- Posted on Tuesday, August 21st, 2007 at 11:00 am
Ethanol: My Final Words
By Donna McLallen
GM Assistant Regional Manager, PR/Communications
I love the line in Once Upon A Time In Mexico where Johnny Depp asks, “Are you a Mexi-can or a Mexi-can’t?”
The delivery of that question and its context within the plot line made me laugh. But strangely, it also made me think. Am I an Ameri-can or an Ameri-can’t? Do I live my life with a can-do spirit? Am I part of the solution, or part of the problem?
Of course, there’s much more to my soul-searching than I’ll go into here, but after some reflection, I came to this conclusion: Not only am I an Ameri-can, but I also work for an Ameri-can company, GM.
General Motors is nearing 100 years as a global automotive leader. Few people today remember that in 1942, GM converted 100 percent of its production to the war effort, delivering more than $12.3 billion in material for Allied support. (I’ve been told that $12.3 billion would equate to $30 trillion these days.)
That’s Ameri-can spirit, if I ever heard of any, and that Ameri-can-ism is alive and well at GM today — among the company’s leaders and its workers, like me. I’ve seen it not only in the action GM takes when disaster strikes — like the company’s overwhelming response when hurricanes Rita and Katrina pummeled the Gulf Coast, just to name one example of personal relevance to me — but also in the ongoing, day-to-day business priorities, like finding ways to take automobiles completely out of the environmental debate.
GM is a corporation of people working together toward common goals, so forgive me when I, as one of those people, become a bit offended when our motives for promoting ethanol are questioned. The many flaws of CAFE would be another topic of debate altogether, and I can’t speak to the motivation of every GM employee, but I can say — with much certainty — that our intentions in promoting ethanol as a cleaner burning, renewable fuel are noble.
Now when I first posted about ethanol, I must admit, I was not passionate about it. But I am now.
I’m not a professional blogger or even a recreational blogger, and I’ve spent much more time studying, promoting and defending ethanol than I ever dreamed probable, but seeing how the anti-ethanol forces are mobilized and relentless in their inconclusive and largely baseless arguments, it makes me want to rush out and buy a FlexFuel Chevy Impala today.
I guess the thing that bothers me most about the anti-ethanol constituency is their Ameri-can’t attitude. They’re quick to point out flaws, but offer no solutions.
Currently my GM focus is shifting to other business priorities, like the roll out of new ’08 models, including our new, full-size hybrid SUVs built here in Texas. So, I wanted to bring closure to my participation in the ethanol debate here by refuting some of the most prevalent anti-ethanol arguments.
Here are the facts:
- Using corn for ethanol does NOT significantly increase overall food prices. There are many other factors at work.
- Using corn for ethanol does NOT deplete supplies of animal feed. In fact, one of the byproducts of ethanol production is animal feed.
- Ethanol production does NOT result in a negative net energy balance. More studies claim a positive net energy balance from ethanol production than a negative one, plus four of the six studies in recent years claiming a negative net energy balance were authored by the same researcher.
- There IS enough land for crops used to produce ethanol.
- All aspects of farming are improving. Controlled pesticide use, better land management and bio technologies will help maintain the ecological balance of increased crops to produce ethanol.
- We are already well on our way to a robust cellulosic ethanol industry.
- The use of E85 does indeed reduce C02 emissions as well as hydrocarbons and NOx.
- The increased use of corn to produce ethanol in the U.S. has not caused prices of tortillas to rise in Mexico. White corn in Mexico is protected with a tariff against U.S. corn.
- Ethanol IS a renewable fuel. Those who say it isn’t are just muddying the water, as we like to say in the South.
- We’ve already acknowledged a decrease in fuel efficiency when using ethanol instead of gasoline, but drivers who fuel exclusively with E85 have told me that the difference is such that they don’t mind.
If GM were advocating that all vehicles run solely on ethanol, then I could understand opposition to our E85 promotion. But we’re simply advocating E85 as an alternative that consumers can take advantage of today to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Our FlexFuel vehicles run on both gasoline and E85, so that consumers have a choice in what fuel they use. Plus, we’re continuing to harness GM’s Ameri-can-do spirit to develop better hybrids, electric vehicles and cars propelled by hydrogen fuel cells.
Since I began this post with a movie reference, it’s only fitting that I close with another. To those who question GM’s motives on the fuel issue and other matters of public policy, I ask you to remember this: We are the Autobots, not the Decepticons.
We are the Ameri-cans, not the Ameri-can’ts. Our nation can reduce greenhouse gases and its dependency on foreign oil, and ethanol can help. But it will take Ameri-cans to lead the way.
RELATED
7 Comments
noel park
Read the lead editorial in yesterday’s (August 20,2007) Los Angeles Times. Actually, it is the only editorial. The entire left side of the editorial page, which ususlly includes 3 pieces, is devoted to this one subject.
It is titled:
“Drunk on ethanol”
Subtitle:
“The U.S. is fueling a potential disaster by cobbling together an energy policy based on corn.”
It basically confirms everything that bloggers such as Gary Dikkers and altfuels have written here recently, and refutes most or all of the arguments you have put forth above.
It is a profound insult to your dwindling customer base to call these fine people “Ameri-can’ts” They have offered plenty of solutions, but they are all “too hard”
Just slap a “flex-fuel” badge on the back of a Suburban,
sell it in a state that the Times reports has 4 (four) E85 pumps, and wash yourselves down with green.
For shame. Mr. Lutz has commented on “arrogant bloggers”. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
I have posted quite a few fairly positive comments on the Fastlane blog recently. I am struggling to wait for the Volt, which has the potential to be a truly effective way to help with fuel consumption and global warming. Spin pieces like this really try my loyalty to GM.
