Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dan45mcc

BREAKING NEWS.Associated Press Planning massive Anti Ethanol Campaign

Recommended Posts

As Far as I can tell we Broke that Story / reported the Leaked report. I posted it on E85Prices Twitter account as well ..

 

 

Anyway.... Ethanol Producers Fume Over Upcoming Wire Story

 

An Associated Press report published prematurely last week and quickly pulled back takes ethanol to task for its impact on conservation lands and the environment. The leaked story, which AP says will be republished Tuesday, pulled few punches concerning the biofuel that has increased demand for corn production. National Journal obtained a copy from a lobbyist.

 

 

As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitats, and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press  investigation found.

 

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation—more than Yellowstone, Everglades, and Yosemite National Parks combined—have vanished on Obama’s watch.

 

Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

 

 

Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers, and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can’t survive.

 

The story wasn't out for long, but it has caused a firestorm of backlash from biofuels makers and corn producers upset at how they are portrayed. "There's probably more truth in this week's National Enquirer than there is in the AP story," said the Renewable Fuels Association's Geoff Cooper on a Monday press call. Also featured on the call was Iowa farmer Leroy Perkins, a source in the AP report who said that he was deceived about the nature of the story and that his remarks were taken out of context.

 

 

"Cropland is not expanding in the United States—certainly not expanding because of the RFS," Cooper said, referring to the federal renewable-fuel standard that mandates an increasing amount of biofuels each year to be blended with the nation's gasoline supply. Cooper insisted that corn-fueled destruction of wetlands "just isn't happening."

 

 

The American Coalition for Ethanol chimed in as well. "At best, the AP article is lazy journalism, but at worst, it appears purposefully designed to damage the ethanol industry," ACE Executive Vice President Brian Jennings said in a release. "There was an incredibly reckless disregard for the truth in the handiwork of this hit-piece."

 

 

AP says the story was accidentally published early when it was sent to member publications. "This was just a misfire," said Paul Colford, AP's director of media relations, noting that several yet-to-be-released segments of the report will come out Tuesday as well. He denied allegations that the factual basis of the story is in question and speculation that accuracy concerns led to it being pulled. "This was very, very, very carefully reported," Colford said, and the republished version will run with only a "fix or two, a rephrasing here or there." He also took aim at Perkins, who he said "actually sat for hours of interviews with the AP, and he was certainly aware ... of AP's questions about ethanol." Perkins even helped arrange a flyover for AP to get an eye-in-the-sky look, Colford said.

 

 

Meanwhile, The Hill notes that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, an Iowa native and ethanol advocate, would not say if the fuel is beneficial for the climate. "I don't know whether I can make the environmental argument, or the economic argument," Vilsack told the AP.

 

 

 

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/ethanol-producers-fume-over-upcoming-wire-story-20131111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well isn't it a good thing that it was leaked. Perhaps the person it had been sent to actually had a heart.

 

And isn't this interesting... no facts are off? Very, very, very carefully reported?

"This was just a misfire," said Paul Colford, AP's director of media relations, noting that several yet-to-be-released segments of the report will come out Tuesday as well. He denied allegations that the factual basis of the story is in question and speculation that accuracy concerns led to it being pulled. "This was very, very, very carefully reported," Colford said, and the republished version will run with only a "fix or two, a rephrasing here or there."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Dan.... you did get the jump on this, good job. I took it over to the bad site just after I read it here and it took some time, several days in fact, for the oil shills to formulate a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Dan.... you did get the jump on this, good job. I took it over to the bad site just after I read it here and it took some time, several days in fact, for the oil shills to formulate a response.

Thanks Steve..

 

 

 

 

That really ticks me off about the AP.. the TIMING (The Obama Administration is suppose to release it's final recommendation of the RFS ..whether to pull back a few billion gallons or not any day now) of that "Article" hack Job shows that it was CLEARLY a PAID for .  Someone  had to of Paid the AP to publish that nonsense .. and that should be the real story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is picking up some press on KCCI's web site now too...

 

The comments are disheartening....  all anti-ethanol people on there so far..  I commented, but now comments are not showing up... so who knows what's going on there...

 

That was obviously a paid for hit-editorial.  Makes me sick... and angry.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It honestly makes me sick too. But I've adopted a new strategy with this. It all goes back to the phrase "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". I've begun following the twitter feeds of these various pro-oil/natural gas organizations, and have been reading comments more. A way to get a leg up on the opposition is to get as far into their minds as possible. Sympathize with them for a brief moment (I know, it's hard). This way, you know potentially why they think the things that they do, and you're better prepared to respond to it. It's a lot harder to stand up to your opposition if you don't know much about them.

 

I should also point out, this is not something I've seen big oil and its supporters do, to my knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to think that society is reasonable and would like fuel choice. I even believe that all of the hard working people in the petroleum industry are good.

 

However, when your goal is to protect your monopoly with BS instead of competing on the merits of your product is horrible IMO.

 

I suppose all business do this... Nobody loves free enterprise more than me. But the oil industry should have the decency to compete on the merits of what they and their product has to offer, not some ridiculous campaign of misinformation to the detriment of that same competitiveness. If the point of the benefits of clean renewable fuel gets lost in all of this, it is clearly the fault of the oil companies.

 

Most recently, in the early 2000's ethanol (yet again) started up and for years was a positive campaign. Only did they turn when oil made it ugly.

 

And I suppose I could name other industries too, prefaced with "big" such as pharma, media, etc but thats way off topic :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

"I should also point out, this is not something I've seen big oil and its supporters do, to my knowledge."

 

I was where you are about 30 years ago while in the fuels distribution business- the only thing I noticed they threw mud at then was ethanol. Over time I came to realize just how good they are at laying low and making it appear the general population is not wanting ethanol, or that ethanol is the cause of all sorts of ill's. The entire alternative energy industry is so dumb it lets itself be divided into wind vs solar pv. Solar pv vs solar thermal, biomass heating vs biomass liquid fuels, corn ethanol vs cellulosic, biodiesel vs corn ethanol. Oil gets the food manufacturers into the game. Oil gets -surprise- their old nemesis environmental groups needing a new fundraising cause now taking oil money via indirect paths or boiling up discontentment in uninformed public to contribute. Several environmental groups often have little more integrity than oil- they are all about fundraising- whatever it takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×