The authors write in the report, “While all four groups have different missions, histories, goals and ideas about the role of government, we all agree that we can begin to overcome our nation’s budgetary and environmental woes by tackling spending that is not only wasteful but environmentally harmful.”

So what do they want to cut? Fossil fuel, nuclear, alternative energy, and crop subsidies to name a few. They also want to cut land and water projects and kill road projects along with some Army Corps of Engineers water projects.

According to the report the federal government could end the following programs and save the United States:

• $72,000,000,000 for general revenue transfers to the Highway Trust Fund
• $30,000,000,000 for crop insurance
• $4,820,000,000 for Oil and Gas Royalty relief

Several lawmakers reacted to the report and Rep. Earl Blumeanauer (D-OR) said, “The 2011 Green Scissors Report is a reminder that it’s time for Congress to have a serious, rational discussion about cutting the budget. With painful budget cuts already under discussion that will require American families to make sacrifices, it is only fair, for example, that we also stop the handouts to our richest oil companies.”

Hey, I’m all for cutting budgets and its good to see that the report recommends cutting energy subsidies across the board, but I must ask what would happen to our energy bills if poof, over night they’re all gone? Will we we lose our innovation in alternative energy technologies and be stuck with the status quo? Now how environmentally friendly is that?

The move to renewable energy is spurred by a high electric bill and sends the family to the Alternative Energy Expo. As the family piles into the car, to avert thieves in their absence, they leave on all the lights, including their Christmas lights. Once they get to the expo, several things catch their eye including solar panels and biofuels where boothmates “switchgrass” and “corn ethanol” get in a fight over who is better.

But what really catches Homer’s eye is the promise of the wind turbine, which he installs in his backyard.

Lisa: Dad, you are leading the way in clean energy.

Homer: Yep. I Al Gore’d it pretty good.

Lisa: The Simpsons are off the grid and so far it’s going great.

Until…

Homer: Who turned off the wind?

Lisa: Dad, if we’re really off the grid than we won’t get power when the wind is still.

Homer: Well, I’m not crawling back to Big Electricity. From now on the Simpson’s are living intermittently.

Ok, so while the message wasn’t perfect you know when a technology has captured the minds of the general public when it shows up in pop culture. Now let’s hope that renewable energy does a better job of capturing the minds of our politicians so it can continue to “show up” in our backyards.

The letter was signed by the American Coalition for Ethanol, Advanced Ethanol Council, Growth Energy, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association. The letter addresses a number of “anti-ethanol” amendments including one proposed by Reps. John Sullivan (R-OK), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Michael Burgess (R-TX) that would block the legal implementation of E15. The fuel blend of 15 percent ethanol and 75 percent gasoline (E15) is the most tested fuel ever.

Ironically, calls to cut biofuel support come at a time of high debt crisis for the country. Needless to say, the same legislators who oppose biofuels are those who continue to support status quo tax credits and subsidies given to industries like oil, natural gas and coal. And one way to bring revenue to the federal government, an idea Republicans vehemently oppose, would be to close tax loop holes, some of which are helping the these same industries. Yet the biofuels industry is in a position to not only help save consumers money at the pump, but also to infuse money back into local, regional, state, and federal budgets.

As our elected officials continue to bicker on the Hill over the budget, now is a good time to urge them to make some sound policy decisions such as keeping continued support for biofuels a federal priority.

The full text of the letter is below:

We write today in strong opposition to FY 2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill amendment no. 6 offered by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) and Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and amendments no. 9 and 10 offered by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) that would prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing the approved use of 15 percent ethanol blended fuel (E15).

Preventing the EPA from implementing the use of E15 for cars, pickups and SUVs made in model year 2001 and newer, further contributes to our nation’s reliance on petroleum sourced fuels. Extensive testing has been done on E15 and it has been found to be a safe and effective fuel for use in the vehicles approved in the waiver. There has been no evidence to the contrary that would indicate problems in any vehicle regardless of vintage. In fact, the EPA’s approval of E15 was based on more exhaustive study and data collection than any of the 11 previously-approved fuel waiver petitions. No other fuel mix has been tested more. Consumers are not required to use E15 – it is a market choice.

Further, these amendments would inhibit new innovation to provide alternatives to foreign oil. We are looking toward cutting-edge innovation to move to new ethanol feedstocks, like plant wastes, wood chips, and switchgrass. The Sullivan/Peters and Burgess amendments would solidify the status quo – a 90 percent mandate of our fuel supply from oil and would prevent American-made ethanol – a more affordable vehicle fuel than regular gasoline – from getting to consumers.

The Sullivan/Peters and Burgess amendments halt efforts by the United States to broaden and diversify our sources of motor fuels.

At a time when prices at the pump are again approaching $4/gallon, in the interest of American consumers, American energy independence, and our national security, we urge you to vote NO on Sullivan/Peters amendment no. 6 and Burgess amendments no. 9 and 10.

Feinstein’s goal is to reduce, if not end, California’s as well as the country’s use of corn-based ethanol. On a national level she co-authored legislation that ended support for current ethanol programs. Less than two weeks ago, the Senate came to a compromise to end ethanol incentives via the Ethanol Reform and Deficit Reduction Act, sponsored by Feinstein, John Thune (R-SD) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). The compromise included an end to the ethanol tariff as well as to the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) that gave the ethanol blender of record a 45 cent incentive to blend the fuel. Should the house pass the same measure, it would take effect on July 31, 2011.

The California Senator’s ire is not limited to corn-based ethanol, although the California Ethanol Producer Incentive Program is under fire and she is lobbying to increase gas taxes and ethanol blended fuel taxes in the state. In addition, she is gunning to limit funds dedicated to building biofuel infrastructure including the installation of E85 or blender pumps. If this isn’t enough, she is also attacking incentives for cellulosic and algal biofuels.

One industry that would suffer a dramatic setback should the federal legislation be signed into law, are those retailers who sell E85 (eighty five percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline). In California, the 50 plus retailers who sell E85 are looking at shutting off the pumps because they won’t be able to sell the fuel at competitive prices.

“If you were trying to stifle biofuel technology, increase reliance on imported oil, eliminate jobs, and increase pollution, you could not have done a better job than this,” said Joe Irvin, executive director of CEVC. “Senator Feinstein continues to talk about saving taxpayers money when she just pushed through this $1.1 billion increase in the federal fuel tax to California consumers by raising tax on ethanol blends from $13.6 cents to 18.1 cents.”

“We knew Congress was responsive to the oil industry’s needs, but even this surprises us – all of the petroleum industry’s subsidies remain intact. It makes one wonder why, if this is really about reducing the deficit, the Senator does not put this kind of effort into reducing petroleum subsidies and pollution. She could probably be every effective,” added Irvin.

It should come as no surprise that earlier this year, Feinstein voted to keep current oil subsidies in place, while voting to end ethanol subsidies. According to a 2010 study by the Environmental Working Group, estimated cumulative ethanol subsidies between 2005 and 2009 were US$17 billion. Yet each year, U.S. oil subsidies are more than $100 billion give or take, while fossil fuels subsidies worldwide were more than $312 billion as reported by the International Energy Agency. One must ask that if you are trying to balance the budget, ending oil subsidies is a no-brainer but our legislators have proven time and time again they have no brains.

Another issue with Feinstein’s attack of biofuels is how will California meet the Low Carbon Fuels Standard if it eliminates ethanol from the mix? It would take decades to move to an electric vehicle society, and most of us won’t be alive to see a hydrogen economy, while biofuels are here today.

In addition, her state efforts to kill ethanol will also help to kill Californians – ethanol helps to reduce carcinogens contained in gas including BTX (benzene, toluene and xylene). She apparently doesn’t care for research, or anyone’s health – the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Resources Board (CARB) recently released a report that determined Californians most pressing health threat could be ultra-fine particulates (UFP’s), with the majority of UFP’s being emitted from gasoline with high BTS levels. CARB has also released a study authored by Mang Zhang that show ethanol blends offer significant reductions in UFP emissions.

