Filed under: Ethanol, EV/Plug-in, Hybrid, Ford, GM
Co-op America says "Plug-in Hybrids 'Yes,' Ethanol 'No'" to Ford, GM
If you think that the ethanol push by Ford and GM over the last few years is too much, and that building for the biofuel is taking too many resources away from research that could otherwise be devoted to plug-in hybrids, Co-op America has an action for you. The action starts with a petition, called Tell Ford and GM: Ethanol is Not the Answer! that will be sent to Alan Mulally and Rick Wagoner. Co-op America asks for signatures, obviously, but also gives suggestions, mostly talking to local dealerships, on how else to take the give-us-PHEVs-now message to Ford and GM.
In effect, this is a petition drive created by the automakers. They tease the public with cool concept cars, but then don't deliver. As Co-op America's corporate responsibility programs director Todd Larsen said in a statement, "Ford has announced a partnership with Southern California Edison to produce such cars in the next 5-10 years. Chevy unveiled the Chevy Volt concept car, a plug-in, at auto shows this year. We are asking thousands of concerned consumers nationwide to tell Ford and GM to stop promoting corn-based ethanol, and focus instead on increased fuel efficiency and plug-in hybrid vehicles as real solutions to the climate and energy crises."
What about you, will you sign? Is this drive a good strategy? Should we let the companies decide on their own what's best, or is a unified, pro-PHEV customer front exactly what is needed?
[Source: Co-op America]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dave 1:09PM (9/14/2007)
Flex fuel ability costs GM almost nothing. Which is approximately what it is worth since ethanol is a farce.
The only reason GM and Ford offer flex fuel vehicles is because of the boost it gives their CAFE numbers.
Reply
Tim 2:48PM (9/14/2007)
Ah, the lie about the wonders of corn ethanol...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II&mode=related&search=
Reply
Swade 8:07PM (9/14/2007)
This campaign foolishly pre-supposes that carmakers are saying that ethanol IS the answer. It's not THE andswer - It's a part of the solution only, but it's a part that's available now.
I'll declare my interest here. I'm a Saab nut and run a Saab based blog. Saab have done good things with ethanol with their BioPower range. E85 trucks are pretty stupid, but Saab's technology is good - using a 4 cylinder engine with turbocharging to take better advantage of the high octane content in the fuel.
As the fuel gets more efficient to make via cellulosic technology and engines are made more with it in mind, it'll be an even more viable part of the solution.
But it's only a part. Not the full gig.
Reply
TgB 8:31PM (9/14/2007)
In my opinion the primary type of fuel used for cars must be electricity generated through renewable sources or even hydrogen generated with electricity from such sources. Even now it is more environmentally friendly then other available fuels . I see biofuels only as a reserve for longer distances in PHEVs, till the time fuel cells are really feasible or battery technology has improved sufficiently. In this way current sources of domestically generated biofuel would be sufficient to be a part of the answer instead of great marketing material for the green image.
Reply
Art Vatsky 6:32AM (9/15/2007)
Good post and comments. E85 is not a hit up here in the Northeast but ethanol is our preferred oxygenate. 10% of a big number is a big number. Ethanol from corn is a placeholder for ethanol made from non-food crops. All those cars - millions - will have the ability to someday use ethanol. Cars built today will still be around in 2020 so that sounds like a good back-up plan.
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 8:13AM (9/17/2007)
We really need a reason-based green car forum section. I don't even know why I'm bothering to write. Nothing science-based will sound true to folks seeking a "just planet," whatever that's supposed to mean.
Folks, drivetrain technology and biofuels are two different issues. There's no reason to focus on one exclusively. Do you seriously think GM et. al. wouldn't kill to have the ultimate battery? If they did, they'd own the market.
I seriously dislike the Bush administration's approach to environmental issues, particularly their seeming reluctance to rationally consider climate change data, and have a healthy distrust of big industry. But I do know that fact is fact. If GM had the ultimate PHEV that would make money, they'd be pumping them out the door right now! State of the art is the best you can build--beyond state of the art will have to wait until tomorrow, unless you can import it with your Utopian industrial time machine.
And don't forget: the market will tell you what's real, just like good research.
Reply
rserafin 1:50PM (9/17/2007)
gsolman6: why do I so often see references to the 51-cent/gallon subsidy for ethanol without seeing comparable figures for oil subsidies? One story I read earlier this year in the Christian Science Monitor puts oil subsidies at as much as $39 billion a year (this does not include the human and fiscal cost of how oil distorts our foreign policy). That comes from your tax dollars, too.
As Swade said, no one is pushing ethanol as the full answer, just part of the answer available right now.
Reply
gsolman6 10:30PM (9/17/2007)
"I seriously dislike the Bush administration's approach to environmental issues, particularly their seeming reluctance to rationally consider climate change data"
They've gone beyond that - they have intentionally censored government reports concerning climate change in order to protect the special interests that support them.
"And don't forget: the market will tell you what's real, just like good research."
The problem with that is all of the ethanol subsidies distort the true economic cost of the fuel, i.e. what people are paying at the pump is not the true cost of the fuel. That 51 cents a gallon subsidy for ethanol comes from your tax dollars so you can thank ADM and their ilk for helping themselves to your money.
The problem is that many people in this country think we can duplicate what Brazil has done without considering the difference in the fuel source.
Reply