high-dollar dollar public relations campaign to smear farmers and ethanol fuel

[Fledermaus]

To Congressional colleagues yesterday, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Ia.), said ethanol and alternative fuels have helped to lessen our dependency on foreign oil and are being made the scapegoat for a variety of problems. He said a negative campaign by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which sought help of a public relations firm, tried to lay blame on corn-based ethanol to try and rollback the ethanol mandates in the energy bill approved late in 2007. The issue was first alerted in the Washington publication Roll Call. Grassley noted the GMA paid $300,000 to a Washington PR firm to run the effort.

"Some of my colleagues here in the Senate have also gotten involved in this misinformation campaign," said Grassley. "It seems there is a “group-think” mentality when it comes to scapegoating ethanol for everything from high gas prices, global food shortages, global warming and deforestation. But, as was recently reported, this anti-ethanol campaign is not a coincidence. It turns out that a $300,000, six-month retainer of a beltway public relations firm is behind the smear campaign, hired by the Grocery Manufacturers Association."

The National Corn Growers Association joined members of Congress and others Thursday to express extreme disappointment in the revelation that many of the highest profile U.S. food companies may have supported a high-dollar dollar public relations campaign to smear farmers and ethanol fuel rather than acknowledge the truth about the direct link of rising food prices to the cost of foreign oil.

“Rising food and fuel prices have led the biofuels industry to take a beating on Capitol Hill the past few weeks, the Wednesday Roll Call article stated. “But the pummeling hasn’t been by chance — it’s part of a concerted effort spearheaded by the GMA and the Glover Park Group. GMA has been leading an ‘aggressive’ public relations campaign for the past two months in an effort to roll back ethanol mandates that passed in last year’s energy bill.

”Frankly, our farmer-members are shocked and outraged,” said NCGA President Ron Litterer. “It is simply unfathomable that food companies through the Grocery Manufacturers Association chose to smear their farmer-suppliers rather than cooperate with us to meet the growing challenge for America’s fuel needs. Unfortunately, from what we’ve heard this not the only campaign in the works to place the blame on agriculture.”

http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=143110

[Fledermaus]

1. Their strategy; using environmental, hunger and food aid groups to demonstrate a contrived crisis

But, as was recently reported, this anti-ethanol campaign is not a coincidence. It turns out that a $300,000, six-month retainer of a beltway public relations firm is behind the smear campaign, hired by the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

They’ve outlined their strategy of using environmental, hunger and food aid groups to demonstrate their contrived “crisis.”

I think it’s important for policy-makers and the American people to know who’s behind this effort.

According to reports, downtown D.C. lobbyists, the Glover Park Group and Dutko Worldwide, are leading the effort to undermine and denigrate the patriotic achievement of America’s farmers to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while also providing safe and affordable food.

The principle leaders behind the Glover Park Group’s 21-page proposal read like a “who’s who” of Democratic operatives.

The effort is led by former President Clinton’s press secretary, Joe Lockhart. Another is 8-year veteran of the Clinton-Gore White House, Michael Feldman.

Other leaders of this misinformation campaign include Carter Eskew, Mike Donilon, Joel Johnson, and Susan Brophy – all of which proudly display their ties to the Clinton/Gore White House and their credentials of helping to elect Democratic candidates.

I think Democrats here in the Senate who claim to support our nation’s drive toward energy independence should be alarmed by this group’s tactics and smear campaign.

http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=143110

[RC]

2. Some of us have figured out for ourselves that ethanol from a food crop

that is energy intensive to grow is not the way to go. When you grow corn for ethanol, you cannot be growing any other food crops on that land.

So much money is going into growing corn that the farmers are growing corn at the expense of other food crops. Our grain reserves are way down. That is driving our food prices up.

The cost of ethanol goes up with the cost of oil. Why? Because it takes to much oil in fuel and fertilizer to get ethanol.

The way we are making ethanol now is an energy losing proposition. It only helps the oil companies and the farmers that grow it. The rest of the world loses.

[Fledermaus]

4. Deep till @ 4 gal/acre ...will yield 60 gal/acre bio diesel or 300gal/acre ethanol

strip or no till uses even less


http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/manage/newsletters/fefo06_07/fefo06_07.html

There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years."1
http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/papers/fuel.html

O, and two thirds of the corn/soybean is left as high quality animal feed.

[NNadir]

3. That's great. The only reason that anyone could object to anything is to be paid for it.

Of course the anti-nuke fundie Amory Lovins is paid big bucks to applaud for stuff.

For instance, Amory has been applauding for huge diesel powered tankers hauling plastic disposable shit from Malyasia and China and Vietnam.

Still, I often hear how Amory Lovins is a "leftist hero." (In fact, Amory Lovins, who gets to be a "leftist hero" while hauling in consulting checks from the Pentagon and who gets to call himself a "Harvard Trained Physicist" despite having never matriculated from that institution with any kind of degree, might not be a "leftist hero," but he certainly is a "marketing hero."

Personally I think ethanol is marginally effective at best, and is an overpriced wishful thinking scam at worst. I guess it's time to announce that I must work for the Grocery Manufacturer's Association.

It's really boring how everyone who attempts to hype shit accuses everyone else of having less pure motives than they themselves have. I am suspicious of the motives of the 100% of Presidential candidates of both parties who, ever since since Jimmy Carter was propelled into the White House via winning the Iowa caucuses, have announced that ethanol will save the car culture.

The whole schtick about ethanol will be a lot more believable when Iowa stops importing petroleum. Last I looked, Iowa hasn't stopped importing petroleum.

As of February of 2008, there were still 1,144,000 barrels of motor gasoline in stock in Iowa.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgfsxia1m.htm

How come?

In fact, I hear of very, very, very, very few farms that operate as closed energy systems.

If Grassley has announced a plan to phase out petroleum in Iowa, we'd all love to hear about it. I favor fossil fuel phase outs, although depressingly few of them are ever even proposed, much less enacted. This may be like criticizing Jesus, but I happen to not believe that Iowa can phase out gasoline. If Iowa can't do it, nobody can.

I note that ADM makes far more money from the "ethanol will save us" game than these "family farmers" we're always hearing about.

If you would like to discuss ethanol's benefits, you are free to do so, but if you would rather impugn the motives of everyone who disagrees with you, well you can just join the club of dishonest commentators.

[depakid]

5. Grassley is dumber than a sack of rocks.

This old Kunstler blog entry captures him insightfully:

November 14, 2005

Charles ("Chuck") Grassley of Iowa, said the following a few days ago:

"You know what? What makes our economy grow is energy. And Americans are used to going to the gas tank (sic), and when they put that hose in their, uh, tank, and when I do it, I wanna get gas out of it.

And when I turn the light switch on, I want the lights to go on, and I don't want somebody to tell me I gotta change my way of living to satisfy them. Because this is America, and this is something we've worked our way into, and the American people are entitled to it, and if we're going improve (sic) our standard of living, you have to consume more energy."

Like the true-blue mediocre Americans of the Nixon era, American consumers (as we like to call ourselves) have the representative they deserve today in Senator Grassley. He expresses perfectly the dominant thought out there, which is as close to being not-a-thought as any thought can be. And this kind of proto-crypto-demi-thought is exactly what is going to lead this country into a world of hardship.

Instead of preparing the public for changing circumstances that will inexorably require different behavior on our part, our leaders are setting the public up to defend a way of living that can't continue for practical reasons. The question remains: are our leaders doing this out of cynicism or stupidity, or some other reason that is hard to determine?

http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary15.html