While no fuel is perfect, including biofuels, despite what Feinstein and other anti-ethanol pundits believe, over the long-term, supporting the development of biofuels will save us money while improving our health. On the flip side, over the long-term, the continued support of fossil fuels will cost us money, jeopardize our security and threaten our health. I think consumers in California, as well as throughout the country, need to send Feinstein and our other pro fossil fuel subsidy policy makers a clue. Start writing – they’re going to need millions.

As the EU looks to increase current biodiesel use from 3 percent to 10 percent by 2020, they are also concerned that such a move would increase environmental damage rather than reduce environmental concerns. Their own analysis concludes that a 10 percent biodiesel mandate could lead to “an indirect one-off release of around 1,000 megatonnes of carbon dioxide — more than twice the annual emissions of Germany.” In addition, one report concludes that more use of biofuels could “squeeze food supplies and increase global hunger.”

The studies to which Reuters is referring have not been released by the European Commission and the authors surmise it is because it would “have significant implications for the existing EU biodiesel industry.”

These negative impacts could include a reduction of investments in plants and infrastructure. It could also cause a reduction of biodiesel use, rather than what the country has been aiming for since 2003, an increase in biodiesel use.

One of the biggest concerns with increased biofuels use is indirect land use change (ILUC) a proposed theory that the pro-biofuels groups have been trying to fight for several years. The ILUC argues that more biofuel production (tied to biofuel mandates) will cause trees to be cut down in other areas, increasing carbon and if the crop competes for “food” causing hunger in other areas of the world.  In other words, the “indirect effects” of biofuel production outweigh the positive benefits of the fuel.

“The land use change effects make nearly half of the expected gains of shifting from fossil fuels to renewable biofuels disappear,” said a third report by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for the EU.

A fourth leaked document concluded biodiesel from Asian palm oil, South American soy beans, and EU rapeseed all had a bigger overall climate impact than conventional diesel.

The hope of the European biodiesel industry is that since the science is still young and inconclusive, the country should not pass legislation based on its deductions and theories.

This entire story reads like a “biodiesel conspiracy” theory- and who doesn’t love a little drama? It will be interesting to see if the as-of-now unreleased reports will in fact be released by the EU, and if so, what type of tail-spin the reports could cause.

Other successful IPO’s include the much-awaited IPO of Gevo back in February. The company raised an estimated $123.3 million after setting the share price at $15. In total, the company sold 8.223 million shares. There were concerns as to what level of interest the IPO would generate after Amyris went public last September with less than stellar results. In total, Amyris raised $84.8 million after setting in shares at $16. The company had originally hoped to go out with an offer between $18-$20 a share.

But despite set-backs for the biofuels industry, the real IPO winner so far this year has been Solazyme who raised nearly $227 million – nearly double the money raised by others in the biofuels sector. The per share price was $18, ironically 10 percent higher than company execs predicted several weeks prior to the official IPO.

So why did Solazyme rake in the big bucks while the others merely fared well? While I am by no means a financial guru, I believe part of their success lay in the fact that Solazyme is already making profits by selling bioproducts and biochemicals. Earlier this year, the company launched a cosmetic product that is being sold in Sephora stores nationwide. The other companies, while they have contracts and are producing fuels at smaller scales, are not making profits yet. Therefore, investing in these companies is a bigger gamble.

Another reason why Solazyme’s strategy may be effective is that they are able to use their profits from their bioproducts and biochemicals to help fund it algal-biofuels research while companies like Gevo have no products yet. Therefore, Gevo needs to raise funds just to deploy its technology at commercial scale, which it is now doing. They have broken ground on the retrofit of an ethanol plant in Luverne, Minnesota.

With a solid showing on Nasdaq, at least for now, hopefully these second generation biofuels companies are paving the way for more IPOs and more private investment dollars – a much needed element if the industry is to move to commercialization.

First street followed the money dedicated to lobbying for both Senate Bill S. 520 Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Repeal Act and House Bill H.R. 1075 Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit Repeal Act. During first quarter of this year, there were 32 lobbying firms representing 36 clients to the tune of $8,895,893.00. There were 22 lobbying firms active on the House side representing 18 clients and spent $3,645,862.08. So first quarter alone, more than $12 million was spent on lobbying for VEETC reform.

Who were the players on the Hill? Most were the usual suspects. On the pro-ethanol side the biggest spenders were Growth Energy, Renewable Fuels Association, National Corn Growers Association, and POET, who spent $450,000 to just lobby against the VEETC legislation in the House. In the last three years, UNICA, the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association, spent more than $500,000 to lobby for the end of the tariffs as well as various other ethanol amendments.

On the anti-ethanol side you had the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), National Retail Federation, League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Working Group, American Meat Institute, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, National Turkey Federation, and more. The biggest spender was GMA who spent $900,000 lobbying for the House bill alone. On the Senate bill side, your two biggest spenders were Pepsico with $1.44 million followed by Kraft who spent $720,000 to get the bill passed.

As the debate continues around subsidies and balancing the federal budget, ethanol and other biofuel tax incentives are at the center of the chopping block and have already become an important policy point for the Republic presidential candidates. And anti-ethanol groups are stepping up their game with new advertising campaigns aimed at both policymakers and consumers, as well as an all-out assault in the realm of social media (there are now social media-focused lobbyists). It will come as no surprise then, to see millions upon millions more spent throughout the year on VEETC and other biofuel subsidy reform.

According to the article a “confluence of events” has caused the prices to skyrocket. “They include an unusual price discrepancy between European and North American oil and below average gasoline supplies in the U.S., which drives up whole-sale prices that also affect Canada.” Other factors include geography and bad weather south of the border.

Don’t let out sigh of relief that biofuels escaped blame. They didn’t and today a coalition of Canadian on-road diesel fuel associations are raising concerns that the biodiesel mandate set to go into effect in Canada on July 1st will actually cause gas prices to go even higher.

According to the coalition, which includes the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), Motor Coach Canada (MCC) and the Owner-Operator’s Business Association of Canada (OBAC), the Canadian government’s own regulatory impact analysis statement predicts the biodiesel mandate will cost taxpayers $2.5 billion over the next 25 years and increase pump prices for diesel fuel. The report also believes fuel economy will decrease and any greenhouse gas emission reductions will be negligible.

To support their point, the coalition pointed the finger at Massachusetts and New Mexico’s biofuel mandates that allow for the suspension of the regulation should the price of diesel fuel be more than conventional diesel fuel. In addition, the coalition says that U.S. state biodiesel mandates have raised diesel prices anywhere from 1-8 cents per gallon, even with subsidies.

The coalition also cited other fears. The price of canola is at record prices and volumes. The country will have to import 85 percent of its biodiesel to meet the mandate and they cite higher costs of food as another reason to abandon the mandate. In addition, they believe the biodiesel will harm engines, cause problems in the winter due to “cold start issues” and void warranties.

“The biodiesel mandate is going to exacerbate the problem of higher fuel costs through increased prices at the pump and through reduced fuel content of biodiesel,” said David Bradley, president and CEO of the 4,500 member trucking alliance. “The only question is by how much. We can’t control some of the things that are currently impacting fuel prices, but we can avoid introducing policies domestically that could make things worse. In addition, the biodiesel program is completely inconsistent with the federal government’s announced intention to introduce a national fuel economy/GHG reduction standard for heavy truck engines,” he said.

Brian Crow, MCC president, says bus companies, like trucking fleets, are worried about the impact the biodiesel mandate will have on the costs of operating a motor coach, as well as on engine durability and operability. Currently there are no Canadian standards for biodiesel production, limited blending facilities to make the product and government plans to allow the retail sale of biodiesel above recommended manufacturer warranty levels for both light and heavy-duty vehicles putting consumers at risk for expensive repair bills.

The long and short of the argument is that the coalition would like to see the mandate disappear before it arrives; whereas the country’s biofuel industry believes the mandate will spur economic growth and provide jobs among other benefits.

“If governments want to go down this road they should mandate that all government vehicles – buses, trucks and cars – should be the guinea pigs, not the people and companies trying to stay afloat during these very difficult times,” concluded Crow.

