Critique of ethanol is based on flawed findings

YOUR EDITORIAL on ethanol ("King Corn cows Washington," March 13) would be compelling were it based on facts and the sound science you endorse. The fact is, the studies you cite are significantly limited and flawed. The Jacobson study, for example, does not even touch upon the environmental impacts of petroleum-based fuels, ethanol's real-world competitor.

When it comes to the land use impacts of corn ethanol, one thing is clear, and that is that nothing is clear. In a recent letter to the governor of California, more than 100 scientists challenged the science of indirect land use change, calling it "controversial" and in its "nascent stage" with "clear omissions relative to the real world."

Finally, please stop accusing ethanol of taking corn away from food. US farmers are producing more corn per acre each season. We are doing it while lowering environmental impacts, as a recent report from the Field to Market sustainability program highlighted. Of the 2008 corn crop of 12.1 billion bushels, we are carrying more than 1.7 billion bushels into the next season. There is plenty of corn to go around.

Corn ethanol is good for the environment, good for the rural economy, and good for energy security.

Its critics base their attacks on political and competitive agendas you should be opposing, not endorsing.

Bob Dickey
President
National Corn Growers Association
Chesterfield, Mo.