Corn-Based Ethanol Fuels, Without increased Auto Fuel Efficiency Standards, Are a False Policy Alternative

In this morning's Diane Rehm show, Daniel Sperling--the Director of the Institute for Transportation Studies at UC-Davis--provided great insight into all that is wrong with any corn ethanol-based alternative fuel campaign that does not also emphasize dramatic increases in automobile fuel efficiency standards.

As Sperling clarified, current corn ethanol production in the US does not help the environment, since it yields global warming gasses equivalent to that produced by traditional oil-based fuels. While cellulose-based ethanol production could yield significant environmental benefits, this technology for producing ethanol will not become available for many years.

Current Flex-fuel vehicles on the US market yield only 20 mpg on average, while the best hybrids yield 50-70 mpg! Until the car industry wakes up and begins manufacturing flex-fuel vehicles that provide 40 mpg or more, they are selling bad products that are more expensive, continue to contribute to global warming, and yield little benefit to the environment.

On top of this, to sell 20 mpg flex-fuel vehicles as a "green" transportation alternative, is to treat consumers as fools. This is the equivalent to selling "natural" cigarettes as a "green" alternative to traditional cigarettes. It is a strategy for selling ignorance and deception to consumers in the name of environmental and energy consciousness.

The only currently-available strategy for producing significant reductions in the production of global warming gasses are those already available strategies that yield much more fuel-efficient automobiles. Hybrids are already yielding 60-70 mpg, and the technology for producing even regular gasoline cars like the GEO Metro that could achieve 45 mpg was already available in the 1990s. Why are there not more fuel-efficient cars like the GEO Metro on the market? Instead of producing more cars like this, the Chevy GEO Metro was taken out of production several years ago.

What is the best action for the environment you can take if you are choosing an automobile? Auto consumers/users should refuse to buy or drive any car, whether it is flex-fuel or gasoline-powered, that does not yield at least 40 mpg--

This is the best way for any car buyer in the US to make a clear statement to car manufacturers and the oil industry, and begin to create an irresistable public demand for greatly improved fuel efficiency standards in the US car industry.

The choice to buy a flex-fuel car that continues to yield only 20 mpg is a fool's choice in support of continued inefficiency sustained by the powerful corn ethanol lobby in the US, which is not currently any better for the environment than the oil lobby.

'Nuestro Himno' is Beautiful Tribute to the Spirit of America

A Plea to All Americans:

Please LISTEN to Nuestro Himno/Our Anthem before criticizing it--

This Latino rendition of the US national anthem is one of the most moving renditions of the Anthem I have ever heard. If people bothered to listen to this artistic tribute to the United States and its history as a nation of immigrants before jumping on the bandwagon to criticize it, perhaps something important for the future of this nation could be learned by all Americans.

Nuestro Himno features artists who have together produced an amazingly beautiful and inspiring bilingual tribute to the US Anthem. According to the Latino-oriented record label Urban Box Office (UBO), which has released the recording,

"Nuestro Himno" or "Our Anthem," is set to "urban Latino rhythms" but respects the song's traditional structure.

Indeed, what much of the reactionary off-the-cuff commentary on this rendition of the Anthem seems to be missing is this simple point: As a work of art, Nuestro Himno is not intended to replace the traditional English version, or to suggest that all Americans should begin singing the Anthem in Spanish.

Rather, in the best creative tradition of this nation, this song pays tribute to the heroic spirit of the Anthem and gives its history renewed meaning and life for a new generation of Americans in the twenty-first century.

Yet, without pausing to consider the possibility that there might be something profound and beautiful for all Americans to learn from this artistic tribute to the US national Anthem--something that might help to draw all Americans closer together, and give them wisdom to solve some of the problems of immigration they are currently confronting--when asked about this Latino version of the Anthem at his April 28 news conference, the President responded dismissively by saying that the Anthem should only be sung in English.