I’ve held this interview with Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis because I was waiting for prices to rise even higher (which they have). When we had this discussion, we were attending the event where BioProcess Algae commissioned its Grower Harvester bioreactors, the second phase in their commercialization strategy. The site is co-located with a first generation corn ethanol plant in Shenandoah, Iowa owned and operated by Green Plains Renewable Energy. This was the perfect backdrop to have the discussion about the role of biofuels in helping to lower prices at the pump.

Buis explained that for the past 40 years, our country has been addicted to foreign oil and the costs to our country have been astronomical. Every recession since World World II has been proceeded by high gas prices. As oil prices rise, it takes time for the increased price to be reflected at the pump. Yet we have a domestic solution available now – ethanol. “I don’t know how many times we have to have these wake-up calls, let’s move forward. We know we can do it. We’re sitting here at a plant today that’s living proof that we can create our own energy here in this country.”

Listen to my interview with Tom Buis here: Ethanol, Right Here, Right Now

Today, Buis said ethanol today is saving consumers at the low end 17 cents per gallon up to 50 cents per gallon on the high end. “If we shut off ethanol today, it would have a far greater impact than the turmoil in the Middle East or North Africa because we’re a bigger source,” said Buis. “Most people don’t understand that if the American ethanol industry were a country, we would be the second largest provider to the United States of transportation fuel. Second only to Canada. That would have a huge impact.”

One last fact. We spend $1 billion dollars a day to import foreign oil. This is more than $1,000 per year for every man, woman and child in this country. That means you.

Mull this over the next time you fill up.

The high gas prices and high oil company profits have President Obama saying that in light of federal budget deficits and public anger over oil profits (not a new phenomenon by the way), they will work with Congress to cut the subsidies, tax breaks and publicly-financed giveaways that global oil companies receive.

Yet this statement has the ethanol industry asking, “Is there hope for that?”

In response, Growth Energy’s CEO said, “Profits are one thing, but when these companies are also raking in billions of dollars in federal subsidies all while Americans are suffering at the pump, something’s got to give. High oil prices are driving up gas prices, grocery prices – everything. Many Americans don’t realize that they are underwriting these profits in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. Speaker Boehner has opened the door to talking to President Obama about ending these needless giveaways to global oil companies and we encourage the House to follow their lead. At a minimum, we need to have congressional hearings.

Buis concluded, “It’s time we end the handouts to big oil companies. It’s time we take what are the hidden costs and put them out in the sunlight – let’s see what it really costs the taxpayer for our addiction to foreign oil.”

You can listen to additional comments from Tom Buis here: Time to End Oil Subsidies & Taxes?

This beat-down occurred during his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York and was published by The Independent. During his presentation he said, “Today, 35 per cent of US corn goes into biofuel. From an environmental point of view this is a nonsense, but more so when we are running out of food in the rest of the world.”

Brabeck-Latmathe continued, “It is absolutely immoral to push hundreds of millions of people into hunger and into extreme poverty because of such a policy, so I think – I insist – no food for fuel.”

The fuel versus food debate has been raging for several years. For each report that debunks the theory, another is published that places primary blame on rising food costs at the feet of America’s corn and ethanol industries. Yet, scores of economists have publicly acknowledged while there are dozens of factors that affect food prices, the current spike is being driven by speculators, a global increase in demand for protein and the unrest in the Middle East to name a few reasons.

National Corn Growers President Bart Schott responded to Brabeck-Letmathe’s comments. “It is scandalous, ludicrous and highly irresponsible for the chairman of a global conglomerate that tripled its profits last year to talk about higher corn prices forcing millions into starvation. Perhaps if Nestle is so concerned about food prices, its board will consider putting more of their $35.7 billion in 2010 profits back into poor communities. Just their profits alone represent more than half the entire farm value of the 2010 U.S. corn crop.”

Schott continued, “It’s time for the food processing industry, which has been using higher grain prices to justify its price increases, to explain to hungry families why they have to eat less so those who can afford company stock can make more money. Profiteering off world hunger needs to end, and that is what is truly immoral. If there is a ‘food versus fuel’ crisis it exists because families are being forced to decide which of the two they can afford, gasoline from Big Oil or food from companies like these. That’s something I challenge Nestle to step forward and help alleviate. They certainly can afford it.”

Ironically, Nestle has its own brand problems – especially related to its use of water resources (Brabeck-Letmathe accused the biofuels industry of using too much water) and links to baby deaths in Africa and Burma as a result of its infant formula. In 2007, Brabeck-Letmathe was given the “Black Planet Award” for the company’s “irresponsible marketing of baby food contaminated by genetically manipulated nutrition, their tolerance of child labour and monopolisation of water resources.”

Today, Nestle is actively lobbying for European leaders to curb their biofuels policy even in the wake of many country’s commitments to reducing CO2 emissions.

So what lesson have we learned here? Maybe you should have a clean plate before you start throwing food at others.

Now it’s oil turn to be under fire. In California, 40 percent of the state’s fuel supply comes from TEOR petroleum, while 10 percent of the gasoline is blended with ethanol. Life Cycle Associates have found the value for Thermally Enhanced Oil Recovery (TEOR) to be at least 109, though it might approach 120, and to have a carbon intensity value of 20 for total production and transportation. Ironically, this is in the same ballpark as corn ethanol. They are critical of the original GREET model, which found the value to be much lower originally, near 96.

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) submitted a letter to CARB with their recommendations of how crude oil should be treated under LCFS. They believe that crude oils should not be differentiated. So oil produced from tar sands should be treated the same as oil drilled in Alaska. Second, they believe that “future production from the same geographical areas and using the same techniques as represented in the 2006 California baseline, are extensions of that baseline and should receive the same treatment.” In other words, new oil fields should not be subject to a screening process and this is important because the state is moving to open new TEOR oil fields that were once considered too uneconomical to extract the oil.

Third, WSPA is arguing that given that the regulations currently call for differentiation of crudes that are not included in the 2006 baseline into high carbon intensity crude oil (HCICO) and non-HCICO categories, WSPA has been working with staff and other stakeholders in the HCICO Workgroup to develop a process to make the necessary categorizations. Finally, once the categorizations are in place, they are asking for a retroactive application of the carbon intensity of re-classified crudes. Ultimately, WSPA offered up a proposed model for the crude oil screening process.

What the ethanol industry is lobbying for as a result of the meeting is that it will be determined that TEOR is required to be submitted to a full “Method 2B” carbon intensity determination, which opens the fuel pathway up to a thorough review including public comment. In addition, they hope that CARB’s workgroup ultimately assigns a value between 109 and 120 as the carbon intensity value. Since carbon intensity does often increase over time and there is variability from one well to the next, it would seem correct to set the value near the upper band of possible values.

So on the surface what doesn’t seem to be taken into account in regard to the “sustainability” of crude oil – water use. CARB has a committee that is reviewing the sustainability of biofuel production and this committee will, in time, make recommendations on whether a fuels’ carbon intensity level should also be measured by its sustainability score.

It takes an immense amount of water to produce oil as steam is used in the extraction process – anywhere from 2.5 barrels of water per barrel of recovered oil, all the way up to 8.4 barrels of water per barrel of oil depending on the age of the well, location and type (tar sands use a crazy amount of water). If you calculated the amount of water used in California to produce oil, a state that is water poor, than I don’t believe that water use can be ignored. I realized I’m opening up a can of worms, but the biofuel industry, in comparison, uses significantly less water per gallon and as the technology improves, water use declines.

In summary, it will be interesting to see if CARB treats crude oil in the same fashion as they have treated biofuels. Fortunately, we now have some biofuel delegates on the LCFS panel and hopefully this will work in favor of biofuels.

So what do we do? We must learn to tell our story better. I recently presented a free webinar, “Back to Basics,” sponsored by Biofuels Journal and you can listen to the archive here that touched on this very issue.

This was also the topic of a the panel discussion, “Unconventional Reality of Press and Public Opinion,” during Advance: 2011 Biodiesel Conference & Expo in Phoenix last week. I sat on this panel with my esteemed colleague and fellow journalist Jim Lane, the editor of Biofuels Digest, as well as Karen Coble-Edwards with KICE Public Affairs Associates and Craig Sutherland with Dewey Square Group. Shannon Shea, with the U.S. Department of Energy moderated the panel discussion.

