“Freedom” is Corn Ethanol Propaganda

Posted by Don Carr in Biofuels, Lobbyists on October 26, 2011 | 21 responses

The new film “Freedom” is an industry bought-and-paid-for infomercial for environmentally destructive corn ethanol, masquerading as a pseudo-documentary on the nation’s oil addiction.

Josh Tickell won the Sundance audience prize award for his 2009 film “Fuel.”  Sadly, his newest documentary, “Freedom” – which has its Washington DC premiere tonight (Oct 26) – obliterates whatever credibility he has as an independent filmmaker. He resorts to a manipulative bait-and-switch story line that has environmentalists, government officials and celebrities like Jason Mraz and Amy Smart talking about how bad oil is while trotting out speakers with direct financial connection to the corn ethanol industry to promote this environmentally destructive fuel.

The only thing useful to be gleaned from “Freedom” is that oil production and consumption are not only bad for our planet and our health but also have an unfair stranglehold on our energy supply. If you didn’t know that already, your $20 fee to buy the DVD would be well spent. If you did, you’re paying for a feature-length advertisement for ethanol.

What’s wrong with corn ethanol? It’s a long list, one that includes its heavy environmental toll, a near-monopoly on government support for what it classifies as renewable energy, and the reality that it will never be a viable alternative to gasoline. And I didn’t even charge you twenty bucks. The corn lobby itself, not to mention a National Academies of science report, have recently thrown cold water on the fond hope that our current ethanol-centered policy will lead to truly sustainable advanced biofuels.

But the ethanol industry is a notorious factory of myths and misrepresentations, and Tickell’s film fits snugly into its marketing. Here’s a rundown of “Freedom’s” distortions and glaring conflicts of interest:

The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone

This sin of omission is particularly galling. Tickell’s polemic against oil is cast against the backdrop of last year’s Deep Horizon blowout that fouled the Gulf of Mexico. He touches on his own upbringing in the area, describes how the region’s petroleum industry has been a threat to human health and interviews local journalists and activists about the blowout’s devastation. Their accounts are truly horrifying.

But Tickell makes not one mention of the Gulf Dead Zone. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the leading cause of hypoxia – lack of oxygen – that is wiping out marine life in the Gulf has nothing to do with oil. It’s fertilizer runoff from corn and soybean crops that causes the Dead Zone to swell to the size of New Jersey every summer, seriously damaging the ecosystem as well as the fisheries economy. Corn and soy are the main feed stocks for ethanol and biodiesel.

Tickell quotes columnist Bob Marshall of the New Orleans Times-Picayune on the oil spill but ignores Marshall’s extensive writings on the perils of corn ethanol, such as this:

By now most sportsmen are acquainted with the growing list of unexpected environmental penalties the nation (and world) is paying for the misguided rush to ethanol mandates. Wildlife acres converted to corn, water tables drained or polluted, heavier loads of fertilizers adding to dead zones, carbon footprints increasing, food prices soaring – just to name a few.

Similarly, he films Oceana’s Whit Sheard and Marylee Orr of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network on the blowout, but fails to note that both link the Gulf Dead Zone to corn production. I would bet dollars to donuts that Marshall, Sheard and Orr had no inkling they were starring in a promotional film for corn ethanol.

Freedom is funded by the ethanol industry

“Freedom” is industry funded. That really should be the end of this review, but Tickell and company provide a target-rich environment by featuring former NATO Commander Wesley Clark – a board member of the ethanol lobby group Growth Energy – and three others of Growth Energy’s nine board members. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is also in the film talking about the benefits of ethanol – he was paid more than $300,000 in consulting fees by Growth Energy. See a pattern here?

The filmmakers traveled to South Dakota to interview a farmer whose wife describes him as a “true environmentalist.” What the filmmakers don’t mention is that South Dakota farmer David Gillen is no small operator. He has received over $723,000 in federal farm subsidy payments over the last 16 years, and last year alone he raked in $104,000. He is also on the board of the South Dakota Corn Utilization Council and a former president of the South Dakota Corn Growers Association, which has ties to agribusiness giants Monsanto and Syngenta. Gillen has also donated money to the Political Action Committee for POET LLC, the self-described “world’s largest ethanol producer.”

The list goes on. Bernie Punt is showcased speaking about farmer-owned cooperatives as a benefit of ethanol production, but the filmmakers never acknowledges that he is a former director the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, chairman of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition and a board member of Growth Energy.

