Improving fuel economy and promoting FFVs are not one and the same. Indeed, the dual-fuel loophole -- which allows automobile manufacturers to earn extra credit against their CAFE standards for every FFV they sell -- makes a mockery of fuel economy. The majority of FFVs being produced in the USA still have 5.3-litre engines.

Big Oil has no reason to fear and every reason to love biofuels, since the commitment the government has made to them basically ensures many decades more of the dominance of the internal combustion engine as the main technology for personal transport (as opposed to, for example, electric vehicles). And the blending of biofuels with gasoline and diesel ensures continued demand for those products for even longer.

The GAO figures that the Ethanol legistlation that allowed for cars to get 0.9mpg less.

Has actually caused a net increase of 9 million gallons of oil usage between 2000-2005

Why does Grist regularly feature ignorant and clueless celebrities who promote agrofuel destruction?

Who are the Grist staffers who compile the People Magazine level lists of "green" celebrities?

There seems to be a giant chasm between the environmental perspectives of the Grist writers and the clueless celebrities Grist features as "green."

I think promoting most of these celebrities as "green" is misleading and harmful.

Is there any way to determine if the sorts of readers who are attracted by Grist's  clueless celebrity lists also read the often excellent Grist articles?

What is the benefit of promoting celebrity agrofuel promoters as "green"?  

Hey, all:

I am at least as outraged as Karen Orr is, but this is the nature of marketing, and this is why they find personable but clueless celebrities to do the talking.  Most of them are well meaning and willing to help, but they only get one side.  

Hell, I used to think bioDiesel was the answer, and I even made it myself.  The only difference is that I only used waste vegetable oil, which obviously is only a maximum of 2-5% of the Diesel volume.  When you then realize the full impact of the potential, you reconsider.  IF (big IF) the celebrities ever reach that point the lie is already in place.    The damage is done.  They then have no voice to address the damage, or are too embarrassed to do so.

I also agree this entire celebrity issue is extremely trite and a lot of crap.  I wonder at the motives of those who put such crap up for people to read.

Why aren't we fighting against agro-fuels?  Some people here want them.  Some sell offsets, some support nukes, some want the Alice in Wonderland lie of "Clean Coal"--all about greed, none of which of course are sustainable.  Look at people's motives and bona fides.  Karen, and surprisingly Greyflcn and even more odd, BioD are correct.  Talk about goofy stars.  

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

...what Ben Affleck has to say for himself. I've never actually seen anything with him in it, which I suppose must be a bit of a shock given my age, and I couldn't care less about his opinion, or those of any of this horde of overpaid, under-talented so-called 'celebrities'. I'm beginning to think I'm in a hopeless minority, however, although some of the above comments give me a little hope.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

I, too, think all this infatuation with celebrities, including political celebrities, on Grist is trite, and lowers the credibility of Grist. If Sarah's intent was to amuse or shock us, OK. But if we are supposed to be impressed, it doesn't look to me as if anybody was.

And just a word of explanation: lest GreyFlcn or anybody else think I was defending agro-fuels in my earlier remarks, much less subsidies to agro-fuels in my remarks about Big Oil -- au contraire!

I was merely trying to refute an argument that I hear all the time in support of ethanol, FFVs, and spending gobs of money on promoting both: that it is a good way to attack Big Oil. Excuse my French, but that notion is bullshit!

From "Big Oils" perspective

The best way to slow things down is to "Divide and Conquer"

Especially since BioFuels and Hydrogen are essentially just wild goose chases.

Hey, all:

In all fairness, Sarah von Schagen DID ASK the question:

"Would seeing Ben Affleck dressed as an ear of corn make you more or less interested in learning about ethanol and supporting legislation requiring service stations to sell it?"

I guess the answer from most is a resounding "NO!" But what remains is the motive, whether it was a simple sincere question, or was it just a way to promote the videos?

And as for the question, it looks like the Center for American Progress has already answered it to their shallow satisfaction--that is, if they asked themselves the question to start with.  

This is again why I have consistently stated that we need to demand much more of leaders and ourselves, we need to have and apply the highest standards, and search for the best solutions.  Half-assed environmentalism will get us to Hell soon enough.  

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Yes, let me add my two cents to the "you've got to be shitting me!" concensus.  

I don't know where the legislation stands but these greenwashed videos were addressing an attempt to force the major oil companies to not prohibit their franchisees from selling E85.  On the face of it this looks bad of big bad oil attempting to keep this great clean fuel from their marketplace.  But, ironically, there is currently not enough ethanol to even supply enough volume of the 10% stuff.  So, why invest in the infrastructure if you cannot obtain reliable supplies or market it at a competitive price?  

Congress was also considering offering new subsidies to allow E85 retailers to sell it at a price that would compete with gasoline factoring in the lower fuel mileage with E85.  There was some concern that some of the retailers who were selling it had priced it too high and were killing the demand for it. Locally, I don't see anyone, even the corn farmers driving their big flex fuel pickups, stopping at the E85 pump until there is a threshold price diffential when the price of gasoline rises substantially.    

Many of the concerns expressed about corn ethanol on this site are making it into the major news media.  But, I would guess that the views expressed in the above comments represent a small minority.  And, the views expressed by these celebrity air heads are the dominant views, genuine or not, expressed by our political leaders.  I don't think you can find a single candidate running for president who represents the skeptics' perspective on this issue.  

So, the light is green for green lite.  So, you greenies may just have to turn your color to red ... FLASHING RED!

The commentary on the link repeats this same old mantra:

At this juncture, corn-based ethanol can play an important role as a transitional fuel to to replace oil while we develop biofuels made from better sources -- such as switch grass, wood chips, and agricultural waste.

No, no, no, no. We have discussed this endlessly on Grist. Massive amounts of money are going into machinery to planting, till, harvest, store and process corn. Most studies now show that corn will still be the preferred crop in the Corn Belt, even if the cost of producing cellulosic ethanol drops as significantly. Elsewhere, those counting on making ethanol from things like woodchips forget that other industries -- notably, the electric power industry -- also have designs on the same feedstock.

In your linked commentary, NOTHING is said about the economic distortions caused by the massive subsidization of agro-fuels, and the import tariff on ethanol, much less the poor -effectiveness of current policies. THAT is what needs to be discussed, not whether one should try to fit Ben Affleck into a blade of grass.