(January 6, 2010) Washington – A recent “policy paper” from Houston-based Rice University and sponsored by Chevron seeks to continue the orchestrated campaign to limit, and ultimately eliminate, the use of biofuels to displace foreign oil.

In its commentary, researchers from Rice rely upon out-of-date information and questionable assumptions to denigrate Congress, farmers, and ethanol producers for their support of domestically-based renewable fuels.

“Not surprisingly, this oil industry-sponsored analysis relies on myths, generalities, half-truths to dismiss ethanol while providing no comparison to our increasingly dangerous and costly addiction to oil,” said Renewable Fuels Association Director of Public Affairs Matt Hartwig. “A debate about the appropriate role of biofuels is valid and should occur, but not without proper context and based upon last century’s assumptions.”

Specifically, the Rice paper makes a number of misleading statements and assumptions, including:

• The paper assumes 44% of the 2007 corn crop will be needed to meet the 15 billion gallons of ethanol called for in the Renewable Fuels Standard. It does not account for the 1/3 of each bushel that is returned to the feed market in the form of distillers’ grains, nor does it give credence to increased yields. Despite difficult planting and harvesting conditions, American farmers achieved record yields in 2009.
• The paper states, “The preponderance of evidence shows that existing  biofuels offer no improvement over gasoline…” when it comes to carbon emissions. Every credible lifecycle analysis directly comparing ethanol to gasoline shows a carbon benefit to ethanol use, including the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment of a 61% benefit. Only when the unproven and controversial notion of international indirect land use  change (ILUC) is applied to ethanol and not to gasoline do the carbon benefits of ethanol suffer.
• The paper assumes additional land, including marginal acres, will be needed  to fulfill the RFS mandates. This is not necessarily true. Based upon yield trends, corn production on roughly the same amount of acres being cultivated will be sufficient to meet the corn-based ethanol demands of the  RFS. New feedstocks, such as crop residues, wood waste, and grasses, will also be used and will require no additional acres. 
• The paper criticizes the secondary tariff on imports of ethanol, but provides no context. The secondary tariff exists to offset the tax credit available to imports of ethanol. The tariff does not restrict trade, as evidenced by the  import of ethanol when needed, but rather protects American taxpayers. Moreover, no discussion is given to the 25% tariff Brazil places on imported  ethanol. Given the poor sugar crop in Brazil, it is likely U.S. ethanol could be exported and face the 25% tariff.
• The paper generalizes that irrigated corn used for ethanol production will be  in the same proportion as all irrigated corn (~18% of the total crop). Analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that 96% of all  corn used in ethanol production is non-irrigated.