BioFuels Journal

An Editorial by Jerry Perkins, editor of BioFuels Journal

As the Rolling Stones once sang, “You can’t always get what you want.”

On Tuesday, March 15, what appeared to be a policy briefing set up to bash ethanol turned into a relatively balanced policy discussion on the merits of biofuels and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) on a web telecast set up by CQ Roll Call, which calls itself “The Source for News on Capitol Hill Since 1955.”

Entitled "Ethanol in America: Politics & Policy," ethanol and the RFS came off very well, based on what I heard the speakers, panelists, and audience members say during the two-and-a-half-hour program.

Based on the premise of the briefing, it didn’t look like ethanol and the RFS were going to get a fair shake going in.

That’s because the briefing was sponsored by the American Council for Capital Formation, an anti-ethanol Washington, DC-based organization.

“As the first caucus in the presidential election season, Iowa has been perceived as a bellwether for the rest of the campaign season,” according to the teaser that CQ Roll Call sent via email to publicize the briefing.

“And yet,” the teaser went on, “when Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, it was with a strong repudiation of a traditionally popular policy in that region: the Renewable Fuel Standard.”

Wrong on at least two counts.

First, Ted Cruz didn’t “win” the Iowa caucuses.

He finished first, with a 27.6% plurality, in the Republican caucus.

A plurality means he received more votes than the other candidates, but he didn’t receive an absolute majority, or 50% plus one vote.

Second, Cruz’s “win” didn’t indicate a “strong repudiation of a traditionally popular policy in that region: the Renewable Fuel Standard,” as the American Council for Capital Formation would have people believe.

The fact is, Ted Cruz received more votes than any other Republican candidate because Iowa’s politically-potent evangelical group, the Family Leader, endorsed him.

Go to http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?pbid=4d63415d-a95c-43f0-937d-3d7fe7e4fc52 &pnum;=4 for my column in the 1st Quarter edition of BioFuels Journal for a repudiation of this argument that has been widely repeated by the East Coast media and ethanol opponents.

Mark Bloomfield, president and chief executive officer of the American Council for Capital Formation, tried to start the briefing off with an anti-ethanol spin, but the sessions began with the pro-ethanol remarks of U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), who talked about the benefits that ethanol and the RFS have provided to his state and its rural economy.

To balance Rounds, the next speaker was Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), who repeated many of the same, old tired arguments against ethanol.

The Big Oil misinformation, which has been repeated so often by the American Petroleum Institute, that some people, including Welch, might actually believe it.

I was embarrassed for Welch when, in answer to a question, the Congressman from Vermont admitted that he didn’t know where Vermont Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders stands on the question of the RFS.

In fact, Sanders supports both corn-based ethanol and the RFS.

That a Democratic Congressman doesn’t know the policy position of one of his state’s U.S. Senators (and a presidential candidate!) from the same political party says a lot about the depth of Welch’s understanding of public policy issues concerning biofuels.

In the panel discussion that followed, three panelists from Iowa colleges talked about the political influences in the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses.

They all seemed to agree that Iowans aren’t one-issue voters and that many issues may have influenced the way the Iowa caucuses turned out.

However, the most persuasive comment of the day came from Paul Tewes, a Democratic consultant and Minnesota native from the Smoot Tewes Group.

Tewes pointed out that, although Cruz had supported an immediate repeal of the RFS in 2013, he ran around Iowa saying he loved ethanol and then waffled on his ethanol stance so much that it was difficult to know where he stood on the issue.

Meanwhile, pro-RFS and –ethanol candidates captured more than 80% of the votes cast in both the Republican and Democratic caucuses.

Unfortunately for CQ Roll Call, the American Council for Capital Formation, and others who dislike ethanol, the policy briefing that was apparently set up as a repudiation of the RFS and ethanol didn’t came off that way.

It must be a difficult pill to swallow when the facts don’t support your opinions.

See Related Websites/Articles:

• Reports of the Demise of The Renewable Fuel Standard in Iowa are Bunk

more ETHANOL...