Posted on: December 09, 2010 in Ethanol

When it comes to the future of renewable energy in the United States, The New York Times editorializes (12/9/10 Good Energy Subsidies, and Bad)  that it wants to do what “makes sense for the environment, the economy, and for American taxpayers.” It also notes “the nation desperately needs new investment in clean energy and the jobs that go with it.” The New York Times then turns its back on those very goals by attacking ethanol.

Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels likes ethanol, and the list goes on. We are all part of the solution of resolving America’s energy challenges. However, there is only one that can and is immediately available in the marketplace to fuel a car’s current combustion engine. If the NYT wants to do what makes sense for the environment then it should support the proven alternative – ethanol. The use of 10.6 billion gallons of ethanol last year reduced greenhouse gas emissions from cars by 16.5 million metric tons, the equivalent of removing 2.7 million cars from the road.

If the NYT wants to do what is right for the economy and for the American taxpayer then it should support ethanol. 112,000 existing, good paying jobs hang in the balance if the ethanol incentives are not extended. Most of these jobs are in rural America – experience tells us that rural America is one of the most difficult places to create meaningful and sustainable jobs. Look at Janesville, MN where the ethanol plant is the second largest employer in the entire county. Ethanol production has contributed $53.3 billion to this nation’s bottomline, the GDP. Want to help taxpayers further NYT? Ethanol can help keep the cost of a gallon of gas down. That’s immediate and direct relief for taxpayers at the pump, especially at a time when we are easily looking at $3 and climbing per gallon at the pumps.

So, I guess the question for the NYT is not which form of renewable energy they prefer over the other, but if they really, seriously want to help the environment, the economy, and American taxpayers now, in 2010, or sometime in the distant future.  The difference between now and then could be tens of thousands of jobs.

« More Blog Posts