While those of us on the panel agreed that the biofuels industry needs to update its messages and tell a better story, we didn’t agree on how that should be done. But one thing I’ve found in my personal research, is that our opponents REALLY know how to tell a story. It’s time our industry learned how to do the same and just last week, this very thing began to happen.

Propel Fuels along with Biofuels Digest, launched a Faces of Biofuels campaign that features the people who use biofuels. Propel is based in California and sells ethanol and biodiesel in the Northwest. This is a really great grassroots campaign that should be stolen by biofuel friendly retailers across the U.S. In this case, imitation will definitely be welcome form of flattery.

There is definitely a movement within the biodiesel and ethanol industries to work more effectively together and at the upcoming Advanced Biofuels Leadership Conference being held in Washington, D.C. on April 19-21 will discuss just how to do this. So if you want to be a part of this movement, and get connected to others who have also joined this movement, consider attending this conference.

As higher oil prices translate to higher prices at the pump, T. Boone Pickens, along with others in the renewable energy field, have once again taken the opportunity to urge Congress and President Obama’s administration to pass comprehensive energy policy that will reduce the countries reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Pickens was out of the gate first with a statement last week.

“The question isn’t whether there will be more uncertainty in the Middle East. That’s a question of when not if. The greater question is whether our leadership is ready to solve this problem once and for all,” said Pickens. “I urge Congress and the Obama Administration to enact energy legislation now that gets America on our own resources. We have a tremendous supply of natural gas that can be used as a transportation fuel and is an immediate alternative to OPEC oil.”

Then earlier this week, Growth Energy’s Director of Public Affairs came out with a statement in response to some rumblings that ethanol was to blame for the rioting and upheaval in Cairo, Egypt and elsewhere. The link, ethanol opponents claim, is between wheat prices in the Middle East with demand for corn starch for ethanol in the U.S.

“These are people who want to play parlor games instead of looking at the facts and really finding out how markets work, or what’s motivating protesters in the Middle East. Seeing some of the distortions and pretzel logic these folks are going through, I’d encourage them to pick up Twister, instead,” said Thorne.

And today, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former NATO Supreme Commander, and Co-Chairman of Growth Energy, responded to the threat of “contagion” in the Middle East.

Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) Talks about Egypt from Growth Energy on Vimeo.

As this strange logic begins to pick up momentum (proving that people will believe anything – ethanol causing unrest in Egypt?), it prompted Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO to write in the organization’s E-XChange blog, “One factor not having the kind of impact many claim is U.S. ethanol production. The use of grain in American ethanol production represents such a small fraction of global grain demand it is hard to imagine it is moving world prices and causing civil unrest in nations.”

He continued, “Of this near-record supply, U.S. ethanol production demand represents just 3 percent on a net basis. Equally noteworthy, that 3 percent is of a growing supply of grain as farmers in the U.S. and around the world continue to produce more. Even the most ardent ethanol detractors would have a hard time justifying how a 3 percent market share could be the driving factor for rising food prices, and ultimately, the riots in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere.”

Now, here is what our U.S. policymakers need to understand. According to John Hopkins professor and author Michael Mandelbaum, for decades, America has spent trillions of dollars defending oil in the Middle East, a tactic the country cannot continue to financially undertake. By reducing our dependence, if not eliminating our need for oil produced in the Middle East, we weaken that region’s power and as a result strengthen America’s power. And while Mandelbaum admits that it will take years of dedication to wean ourselves from this oil, he says it can be done and the oil can be replaced with domestically produced energy.

Now that’s what I call foreign policy.

She writes, “Waste-to-Energy Plants Should Be Called Waste of Energy…But here’s the deal: first off, the little bit of energy recovered from burning trash is a very dirty energy, releasing far more greenhouse gases than burning natural gas, oil, or even coal. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, waste incinerators produce 1,355 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour; coal produces 1,020, oil 758, and natural gas 515.”

Leonard continues, “Second, let’s step back and look at the grand scheme of things for a moment. When you bum something, the most energy you can recover is a fraction of the energy value (the “calories”) of the actual material; you can’t recover any of the energy investments of that thing’s entire lifecycle….If the ultimate goal is to conserve energy, we could “produce” far more energy by reusing and recycling Stuff than we ever could by burning it.”

So in a nutshell, waste-to-energy pollutes, it has a negative net energy, it doesn’t create jobs, they don’t eliminate the need for landfills and they are not economically feasible to name a few reasons to not like the energy source. You’ll also note that for the most part, these are the very same reasons (minus the waste-to-energy reduces pollution) opponents support waste-to-energy.

So who is right and why should we care? Well I was bothered knowing that millions and millions of people have visited her website and watched her videos and they may be getting outdated information. So I’m taking action.

In just a few weeks, the Municipal Solid Waste to Biofuels Summit is taking place in Chicago. On February 10-11, 2011, hundreds of people will be coming to together to discuss the up and coming waste-to-energy technologies. Leading up to this conference, I’m kicking off a 7-part series, “An In-depth Look at Waste’s Role in Energy Development.”

This series will explore the developments of waste-to-energy from the 70s or so until now. It will delve more deeply into Leonard’s claim that waste-to-energy plants actually produce more greenhouse gases than coal, oil and natural gas, It will discuss the opportunities and challenges in the industry, and it will feature various companies’ technologies who are excited for the opportunity to “clean” up the misconceptions surrounding waste-to-energy.

We’re only four days into the new year and some energy economists have declared that $3.00 per gallon gas prices are the new low and only going up – we’ll never see them lower again.

Not only are Gas prices going up but energy prices as well – heating oil costs on the East Coast and natural gas costs in the Midwest. Coal is also getting more expensive.

Yet while we lament about high energy costs, we downright howl over the higher costs of alternative energy and try to push today’s development aside for future progress and cost competitiveness.

Let’s talk about cost parity for a moment. Those opposed to ethanol often cite the cost per gallon is not competitive with gasoline without subsidies unless the price of a gallon of oil reaches a certain point. Hey people – we’re nearing that point and we’ll soon hold steady and never look back.

Several things will happen when the cost of a barrel of oil averages $150 – proof we’ve already seen – America’s energy-based economy begins to collapse. A domestic and global recession ensues. People lose jobs. People lose houses. People can’t afford to pay their energy bills or their food bills.

Yet another thing happens at this point – cost parity. Without subsidies and incentives, and with the advancements in technologies, we suddenly have the ability for domestically produced affordable energy. But we’ll never have this future if we don’t continue to develop alternative energy today.

Yeah, yeah…I know that NO energy source is perfect. Not any form of ethanol, not any form of biodiesel, not wind, solar, or geothermal. Nor is coal, natural gas or petroleum. But used together, they can all be domestically produced and afford our country with the way of life we believe we deserve – one of energy gluttony.

This brings me to my next point. This year, support for biofuels in particular, seems to be at a very-low point, especially in Washington, D.C. despite the one-year extension of the tax credits. This could very well be the last year for “a little help from our government” unless something drastic changes.

Long-time ethanol advocate Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA warned the biofuels industry in a Des Moines Register article just before the new year, “We can’t stand any more division within biofuels.” [I also cautioned this last year in my Between the Lines post, "Ethanella - A Fairy Tale."]

In the face of growing opposition, Grassley cautioned the industry that divided they will fall.

“When it was Big Oil fighting biofuels, I don’t think there was a problem. But when you have Big Oil, Big Food, environmental groups, some ag groups up against biofuels, it’s pretty common sense that you can’t have much division in biofuels or you’re in trouble. Or in more trouble, I should say,” Grassley said.

This year is probably the most critical juncture the industry has ever faced, and to get by we will definitely need a “Little Help From My Friends” as the Beatles and Joe Cocker once crooned. Quite frankly, if we want a future of energy prosperity, then we can’t lose our biofuels industry (or our alternative energy industry in general). And friends the biofuels industry has – maybe too many. In fact, just this week, a new group, American Biofuels Now, just launched to promote renewable energy including biofuels. So how many are there? Link here to download a list. Today, there are arguably more than two dozen national biofuel and agricultural associations and another dozen or more state groups dedicated to promoting ethanol and biodiesel.