This kind of dismissive response, which seems to be in line with so much of the unfortunate reactionary tone of the rhetoric about immigration today, does not allow a question central to the resolution of the current debate over immigration to be considered: What can we learn from past and present traditions of art and creativity, to deepen our understanding of the kind of future Americans can build together?

Nuestro Himno has much to teach all Americans, if we will only pause for a moment to listen, and to think about what is has to say about the deep wisdom and beauty that resides in the traditions of immigrant solidarity that have made this country as richly diverse and creatively vibrant as it is today.

So I hope, before you jump without thinking on the bandwagon to say, like the President, that the National Anthem should only be sung in English (as if translating the language of our most important national songs or literature has suddenly become unpatriotic), I hope you will take a few minutes to listen to this music, and to ask whether all Americans might not be able to learn much from what it has to teach us about how we can continue to build a future for all Americans out of the rich traditions of this country's immigrant past and present--

*****
President Bush also said at his news conference on April 28,

"One of the things that's very important is, when we debate this issue, that we not lose our national soul. One of the great things about America is that we've been able to take people from all walks of life bound as one nation under God. And that's the challenge ahead of us."

This is indeed the challenge ahead of us! And this is a challenge we will surely fail to meet if we react to the challenges of immigration without first pausing to listen to the lessons of history and art, and to think creatively about new forms of policy that are needed to respond to the challenges of the present.

If the President and US citizens can voice such sentiments about our "national soul" and yet, without pause, argue that the National Anthem can only--everywhere and always--be sung in English, I'm afraid such reactions may indicate that much is already missing, or in danger of being lost, from our "national soul."

If Americans cannot come to see how a beautiful song like Nuestro Himno offers much to enrich our national soul, I fear we are very much in danger of losing it.

And in any case, the immediate rejection of this possibility seems to be the basis on which the current unthinking backlash is developing. This backlash is itself unpatriotic, since it would suggest that Americans are too narrow-minded and fearful to appreciate and value the tribute paid to their anthem by Nuestro Himno.

Why can a Latino version of the National Anthem not be viewed as a patriotic expression of solidarity with the history of the US as an immigrant nation? If we cannot learn from our own history how it was that previous immigrant cultures enriched our national history and made possible what is best in it today, I fear we may be losing touch with the best part of what the President called our "national soul"....

For historical background on the US National Anthem, see the Smithsonian's website on the Star-Spangled Banner.

A Real Campaign Alternative for an Independent Energy Future

SET AMERICA FREE
Cut dependence on foreign oil. Secure America.

If we want a real Progressive campaign alternative for Energy Independence, we need more than a glitzy media campaign focused narrowly on still grossly inefficient 20 mpg flex-fuel vehicles, even if such a campaign is sponsored by Robert Redford.

(Dear Robert, have you checked the MPG ratings for flex-fuel vehicles currently on the market? They seem to average a terrible 20 mpg, while a 1996 GEO Metro was able to achieve 45 mpg 10 years ago! Today, if you were looking to buy something equivalent to the GEO Metro, you would not be able to find it without switching to a much more expensive Toyota or Honda hybrid. Why is this the case, you might well ask? While Toyota and Honda have been moving ahead in developing their hybrid cars that can NOW already deliver from 50 to 60 mpg, our US car manufacturers could not even maintain in the 21st century the few models like the GEO/Chevy Metro that delivered more than 40 mpg. This illustrates that any emphasis on flex fuel without a coinciding demand that American car manufacturers get with it and manufacture dramatically more fuel efficient vehicles, will dramatically fail to meet our environmental, transportation, and security needs.)

Because of this, we desperately need many more campaigns like the DetroitProject campaign launched by Americans for Fuel Efficient Cars and the Apollo Alliance back in 2003.

We need campaigns based on strategies like the Apollo Alliance's "Ten Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence," which lists as its Number One goal:

1. Promote Advanced Technology & Hybrid Cars: Begin today to provide incentives for converting domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient cars, transitioning the fleet to American made advanced technology vehicles, increasing consumer choice and strengthening the US auto industry.

