Big Ethanol is just not having a good week
posted at 10:01 am on November 14, 2013 by Erika Johnsen
As I mentioned earlier this week, Big Ethanol is not happy with the Associated Press about their recent bout of detailed, investigative attention to the many ways in which federal biofuels policies directly engender aggressive environmental degradation, and they are devoting their time to disproving, discrediting, and otherwise explaining away the AP’s report like their industry’s survival depends on it — mostly because, you know, it does. Without the Renewable Fuel Standard’s mandate (which was passed in 2007, but upon which the Obama administration has relentlessly doubled down), demand for corn-based ethanol would slip by the wayside — and they certainly can’t have that.
You might not have known this, but according to Big Ethanol insiders, the Associated Press is actually in the pocket of Big Oil. Who knew? Via the Daily Caller:
The ethanol industry is firing back against the Associated Press after an investigative report that casts serious doubt on ethanol’s environmental benefits. …
“We are trying to make sure that people understand the rest of the story,” said Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association. “We are going through this article point by point by point and refuting opinions with facts… And I think when the whole story is out there, people will see this for what it it.”
“It’s just another attempt by people that don’t want to reduce our dependence on oil — that are satisfied with the status quo, that want to see cheap corn — trying to pull the wool over the consumers eyes, and I don’t think it works in the end,” Dinneen added.
Oil industry representatives have denied involvement in the AP’s report, arguing that the ethanol industry is simply resorting to using them as a scapegoat for their failed policies. …
I would also suggest to Big Ethanol that they are hardly in the position to throw stones about collusion and cronyism, seeing as how they have their own pockets well-lined with Obama administration officials and lawmakers, no?