All of these groups have different agendas, overlapping members and are vying for the same pot of money; yet they have the same core messages. But when these different groups invade the Hill, their goals for biofuels appear divided, frustrating policy makers and slowing efforts. So if you take Grassley’s message to heart, now is the time to work together for the greater good.

Today that greater good is to ensure that we will have domestically produced affordable energy in the wake of rising fossil-fuel based energy costs.

With those thoughts, now onto the real purpose of this blog: my top books of 2010.

Best Economic Book: The Economics of Food by Patrick Westhoff

Best Environmental Book: Green Gone Wrong by Heather Rogers

Best Energy Book: The End of Energy Obesity by Peter Tertzakian

Best Global Warming Conspiracy Book: Energy & Climate Wars by Peter C. Glover and Michael Economides

Most Fun to Read: No Impact Man by Colin Beavan

Best Book of 2010: The Boy who Harnessed the Wind: by William Kamkwanba

If you have an idea for a book that you would like me to review in 2011, please send me an email at altenergyblogger@hotmail.com. Happy Holidays, thanks for reading DomesticFuel and may 2011 bring you much health and happiness.

Not necessarily news Americans want to hear as gas prices have been on the rise for the past few weeks and the worst recession in decades holds on as the country makes preparations for the new year.

Hofmeister also predicted that little or no new drilling would take place in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico for the next two years as Washington still tries to find the adequate response to the BP oil spill. However, drilling new wells would not bring about an immediate relief to high gas prices as it takes years to bring new wells into production.

“If we stay on our current course, within a decade we’re into energy shortages in this country big time,” said Hofmeister, who retired from Shell in 2008 and now heads a grass-roots group called Citizens for Affordable Energy.

“Blackouts, brownouts, gas lines, rationing–that’s my projection based upon the current inability to make to make decisions,” Hofmeister said during the program. “The politically driven choices that are being made, which are non-choices, essentially frittering at the edges of renewable energy, stifling production in hydrocarbon energy–that’s a sure path for not enough energy for American consumers. When American consumers are short or prices are so high–$5 a gallon for gasoline, for example, by 2012–that’s going to set a new tone. It’s going to be panic time for politicians. They’re suddenly going to get the sense that we better do something.”

Hofmeister, whose interview was taped December 1 during a Platts Global Energy Outlook Forum in New York, said he expected the result of the November elections will worsen political gridlock in Washington. In November, voters overwhelmingly gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives and more seats in the Senate in the 112th Congress that convenes in January 2011.

“The 112th [Congress] has potential for compromise, but we’ll see,” said Hofmeister. “I’m predicting actually a worse outcome over the next two years, which takes us to 2012 with higher gasoline prices, uncertainty as to the future of hydrocarbons, more regulation on the hydrocarbon industry based on who the administration is today,” he said. “And what I fear  the most is that by 2012 prices will be so high that we’ll have a backlash from the electorate and we’ll go into reverse and will go back to as hydro-carbon only type of future with maybe some nuclear, instead of moving on into the 21st century.”

Earlier this year, Hofmeister published a book, “Why We Hate Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Insider.” One of his recommendations includes a government agency modeled after the Federal Reserve to development national energy policy. During his Platts Energy Week interview, he said that while the idea is generally dismissed in Washington as politically unfeasible, it may take hold once global competition for oil and other energy supplies grows intense.

“That will be the game changer,” he said. “That will mean the current governmental system which incorporates politics into every energy decision has to be pushed aside by the independent regulatory approach which I’m promoting.”

But this opinion piece in the Honolulu Star Advertiser defends the plant. Tom Tanton, president of California-based T2 & Associates, an energy technology and economic development firm, points out that the palm oil will come from Malaysia, a country that has committed to conserving 50 percent of its forests … much more than the 10 percent average under United Nations agreements:

Contrary to claims from the German environmental group leading the campaign against the HECO plan, palm oil is the most sustainable biofuel on the planet. More fuel can be produced on a smaller footprint from the oil palm than alternative biofuels such as corn-based ethanol or German rapeseed oil.

Of all possible biofuels, palm oil is king for its affordability, efficiency and eco-friendliness. Denying the HECO agreement would hamper wider adoption of sustainable practices worldwide.

The piece goes on to point out that some domestic sources of biodiesel feedstock, such as jatropha, aren’t scalable for a plant like this one. And, right now, Hawaii doesn’t have enough other renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal, to be cost-effective. Tanton concludes that this palm-to-biodiesel plant will help the Aloha State meet its energy needs, while providing jobs for an impoverished part of Malaysia.

One thing of special interest was his new way of looking at an old problem that seems to plague the industry, although usually only when someone is flinging mud, and that is the topic of net energy. Ethanol supporters agree that ethanol is a net energy winner. Ethanol opponents argue that ethanol is a net energy loser. Merle argues when you go the cornfield and play it out, ethanol wins the World Series.

Here is a letter that Merle has written on the topic and is being republished here on DomesticFuel with his permission and to honor his long-time contributions to his work in the industry. Merle – keep up the great work! (BTW – Merle Anderson is the Chairman Emeritus of ACE.)

Ever since area farmers started producing ethanol, opponents have been questioning the total energy balance of ethanol production.  And now more than ever, with gas prices pushing three or even in some parts of the country, four dollars a gallon, it is my understanding that we have widespread agreement that our country needs to reduce our imports of foreign oil. So let me agree that we need to produce and use more ethanol to replace that foreign oil.

Looking at the different types of energy to produce ethanol, there are basically three, natural gas, electricity and fossil fuel. We should understand that most of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from natural gas and electricity. By using natural gas and electricity, we are simply trading in commerce and is only good for the country. So then let’s look at how much fossil fuel are we investing in ethanol production and what are we getting for it. So let’s go to the cornfield and see how it plays out.

1 acre of corn produces 165 bushels (2009 national average)

We get 2.7 gallons from each bushel of corn

165 X 2.7 = 445.5 gallons of ethanol per acre

5 gallons of fossil fuel for traditional farming practices (planting, harvesting, transportation and etc.)

445 gallons divided by 5 = 89 gallons of ethanol per acre

Conclusion is 89 gallons for every 1 gallon of fossil fuel.

Now that is a high gain in replacing foreign oil. But let us look at another practical scenario.

With today’s modern agriculture techniques, there are many farmers where field size are a quarter section. (160 acres) Many areas in the country practice no till farming. And there are many farms that have yields of 200 or more bushels per acre.

160 acres of corn X 200 bushels per acre = 32000 bushels

Most ethanol plants yield 3 gallons per bushel

3 gallons per bushel X 32000 bushels = 96000 gallons of ethanol

3 gallons of fossil fuel for planting, harvesting and transportation

3 gallons of fuel X 160 acres = 480 gallons

96,000 gallons of renewable fuel divided by 480 gallons of fossil fuel = 200 gallons

For each 1 gallon of fossil fuel we are getting 200 gallons of good clean American Made fuel.

Keep in mind we have only used the starch while all the other nutrients remain for our food supply. With our oil imports at near 70 percent. We in agriculture can play a huge role to help our economic problem, job creation and help keep our money in our nation’s heartland in stead of sending money to countries that support terrorism or terrorist acts.  Remember that it isn’t just to produce it we have to use it. Your vehicles will do very well on higher blends of ethanol. The Blend Your Own blender program started by the American Coalition for Ethanol and the Renewable Fuels Association is working on getting more blender pumps installed across the country, if you see one in your neighborhood, please make use of them.

This week, the Wall Street Journal published an article about rising food prices. Many of you may know that they rarely miss an opportunity to blame the ills of the world on biofuels. However, in “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices,” the authors mention several reasons why food prices are on the rise, one being a greater demand for meat in emerging countries such as China and India. This demand has raised grain prices, which have also been adversely affected due to the drought in Russia. Speculators also have a hand in the volatility of commodities.