And If we want a real Progressive campaign alternative for Energy Independence, we need to be able to develop a specific policy alternative and strategy at least as good as that developed by the so-called "Set America Free Coalition," which has been able to sponsor significant legislative proposals in Congress.

The Democratic Party has this week proposed its CleanEdge Act 2006, as part of its Energy Independence 2020 campaign, whic was initiated last Fall. This CleanEdge Act does manage to note that its aim is to "accelerate and extend incentives to purchase and manufacture vehicles that rely on advanced fuel efficiency technologies." But why is this not the first and primary focus of this legislation, since placing an emphasis on flex-fuel cars that continue to yield only 20 mpg will do little to decrease our energy needs or dependence on oil. Only in combination with much more efficient use of fuel, with technologies that were already available ten years ago, will we be able to dramatically reduce the environmental, political, and economic burden of our reliance on fossil fuels.

As noted in the recent Set America Free Coalition’s Blueprint for Energy security:

If by 2025, all cars on the road are hybrids and half are plug-in hybrid vehicles, U.S. oil imports would drop by 8 million barrels per day (mbd). Today, the United States imports 10 mbd and it is projected to import almost 20 mbd by 2025. If all of these cars were also flexible fuel vehicles, U.S. oil imports would drop by as much as 12 mbd.

Here are some of the details on the currently proposed legislation, based on the Set America Free Blueprint--

Landmark Vehicle and Fuel Choices Legislation: Setting America Free

The bipartisan Senate bill (S. 2025) sponsored by Senators Bayh (D-IN), Brownback (R-KS), Coleman (R-MN), Graham (R-SC), Lieberman (D-CT), Lugar (R-IN), Obama (D-IL) and Salazar (D-CO) and the companion bipartisan House bill (H.R. 4409) sponsored by Vice Chair of the Republican Leadership Conference Rep. Kingston (R-GA), Rep. Saxton (R-NJ), and Rep. Engel (D-NY) and 22 other cosponsors aim to put the nation on the path to independence from foreign oil.

The bills blaze this trail by requiring a real plan to boost efficient use of oil in our transportation sector, offer consumers non-petroleum fuel choices, and encourage the use of fuels produced from domestic resources. The bills are based on the Set America Free Coalition’s Blueprint for Energy security.

Focus on 21st Century Vehicles – Renew Detroit

While the plan addresses all sectors of the economy, transportation is responsible for 70 percent of our oil consumption and it is currently 97% reliant on oil. The legislation creates some new authorities and research programs to help achieve the oil savings from our cars, trucks and buses, including:

· Providing a tax credit, loan guarantees, and grants to auto manufacturers and suppliers who decide to retool factories to build more efficient vehicles, including especially hybrids and advanced diesels, and associated components;
· Removing the cap on the number of eligible consumer tax credits for advanced vehicles;
· Closing the gas guzzler tax loophole that encourages businesses to purchase very large SUVs but maintaining an exemption for farm vehicles;
· Establishing new requirements for oil savings and advanced vehicle usage for federal fleets and new incentives for private fleets that purchase more efficient vehicles; and
· Funding for research, development and deployment to speed commercialization of both near-term vehicle technologies, such as plug-in hybrids, and advanced vehicles technologies, such as light-weight materials.

Both the proposed Senate and House bills include four major components:

· An national oil savings requirement starting at 2.5 million barrels of oil per day within ten years and increasing over time, achieved through a menu of existing and new authorities and incentives;
· Federal manufacturer retooling incentives for production of efficient vehicles and authority to set efficiency standards for tires and heavy duty trucks;
· Programs that increase fuel choice in the transportation sector; and
· A national energy security media campaign to educate the public about oil dependence.