Gary Dikkers
Thanks Noel,
Here is the link to the LA Times editorial:
Drunk on ethanol
More to follow in response to Ms McLallen.
Best,
Gary
altfuels
Ms. McLallen –
Actually, I posted another (not quite as) long comment on “The Ethanol Debate,” most of which was at least a partial defense of ethanol referring to the EBAMM model (Google it), but apparently it looked too “spammy” despite containing no URLs and got clogged in the filters again. Gary Dikkers talks about “Energy Return on Energy Invested” and I suggested that a better metric would be “Energy Return on Resources Invested,” and also pointed out some numerical errors in his comments. But never mind.
The biggest step GM could take toward making us think it’s actually Ameri-CAN would be to repudiate, or at least stop repeating, spin about past efforts. That’s why I keep harping about the EV1; those of us who were paying attention at the time can pick apart the spin, from the June 2006 FYI post “Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?” to Mr. Lutz’ false claim in a June 2007 NPR interview that the reason GM only leased the EV1 was that after trying and trying they just couldn’t sell them. And how can there be a business case for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles when GM apparently couldn’t see a business case for the much simpler task of building natural-gas vehicles, a market GM exited last year (holding out longer than any of the other major automakers except Honda, I’ll admit)? An Ameri-CAN automaker would have built the market for natural-gas vehicles, if only as a bridge and proof of concept (and proof of commitment) to hydrogen, and an “Autobot, not Decepticon” company wouldn’t continue to make misleading or outright false statements about past actions (even Honda’s on the wrong side of this one, too).
noel park
The more I think about this, the madder I get.
If the same GM management was in charge now that produced the herculean war effort in 1942, I bet they would have found a way to apply Ameri-can principles to increasing productivity to a level whereas GM would still be a leader in the passenger car market, and would still be able to provide entre to the American dream to its workers.
The contrast between 1942 and today could not be more stark. I do not even trust myself to comment further, for fear of descending into some terrible political incorrectness. On the Fastlane blog, I have mentioned the work of Professor Chalmers Johnson sevral times. Check it out if you intend to survive.
When Toyota, Honda, et al, are increasing their market share and profits every year, and leading you in technology as well, do not embarass yourselves by raising the issue of Ameri-cans and Ameri-can’ts.
Bob
You said: “Using corn for ethanol does NOT significantly increase overall food prices”. The news said the higher price of milk is due to the higher corn prices because of ethanol. Your use of “NOT significantly” is ambiguous and relative because to me, a 30% hike IS VERY significant.
You said “but drivers who fuel exclusively with E85 have told me that the difference is such that they don’t mind”. Hog wash! Give me some numbers and demographics to back this statement or retract it.
Nobody asked me if I mind getting 22% percent lower fuel economy, or having to carry an addition 22% of fuel to go the same distance, which by the way, adds another 25 pounds of fuel to carry (figuring the average size 16 gallon fuel tank). I can’t find anyone that has been polled by GM or anyone else as to how they feel about it either.
I applaud your enthusiasm but it is just typical corporate crap-o-la. Your time and energy would be better spend developing fuel cell technology than running around shouting out what the politicians think we the people want to hear.
Gary Dikkers
My post of two days ago didn’t make it past the moderator, so here’s a second try:
Ms McLallen,
Perhaps your motives are noble and you don’t really understand how GM uses the CAFE loophole. So here it is, explained as simply as I can:
For GM, the advantage of the CAFE loophole is that it allows you to avoid millions of dollars in penalties you would otherwise have to pay for not achieving the CAFE standard, even though in truth, there is an actual increase in energy consumption when burning E85
First, I am not part of any anti-ethanol constituency. I don’t work for an oil company, am not a lobbyist for anyone, and am not paid to shape public opinion as you are. I reached my conclusions about corn ethanol independently after realizing my GMC Sonoma truck got far less mileage whenever I burned ethanol-blended motor fuel. My only motivation is trying to debunk those who have gotten drunk on ethanol and who are trying to profit from corn ethanol, even though it makes little sense from a thermodynamic or environmental perspective, and is almost certainly wrongheaded as the answer to our energy problems. To echo you, my intentions are noble.
The truth is that there is lots of money to be made in the corn ethanol industry, but only because of the tax incentives, subsidies, mandates, and protective tariffs that lobbyists have convinced politicians to put into effect. If the corn ethanol industry had to rely only on the thermodynamics of their industry to provide the profit margin, there would be no corn ethanol industry.
Unfortunately those subsidies, tax credits, and mandates that make it possible for some to profit have unintended consequences that adversely affects others. As a wise sage once said, “One man’s subsidy is nothing more than another man’s tax.”
You asked for a solution
I did offer a solution: I said that since corn ethanol was nothing more than natural gas reformed into ethanol using corn as transition phase, it would make more sense to use that natural gas directly as a primary auto fuel instead of going through the inefficient process of converting natural gas into nitrogen fertilizer; then using that fertilizer to grow a corn crop; and then using more fossil fuels to harvest, transport, and transform the corn into ethanol.
If GM is so nobly motivated, where are your cars fueled with natural gas — a fuel that burns nearly as clean as hydrogen?
All over Europe companies are making and selling cars fueled with compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid propane gas (LPG) that burn cleaner and are more environmentally friendly than any gasoline or E85 burning cars in the U.S.
Where are GM’s LPG and CNG fueled cars?
Best regards, from this Ameri-can — an engineer, former fighter pilot, and U.S. military combat veteran,
Gary Dikkers
noel park
Gary:
As always, you are too kind.
Even so, the message shines through your courteous, calm and reasoned comments. I wish I had your patience.
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)