For more than two years, the ethanol and agriculture industries have been fighting back. In addition, dozens of research studies have been released from organizations around the world with the conclusion that biofuels had “little to no effect” on rising food prices in 2008. The most recent report from the World Bank also came to this conclusion.

However, in the midst of this most recent food hike, Growth Energy is saying that although the debate has weakened, they “have to keep telling people the truth.” They believe that, “The article further proves that food price increases are impacted by a number of factors. Not surprisingly, however, nowhere in the story do the authors mention any impact by biofuels.”

Growth Energy concludes, “We have said it before and we will say it again, food vs. fuel has always been and will always be nothing more than a myth.”

Sustainable Oils‘ focus is on the aviation market and they have partnered with Boeing Company as well as UOP, a Honeywell Company, to bring renewable aviation fuels to market. But the big question is can the renewable aviation fuels withstand the extreme pressures of both commercial planes as well as military jets?

To find out, the U.S. Navy and Air Force both selected Sustainable Oils, as did Japan Airlines, as a fuel partner for several tests and so far the results have been promising. Sustainable Oils President Scott Johnson told DF, “We’ve seen strong demand for camelina biojet and expect that demand to continue to grow in the coming years. The success of the 2009 Japan Airlines test flight, as well as with the 2009 Navy and Air Force test flights, demonstrate that our fuels meet the quality and performance requirements that these aircrafts demand. We’re going to continue to work closely with the U.S. military and commercial airlines to provide the next generation of domestically produced, renewable aviation biofuels that help reduce emissions and enhance energy security.”

Despite the promise that biojet fuels hold, there are grave concerns among the biofuels industry as to its future. The biodiesel tax credit expired at the end of 2009 and has not yet been extended. In addition, the DOE loan guarantee program, that was in part designed to ensure that advanced biofuels companies could have access to much need monies, has stalled with funds not dispersed to companies that have already been awarded the loans. These two issues have created a hesitancy among private investors to infuse much needed dollars into the industry to be used to go from pilot-scale projects to commercial scale production.

I asked Johnson how the lack of the biodiesel tax credit was affecting both his company and the industry. He replied, “Let’s be clear. The petroleum industry not only has a 100 year head start on the renewable fuels industry, but it also has received, and continues to receive billions of dollars in subsidies, incentives and other financial benefits.”

He continued, “Ironically, many of the arguments used by renewable fuels today (need to diversify energy sources, create domestic energy supply, etc.) were used by petroleum companies decades ago to justify massive federal support for exploration and R&D. We think the continued investment in domestic energy supplies from renewable fuels providers is some of the smartest money the government can spend, given the proven economic, national security and positive environmental impacts of biofuels.”

In terms of the problems with the DOE loan guarantee program, Johnson had this to say, “We support government policies and incentives, including loan guarantee programs, that can help leverage existing private investment and help build the infrastructure we need to produce and deliver clean, renewable fuels. Building refineries and production facilities is highly capital intensive – and the current economic environment makes it all the more difficult for project developers to secure capital. We believe that the DOE’s loan guarantee program is an important policy in facilitating the development of a 21st century fuel infrastructure.”

“I would also add that the USDA’s BioRefinery Assistance Program, which is designed to promote the development of new and emerging technologies for the production of advanced biofuels, is another important program that will be important to the development of our industry.” said Johnson.

Last week, the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources held a hearing to determine why awarded funds were not being distributed. Unfortunately, the Budget Office no-showed and no real solutions to the problem were identified.

Knowing the challenges facing the biodiesel and ethanol industries, I asked Johnson if he thought biofuels programs could be more effectively promoted if both industries came together.

He answered, “In general we at Sustainable Oils support any policy that recognizes there is tangible value in renewable fuels – reduced emissions and pollution, decreased dependence on foreign oil and increased domestic jobs. We believe that smart energy policy would reward the production and consumption of the lowest carbon fuels, rather than specifying how they are made, or what feedstocks they are made from. Given that our camelina-based aviation fuel has been shown to reduce emissions by as much as 80%, we believe that we would perform well in this kind of incentivized environment.”

“In debates such as these,” continued Johnson, “it’s important to remember that the oil industry has been the largest recipient of government support – about $300 billion since 1950. In addition, we need to factor in the economic, environmental, and national security cost of petroleum fuels, which have been externalized for last 100 years. This has in turn made it all the more difficult for clean, renewable fuels to compete with petroleum fuels. Good energy policy must address this disparity and promote the fuels that provide the most environmental and economic benefit to the country.”

Regardless of these challenges facing the industry, there are plenty more opportunities to be realized. “Our nation needs a vibrant biofuels industry – including biodiesel, renewable jet fuel, ethanol, biobutanol – you name it. Our industry is creating jobs, creating exportable technologies and keeping billions of dollars of consumer income right here in the U.S. With dwindling oil supplies, increased risk and cost of new discoveries, and increased reliance on dictators and unstable governments, I believe it’s never been more important to have domestic fuel options,” explained Johnson.

He concluded on a positive note, “I can tell you that we see a really promising future and strong market for our camelina-based renewable fuels.”

Today, CARB held a meeting to discuss this topic. In the proposed agenda, CARB offered several “loose” categories to be considered including carbon content, erosion, crop rotation, nutrition/chemical use, productivity, and crop expansion. I’ll kick myself for saying this, but I’m surprised they didn’t include water.

While I’m not sure what exactly has driven this new LCFS dimension of discussion, I can speculate that several recent events have in part led to this recent course of action. One is the Dead Zone/hypoxia issue which resurfaced when several scientists began calling the Dead Zone a bigger environmental catastrophe than the BP Oil spill. Corn and corn ethanol are being charged for creating the Dead Zone through its use of pesticides and fertilizers used in production.

Second, Friends of the Earth has been vocally opposed to how corn is produced and to corn ethanol (actually, to all current and future biofuels) and is currently engaged in a national campaign to end production of corn ethanol and reassess corn production methods.

While I do believe that soil sustainability is an area to be reviewed in general, I do not agree that you can regulate biofuels policy on this issue. Not only that, but like indirect land use, a theory not based in sound science, petroleum is not being held to the same standards. No where on the agenda is a discussion of the soil, or land implications of global petroleum production.

Last week, the University of Nebraska finally acknowledged that there are in fact, “indirect land use” effects of petroleum. Mainly transportation and war and released a study that examined these possible effects. More studies need to be conducted on this topic and I think they will.

As California moves to create more LCFS provisions on biofuels, consumers must call for CARB to consider the environmental implications of petroleum production. For the past three months, we have seen, first hand, some of the implications of oil with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill compliments of BP.

But we don’t need a spill to have land impacts of petroleum. Drilling, chemicals and water are all elements of production. What about the emissions spewing from our refineries? CARB has created a list of hazardous chemicals that can’t be used in biofuels production, but where is the list of chemicals that can’t be used in petroleum production as part of these provisions?

I realize that I sound like a broken record when I say this, but you cannot hold biofuels up to a standard that can’t be achieved, and not hold petroleum up to the same standard. If our goal is to produce more environmentally and sustainable fuels, then let’s do just that.

Not too long ago, I was proud to call myself an environmentalist. Today, I’m bordering on embarrassed to admit that I support sustainability programs. The cause of my distress is what is happening under the carpet among environmental groups. On the surface, they look squeaky clean, but when you pull back the carpet you find years of dust and dirt.

The result is crippling the system so that the status quo remains unchanged.

Are they doing this unknowingly? It’s hard to imagine a community founded on integrity and steeped in the honorable tradition of academia could blatantly miss the truth on the intellectually definable myths about renewable energy.

For example, for more than 30 years, environmental organizations have attacked the oil and gas industry in the name of environmental integrity. During this same time, these same groups have aided Big Oil in its attack of the biofuels industry in the name of subsidies. The irony is that ethanol subsidies such as the ethanol tax credit (VEETC) and the ethanol tariff are subsidies that actually go to the oil industry – not the ethanol producer.

Until recently, the oil industry was not attacked for the hundreds of billions of subsidies they receive nor were they held accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions until the University of Nebraska conducted an indirect land use emissions study from petroleum transportation and protection – mainly war.