Another False "Alternative" advertised as a "Progressive" Alternative for Ending our Oil Addiction

As desperately as we need real policy alternatives, policy campaigns like the unfortunately shallow new KicktheOilHabit campaign just launched by the Center for American Progress are a sad distraction rather than a real benefit to the progressive political community struggling to advocate and build public demand for progressive policy alternatives that will benefit ALL Americans, and not just the wealthy and slickly hip ones (who have perhaps invested in stocks for flex-fuel vehicles)--

In extreme disappointment at the shallowness of this campaign, and in the hope that it might be dramatically improved, here is the letter I have written to the Center for American Progress to protest the relatively shallow alternative they are currently offering, in expectation that they should be capable of creating something more substantially progressive to meet the needs of all Americans:

Dear Fellows at American Progess Action & the Center for American Progress,

Your newly launched "Kick the Oil Habit" Campaign is deeply disappointing! As currently constructed, it sounds like little more than an advertisement for the Flex-Fuel automobile industry, rather than anything approaching an alternative policy agenda....

I'm amazed and disturbed that your "Alternative" Plan to "make a difference in the lives of all Americans" completely ignores the one most important requirement of any plan for working-class, moderate-income Americans:

Raise automobile MPG fuel economy standards for all new cars, and make low-price 50+ mpg compact cars a priority for American car manufacturers!

All of your emphasis and the media's emphasis on Flex-fuel cars is cute and hip for upper-income people who can afford to pay for these more expensive flex-fuel vehicles. But your current so-called "alternative" strategy offers little to the many Americans who can barely afford to pay their current fuel bills, let alone buy new technology vehicles that are twice as expensive as regular cars, and provide little improvement on overall fuel economy (since ethanol provides fewer mpg than gasoline)--

So if you really want to develop a Policy Alternative for ALL Americans, you need to make a prominent demand for higher auto MPG standards (for both regular and flex-fuel cars) the center of your campaign. Without this, all the talk of ethanol and flex fuel cars is window-dressing that does more harm than good to work for policy alternatives by distracting attention from the most substantive policy issue of all: the need for all Americans to demand higher fuel efficiency.

We would now have much higher MPG standards if Congress had enacted legislation proposed a decade ago to require higher auto fuel efficiency standards. Instead, a total failure of legislation and policymaking in this country fostered the epidemic of SUVs, and drove our fuel economy standards backwards.

We will continue to fail to do the one thing that could achieve the most dramatic fuel savings if all the focus on alternative fuels keeps attention from being directed toward the need to demand dramatically higher fuel efficiency standards for all cars in the near term, making use of already available technologies. Without this, your supposed alternative plan is no different from the plan of the automobile advertisers for flex-fuel vehicles.... who hope to continue to have their cake while eating it too, at the expense of all working-class Americans--

Right now, your "Kick the Oil Habit" campaign offers no real alternative, and is in fact a rather sad joke on working-class Americans, since you are basically telling us the best alternative we have available to us is to buy new flex-fuel cars we can't afford to buy! This may be a good strategy to benefit the investor class that can afford to invest in the flex-fuel stock market, but for the rest of us who struggle to survive each day, and have nothing to invest in even our own futures, let alone in the stock market, this is a rather nasty and bitter joke to offer as a policy alternative for ALL Americans....

So would you please refocus your campaign on a demand to dramatically increase fuel-efficiency standards for all US-manufactured cars?! Even for the US car industry, this is an important policy demand, because if the US car industry does not become competitive with foreign-made cars in the fuel-efficiency department, there won't be much of a US car industry left in another 10 years, and THAT will also not benefit working-class Americans, especially in Michigan!

If you add an emphasis on fuel-efficiency standards to your Kick the Oil Habit campaign, I will be happy to publicize it on this Blog-- but as it now stands, your proposed policy "alternative" is a nobrainer that can only make those with brains feel insulted that you are offering it as an "alternative." Such a campaign may be good advertising for the flex-fuel auto market, but it doesn't go very deep to foster an alternative policy agenda....

So would you please be a bit more deeply creative, and offer a true progressive alternative?!! I would expect Fellows at the Center for American Progress to know and offer much better than this kind of shallow campaign to all Americans--