and other products such as headphones, and the second-place soybean team developed water-soluble Double Eyelid Glue.