How did everyone miss this?

Environmentalists shout that we must stop using oil and gas. Their solution—that everyone seems to have missed – more oil and gas. This is supported through their claims that biofuels are bad. Hydrogen? Ha. Plug in? Patience? Natural Gas? Never. In essence, the environmental movement is preserving our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

In the last decade, environmental organizations that have been heralded as the watchdogs of the planet are now taking money from the same industry they are purporting to be saving us from – oil. In case you didn’t notice, this is a conflict of interest. Google some of the top biofuel critic studies by academia and you will likely find a trail of gifts and grants by major oil companies.  Look at the board of directors and you will find a tangled and interconnected web of renewable energy foes.

Many consumers revere and monetarily support these groups, but beware. They have won our trust. Now they are using it carte blanche to hide their true intent: halting the recovery of our economy and placing our national security at risk.

But wait. Aren’t these organizations policing environmental criminals on our behalf?

Who is policing them?

In the past two years, Congress has dragged the oil, biofuels, banking, agricultural, and auto industry to Washington, D.C. for a series of Congressional hearings to probe into their transgressions. They have even dragged in baseball players accused of abusing steroids. Yet they have never called environmental organizations to the halls of justice and asked them to defend their funding and research shenanigans.

We don’t have a decade to determine our future strategy. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not advocating that we move forward blindly – as our country appears to be doing now. That would be an injustice. What I am proposing is an across the board analysis of all the potential strategies and solutions on the table. This means we must start vocally questioning the actions of environmental organizations. They need to become more transparent.

On behalf of American consumers, I am making an official request for Congress to hold a Congressional Hearing, this year, to look into the actions, funding, research, and programs of the most influential environmental groups. It’s high time we see what’s behind the curtain so we can make more educated policy decisions.

Reid has been attempting to get some sort of jobs bill passed for months. Earlier this year, he presented an Unemployment Jobs Extension Bill that included a one-year extension of the biodiesel tax credit. Reid stripped the biodiesel tax credit from the bill and ultimately, the bill did not pass.

The apparent tie-in of the oil spill and energy bill is that many gulf oil workers are out of work. Reid believes that an energy bill will help put people around the country back to work. The Department of Energy estimates that if a 20 percent renewable electricity standard were put into place, 3,000-4,000 new jobs would be created in most states. Yet supporters of clean jobs are arguing that these clean jobs are not being created fast enough and an energy bill with an RES could be the ticket, although it doesn’t appear Reid’s bill be the ticket needed for admission.

But on the flip side, the oil and gas industry is fighting this bill tooth and nail saying that green jobs will not make up for the large number of displaced oil and gas workers. Offshore drilling needs to continue.

Today, the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA), comprised of oil and natural gas producers and their partners, is “sounding the alarm” and claiming that Reid’s bill is putting important tax preferences that are “critical to the survival of America’s oil and natural gas producers” at risk. They also cite that the result of decreased drilling will result in higher oil and natural gas prices for the American consumer. They also claim that this bill will increase America’s dependence on foreign energy sources.

“If the Senate needs funding for the proposed green-job initiatives, we encourage them to look for other funding sources other than the tax preferences that are vital to the survival of our nation’s domestic, on-shore, Independent oil and natural gas producers, who drill almost all of the new wells in the United States,” said Mike Cantrell, President of DEPA. “This funding option is not in the best interest of our nation, its people, or its energy producers.”

In the past several months alone, renewable energy opponents have thrown so many red herrings and lawsuits into the mix that any forward movement of the renewable energy industry is sluggish at best. This leads me to believe that more than likely, the only group that needs to continue worrying about job security remains the renewable energy industry.

Many of the recommendations of this report come as no surprise to the agricultural and biofuels industry, as over the past two weeks, members of Friends of the Earth surreptitiously called agricultural organizations across the country, questioning them about their methods of production.

According to an industry insider whose company received multiple calls from various people in the employ of Friends of the Earth, the organization was asking questions about ground water quality (ag production, mainly corn and soybeans have been linked to the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone) and hypoxia; two issues that have made national headlines in recent weeks. It is also no secret that Friends of the Earth has engaged in an active anti-agribusiness and biofuels campaign over the past few years, and the environmental organization has been tied to Big Oil through contribution monies.

It should be known that, Friends of the Earth, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Clean Air Task Force are currently engaged in a campaign to end the ethanol tax credit (VEETC) as well as the ethanol tariff. They have specifically attacked Growth Energy’s corn-ethanol advertising campaign in the Beltway.

They write on their website, “Tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money has already been wasted under the credit [VEETC]. And these funds do little more than to further line the coffers of the oil industry. This coalition is working to prevent an additional 30 billion plus dollars from being lavished on the industry to fulfill a legally mandated requirement to blend an environmentally harmful fuel into another environmentally harmful one.”

In a press release today, Friends of the Earth Energy Tax Analyst Ben Schreiber said, “For far too long, the federal government has incentivized practices that destroy our environment. This is particularly true with energy. In the fight to combat global warming, we cannot continue to subsidize the harmful practices that have forced us into this dire predicament.”

However, as Friends of The Earth, along with their ‘friends,’ attack Big Oil subsidies and ethanol subsidies alike, citing the economic and environmental damage of both industries, they fail to offer a solution in the report to convert away from our current fossil-fuel based transportation system, but they do in fact have the solution: plug-in electric vehicles.

The fallacy with their rationale, is that nearly 80 percent of our country’s electricity is generated from coal and natural gas  – two other areas that were attacked in the report. Yet before I lead you astray, the organization’s future energy choice is solar, in the form of solar charging stations. The irony however, is that solar, along with wind, also receive subsidies but nary is there a mention of this in Green Scissors 2010.

Are we to believe then, that solar subsidies, and wind and geothermal by omission, are good subsides for the country and the environment?

Look I’m all for a review of energy subsidies and I am a vocal supporter of renewable energy. But the bottom line is you can’t pick and choose which industries receive subsidies and which ones don’t.

It’s all or nothing people. ALL or NOTHING.

In the meantime, while people continue to fight over the veracity of several biofuels subsidies that are up for renewal this year (yet fail to bring in oil and gas subsidies in the debate) the Green Scissors campaign, that was launched 15 years ago, continues on. This campaign causes me to ask if Friends of the Earth actually has any friends.

Where are they going? Brazil. India. China. Why? Because these countries have the winning recipes for success: cohesive energy policy, long-term incentives and private investors. These are the exact three things we do not have in America.

We have other problems. We have states like California, that purport leadership in green policies and renewable energy, who make it nearly impossible to get permits for projects to meet its “green” initiatives.

Yesterday, Martifer Renewables Electricity dropped its plans to build a 107MW hybrid solar-powered biomass plant in California. The reason? After nearly 2 1/ 2 years, they have yet to obtain permits. Another company run out of California due to difficulty in obtaining permits, Blue Fire Ethanol – a next generation bioenergy company.

It may not be too late to head back up the hill but there are some things that must be done. First, we need to move forward on key legislative policies supporting renewable energy. For example, tax credits must be extended for the long-term, not one-to-five years. (BTW – oil has been receiving tax credits for over 100 years.) Our policies, the Renewable Fuels Standard, Farm Bill, any future electricity renewable standards, and climate change policy, etc. must work together for success, not work against each other as they do now.

Second, banks must start lending and private investors need to step up and begin funding projects. Last month, one of the country’s most famous billionaires, Warren Buffet, along with Bill and Melinda Gates publicly encouraged the country’s 400 billionaires to give away $600 billion dollars to charities. Unfortunately, nowhere in this call to action was the need to support renewable energy projects and green jobs right here in America. This oversight is a gross disservice to American citizens who helped them become billionaires.

I am going to make a bold prediction. In terms of biofuels, the next two decades will belong to Brazil. China and India will take ownership of wind, solar, biomass, and other products like biochemicals and plastics.

If you don’t want my predictions to come to fruition, then our country, under the leadership of its citizens, must take action now.

“The choice is clear,” said Global Renewable Fuels Alliance spokesperson, Bliss Baker. “We can continue to put our precious resources at risk by drilling deeper and further out to sea or we can build new biofuels plants that can reduce the need for this dangerous practice. We can choose clean-ups or clean fuel.”