Jack Kibbie goes on camera to trumpet the rural development benefits of corn ethanol. It turns out that Mr. Kibbie is also a farm subsidy recipient, his two sons deliver corn stover to a POET ethanol facility and he sells corn to it as well. As President of the Iowa Senate, he has sponsored pro-ethanol legislation.

This is an “independent film?”

But hey, NASCAR is using it:

We’ve written extensively about how NASCAR is using ethanol to greenwash its image as a gas-guzzling polluter. “Freedom” features “stock car driver/environmentalist” Leilani Munter saying, “We can’t keep living on this planet they way we’ve been living on it.” NASCAR is using the fuel called E15 (15 percent ethanol, 85 percent gasoline) and spouts numerous fallacies, claiming that E15 has lower emissions, has no mileage impact and will not damage engines. All of these points have been scientifically refuted, most recently when the National Renewable Energy Laboratory reported that marine engines fueled with E15 could fail and strand boaters.

Just plain bad facts

Glaring inaccuracies are plastered throughout the film. We’ll highlight a few.

First, Todd Becker, a Growth Energy board member, discusses a graph of ethanol subsidies and farm subsidies, saying, “We have eliminated $15-$20 billion of direct payments. For the U.S. taxpayer, it is a huge positive.” It’s simply not true. Direct payments have remained fixed and automatic. Yes, some price support programs have declined as commodity prices remain high due in part to ethanol mandates. Those high prices have also contributed to a bigger taxpayer burden in subsidizing insurance for higher valued crops.

Secondly, the film claims that ethanol does not compete with the food supply since humans only eat sweet corn, not the yellow corn used to make fuel. The truth is that corn ethanol recently surpassed livestock as the largest consumer of U.S. corn. Corn growers brag that corn is made into everything from cereal to peanut butter to soft drinks. Recent studies have tied biofuels, particularly corn ethanol, to higher food prices not only in the U.S. but also around the world. And to come close to replacing gasoline with ethanol, the U.S. would have to produce four times the current corn crop and direct every bushel to ethanol production.

Imagine the toll on our environment.

The film also claims that “petroleum subsidies are 20 times more per gallon than ethanol incentives.” But even at the upper end estimate of oil subsidies of $10 billion a year, the U.S. subsidizes petroleum at about seven cents a gallon, while ethanol gets six times as much – 45 cents per gallon.

We at EWG think both oil and ethanol subsidies need to be eliminated.

Finally, Jeff Broin, CEO of POET LLC, claims in the film that, “Ethanol does become a fuel that is almost perfectly in sync with the environment in the long run. We need to look to the future, not just look exactly where we are today. Today we are 59 percent better than gasoline in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. We are trending towards 100 percent.” Wait until the Environmental Protection Agency hears that one. According to an analysis of EPA data by Friends of the Earth, an ethanol critic, corn ethanol currently “releases more greenhouse gases than gasoline. In fact, per gallon, corn ethanol will result in 36 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline in 2012 and 12 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline in 2017.”

Jeff Broin ends the film by saying, “I believe the truth will win in the end and the facts will win in the end. The question is how long it will take us to get there.”

It didn’t take EWG long at all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/fuelguru Josh Tickell

    Hi Don –

    You don’t accurately depict the film or its content. First, this is a comparison between ethanol and oil based gasoline. Meaning – just so we are all clear – ethanol is not perfect but it is a quantum leap beyond gasoline.

    Last time I checked (which was last week) – the entire Louisiana shoreline is still awash with oil from the Deepwater Horizon blowout. If you watch FUEL, which you reference above, but clearly did not bother to take the time to watch, you will find we cover the dead zone in depth. However, a dead zone resulting from TOTAL ag production (corn, soy, other crops + runoff) and toxic sludge dumped by the petrochemical facilities along the Mississippi (which, just in case you’ve never actually been to Louisiana – are numerous and virtually unregulated) + commercial and residential runoff – all pales in comparison to the incredible loss of the base food layer in the Gulf of Mexico – which is what we are seeing from last year’s oil spill. So you chose: an ag industry which is clearly problematic but working to reduce its impact or an oil industry that is flagrantly reckless and cannibalistic.