Worldwide ethanol production is estimated to exceed 22.6 billion gallons by the end of of 2010. This is nearly 1 million barrels per day (equal to about two days worth of oil leaching into the Gulf of Mexico) and will displace the need for more than 370 million barrels of oil. This is equivalent to replacing 100 offshore rigs that produce 10,000 barrels per day.

It is estimated that the current oil leak will be the largest oil disaster in American history and one of the worst global disasters once capped. Experts are predicting that the clean-up bill will exceed $1.43 billion not including lawsuits, fines, etc. While BP is said to have $80 billion is cash, many are anticipating that BP will go bankrupt compelling some legislators and environmental groups to call for a separate fund to use to pay out damages.

Baker continued, “This disaster in the Gulf is our wake-up call. We have enormous potential today to grow sustainable biofuels from a variety of feedstocks. According to a Department of Energy Study, the U.S. alone could produce up to 494 billion litres (130b gallons) of cellulosic ethanol.”

The GRFA’s list of offshore drilling activity or potential activity includes several sites that operate in ecologically sensitive areas that would spell disaster should there be another blow out. The list includes:

• 1. U.S. Gulf States
• 2. Australia – Margaret River (Australia’s South West Coast)
• 3. U.S. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) – Area 1002
• 4. Canada – Orphan Basin, Newfoundland
• 5. Australia – Montara – Timor Sea
• 6. North Sea – West Coast of Shetland Isles
• 7. Nigeria – Niger Delta
• 8. Russia – The Sea of Okhotsk
• 9. Brazil – Santos Basin
• 10. U.S. Alaska’s North Shore – Chukchi and Beaufort Sea

On another note, many news outlets are reporting that people are boycotting BP stations. The irony is that not only are independent gas stations owners being hurt, but many unbranded gas stations may still be selling BP gas. But where these reporters are missing the mark is that if people really want to send a message to oil companies that environmental catastrophes are not acceptable, then they should be using alternative fuels such as biodiesel or ethanol, (or even propane or natural gas or buy a hybrid or electric vehicle) and also be choosing higher blends of these fuels at the pump. Only then will BP really start to feel pain at the pump.

So, who exactly isn’t this oil spill bad for? Marine life? The fishing industry? Consumers? It appears that the only organization it’s not so bad for is BP who makes $93 million in profits every day.

I keep seeing this obscene number, $93 million everywhere and it led me to ask the question, what would you do with 3.8 days of BP’s profits, or $300 million to develop our country’s alternative energy program? I used this number because this is how much money BP had spent on clean-up efforts one week after the spill – less than 4 days of their profits. I reached out to nearly a dozen associations asking them the question but only a few responded. Here are a few of respondents answers.

“Many people have asked me what I’d do with the same amount of money BP will have to spend to clean up this mess. My answer is quite simple: Invest in Algae technologies. Algae for wastewater treatment, Algae for CO2 capture, Algae for Pharmaceuticals, Algae for high grade animal feed for livestock, Algae for fertilizer, Algae for biobased polymers, and finally: Algae technologies to produce an entire suite of advanced biofuels. The time has come to enact a serious and aggressive energy policy that will not only free us from our addiction to oil but will provide us with a new and long term prosperity for decades to come.” –Sean O’Hanlon, Executive Director, American Biofuels Council

“A 2009 study by Sandia National Laboratory, ‘The 90-Billion Gallon Biofuel Deployment Study,’ shows that the capital investment needed for biorefinery construction and biofuel infrastructure to meet 30 percent of our transportation fuel needs is around $250 billion. However, that amount is “actually of similar magnitude to petroleum-related investments required to establish and maintain 40 billion gallons per year of domestic oil production,” according to the study. $350 million could fund construction of one or two commercial-scale advanced biofuel biorefineries. This may sound like a large investment for little return, but those first plants could assure institutional investors and commercial lenders that putting their money behind new advanced biofuel technology is worth the risk.” –Brent Erickson, executive vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s Industrial & Environmental Section

Erickson also noted that in 2007 BP announced a $500 million investment over 10 years to create the Energy Biosciences Institute for research into advanced biofuel technology. He stressed that additional investments in advanced biofuel deployment are now needed to move the industry forward.

Lastly a comment from Twitter (you can follow me here):

“I would invest in building efficient infrastructure/logistics to get energy to the masses. All liquid forms of energy used in vehicles need to get to the consumer. Right now oil based fuel has infrastructure to get energy to consumer (massive pipeline systems feeding subsystems feeding gas stations). Biofuel needs similar infrastructure. Pipeline system also need improvements.” John Blue, Truffle Media Networks

While can we can debate how to develop a biofuels program, what we can’t debate is that consumers are frustrated with Big Oil and we must reduce our consumption. Sean O’Hanlon noted, “We can debate the degree to which various alternatives offer the greatest return on investment (ROI), both environmentally and economically; we can engage in intelligent conversation over which alternatives offer the best solutions; and we can consider the challenges each alternative may impose as they become more mainstream. However, we cannot deny the irrefutable damage that petroleum has caused, is causing, and will continue to cause so long as we remain addicted.”

O’Hanlon is right on target, and now is the time to work together for change. The biofuels industry needs to work together. Big Oil needs to work with biofuels industry. And Big Oil needs to manifest change from within. Let’s keep the conversation active. Submit your comments and insights to this site or contact me directly.

The opinion article was written by a college student from an interview done with Ron Fagen, president and CEO of Fagen, Inc., at the National Ethanol Conference in February. That’s where Ron and his wife Diane were recognized with the first ever Membership Award from the Renewable Fuels Association for their dedication of time, energy, resources and ideas in making the ethanol industry what it is today.

Editorial author Natalie Camplair notes Fagen’s contributions to the ethanol industry in the first paragraph, and then infers that Fagen has abandoned the industry he has helped to build over the last 20 years. “But the ethanol boom is over now,” she writes. “In an interview at the 2010 National Ethanol Convention on February 16 in Orlando, Florida, Mr. Fagen announced that, in 2010 and beyond, he plans to “put ethanol [projects] on hold” and instead to invest in biomass and wind energy projects.”

Back in the days when print only went as far as the paper on which it was published, this editorial would probably have only been read by a handful of people and Ron himself might never have even seen it. But, thanks to the internet, the story was re-published and linked around so it created enough waves that Mr. Fagen has circulated his own response:

A recent op-ed alleging that “the ethanol boom is over” and that “policies to further the corn ethanol industry should not be supported” demands a response, both because it is patently untrue and because my words were twisted and taken out of context to justify the editorialist’s opinion about corn ethanol. I respect that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But, in the case of the op-ed titled “Beyond Corn Ethanol” published on April 28, 2010 by Minnesota 2020, neither the opinions nor the so-called facts expressed were accurate.

So it is not accurate – in fact, it is downright misleading – to suggest corn ethanol has no future. Today, ethanol-blended fuel is the most affordable and clean-burning alternative to gasoline. And more importantly, unlike some other promising alternative fuels, we don’t have to wait for more ethanol because it is here now as the only commercially viable substitute to fossil fuels. In fact, this year U.S. ethanol producers will rank as our nation’s third largest supplier of fuel on a gasoline-equivalent basis, behind only Canada and Saudi Arabia, and ahead of Venezuela.

Ethanol has also triggered more economic prosperity in rural America than anything else in my lifetime. It has enabled corn farmers to earn more for their crops, and ethanol has given farmers and rural citizens the opportunity to invest in locally owned production facilities, operations where the profits stay in rural America. According to a report issued by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture in 2008, the combined impact of corn and ethanol production in Minnesota has generated $6 billion in economic activity and impacted 26,000 jobs. Nationwide, ethanol supports 400,000 jobs across the U.S. economy and generates more than $50 billion to our Gross Domestic Product.

Entrepreneurs in the U.S. are capable of replacing foreign oil with corn ethanol and advanced biofuels from a variety of sources, but only if the policy limitations are addressed by Congress and the Administration. That’s where we ought to focus.