    I think your arguments are valid in that many of the people interviewed in the film benefit from farm payments or they are connected or paid by the ethanol industry. We actually wanted to tell the story of ethanol from the perspective of the people who feel it is a solution.

    Which is why we interviewed your lauded anti-ethanol advocates and found them to be lying – on camera – why did you not mention that in your otherwise well-researched article?

    I encourage you to make a counter film. Interview people paid off by the oil industry. Oh wait, that was already done – it’s called the ongoing Ad Campaign by major oil companies to make people believe oil is somehow a better choice than biofuels.

    Judging from your post – I recommend you watch BP’s “Making it Right” Campaign about their oil spill cleanup in Louisiana.

    I’m sure you, dear Don, never drive in a car or fly in an airplane and you think that you are insulated from the impacts of your choices – that you don’t contribute to oil spills, the tar sands, the Keystone XL pipeline or people coming back from the Middle East in body bags.

    I also question – have you ever worked on a farm? Do you know how to farm? If so, then why not include both sides of the farm balance sheet in your argument. What’s missing from your analysis is the real cost to farm, the effect of futures markets and an analysis of how America would be without the 13 billion gallons of ethanol produced each year.

    If you’d like, I can take you out to Iowa and we can work a few weeks on a farm during the fall this year. I think some clean air and manual labor would look good on you. It would give us some time to bond as well.

    Also, you cite things like the NRDC’s boat engine report. Really??? Have you ever worked on a boat engine? My guess is everything under the hood is a miraculous combination of metal to you. I’ve run over a hundred thousand miles on alternative fuels. E15 will not strand boaters or motorists. Only somebody who doesn’t know the difference between a socket extension and a rear differential would that and then cite a study to prove it.

    I love it when you say “all of these points have been scientifically refuted” as if science somehow trumps reality. As if Brazil does not run the majority of its vehicles on alcohol fuel. Can you scientifically refute that?

    And just because Friends of the Earth (who happen to drive cars and fly in planes too) have created a study that shows that carbon emissions are higher with ethanol – doesn’t mean that FOE is somehow really doing stoichiometry – I doubt they would even know what that means. Again, if you watched the movie, the reports NOT done or referencing Pimentel find a different analysis than the one you cite.

    Don – I’m a radical free market economist. On that we agree – let’s eliminate all subsidies for oil, fossil fuels and for ag fuels. If you can get congress to do that, I’ll bow down and kiss your feet.

    But until then, I’m going back to work in the real world where real people drive real cars and trucks and where there is actually a need to replace oil with something other than pixie dust.

    The question I would pose to you my friend is…

    In the struggle for true environmental justice, for a better world and for actually doing something other than whining –

    Which side are you on?

    P.S. – let me know when you want to come work on a the farm in Iowa – we can contrast that with some offshore oil work with some of my family in Louisiana. How are you with lifting heavy equipment?

  • http://www.ewg.org/agmag Don Carr

    Josh — thanks for posting. As EWG’s head stoichiometrist I’m going to jump right in.

    First, we’d love to make our own film. Can you talk to your benefactors at Growth Energy/POET about cutting us a check?

    Several times you take digs at me in the realm of asking me if I’ve ever been on a farm or if I’d like to go with you to a farm in Iowa. My answer to that is no, I don’t want to go with you to a farm in Iowa.

    I can, however, invite you to my family’s farm in South Dakota. We sold off the cattle herd after gramps passed, but my uncles and cousins still grow lots of corn and raise hogs. My colleague Sheila who is our lead biofuels researcher and helped me with this piece wanted me to pass along an invitation to her family’s farm in Nebraska as well. We can show you how to walk beans — good way to make beer money but truthfully its sucky work.

    And of course you’re always welcome to visit our office in Ames, IA

    And the last time I checked aside from the Gulf Dead Zone, Minnesota waterways, the Mississippi River Basin, the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay are all choking from agriculture pollution too – in part due to increased corn and soy production for ethanol and biodiesel.

    I did see Fuel. And I liked it. And that’s what saddened me about Freedom as someone who has reviewed environmental documentaries as credentialed Sundance press — this is the exact opposite of independent filmmaking. “Freedom” is a corporate infomercial. The point is, if you’re truthfully looking at oil in the gulf and saying ethanol is the solution, you undercut your credibility when you don’t address the Dead Zone.

    And tell me please, since you engaged, why you think NASCAR is a solution? They’re getting 4mpg while fans drive an average of 250 miles to races. Where does conservation and efficiency come into play? You want to ding me for driving in a car (which I do rarely as I am able to walk to work) or fly, but you think NASCAR is the solution?

    Yes, been to NOLA pre and post Katrina. I prefer staying with my bro in law in Gulfport though I’ll meet for a cocktail at Tips if Galactic is playing.

    Yes I have worked on a boat engine, but out of necessity when our boat broke down in the middle of Lake Oahe fishing. But I’ll take the marine manufacturer’s association’s claims about boat engine damage from ethanol over yours.

    If you truly are a radical free market economist, then why support a fuel that radically distorts food markets at the detriment to hungry in developing countries? I know your film blamed Africa for its hunger problems via Gingrich and left US policy off the hook, but that’s not the position of Action Aid, Oxfam and many many others.

    And that brings up an even bigger point. No one, and I mean no one, is for corn ethanol unless they have a financial or political stake in it. Period. Every major environmental group, hunger groups, radical free market types, all revile the stuff.

    No one.

    Corn ethanol is not a quantum leap ahead of gasoline. That’s just laughable.

    I’m on the side of better federal policy that protects water and soil and helps all farmers not just large agribussiness. What side are you on again?

  • http://twitter.com/BIOblogger Scott Miller

    Sorry Don – got to side with Josh on this one.

    Josh has been consistently focused on supporting fuel alternatives in both “Fuel” and “Freedom.” He states the facts as he sees them and is independent enough to admit when he is wrong. You may see a pattern indicating that the corn ethanol industry has hired him for propaganda purposes but that is hardly a smoking gun.

    For those that don’t remember “Fuel”, it was a popular feature length film that revealed the dark side of the fossil fuels monopoly (health, politics, economics, and environmental destruction). It pushed for biodiesel, algae, and hybrid car alternatives.

    I personally witnessed a firestorm of protest for “Fuel”‘s treatment of corn ethanol among corn ethanol supporters – including many RFA, ACORE, Growth Energy, and 25x’25 members that I know. In one section it documented some of the detracting corn ethanol issues that have long been spotlighted by fossil fuel supporters. I think Josh and Rebecca were chastened by the criticism and realized that they had unwittingly spread petro-propaganda. “Freedom” seeks to correct the message. See my review of “Freedom” at http://bit.ly/nc2Dz4 .

    You can see from my blogs that I am a cellulosic ethanol guy – generations 2-4. Unlike you, Don, I fully support the work by 1st generation biofuels producers because they are creating the infrastructure, vehicles, and markets for commercial scale alternative fuels of the future.

    POET, in particular, is aiming to be the first to introduce large-scale cellulosic technologies using corn cobs and stover for feedstock. Significant because they are in the position of bolting these 2nd generation biorefineries onto their large network of corn ethanol plants.

    Sustainability will be further enhanced by freedom to choose at the pump. This diatribe against “Freedom” does nothing to advance the cause of transport fuel sustainability.

    Watch the movie and judge for yourself.

  • Anonymous

    Don,

    Corn ethanol is just the beginning. Brazil actually has the right solution; sugar-based ethanol. As the BP CEO is quoted, sugar-based ethanol is the only viable replacement to oil when it runs out.

    Anything is better than oil. Oil kills everything from innocent people via health issues, military troops via the protectionism of oil lands and millions of people paying through the teeth to drive to and from work. EPEC biofuels has the next iteration of ethanol for the US and much of the world; sweet sorghum. With a seeding to harvest in about 100 days, sweet sorghum is a sugar-rich energy crop grown on marginal lands with little use of water and soil. Our vision is about to become reality, opening up southern US states where we can harvest 2-3 times per year with a yield of over 1000 gallons per acre.

  • Anonymous

    The more acres planted to corn for ethanol, the fewer acres available to plant other crops. The fewer acres of other crops, the higher the prices of these commodities. Just what the poor in this country and around the world do not need.

  • Anonymous

    So all those corn farmers are using ethanol (that is no petroleum) in their tractors to grow that corn.

    This should be only an energy account game. All about sensible use of energy in a world where we need to wean ourselves off fossil energy sources. It’s that or screw up the carbon cycle, atmosphere, oceans and climate even more.

    Up until about 250 year ago we lived off the planet’s annual solar budget. Taking what we could from the oceans, felling timber and gleaming firewood from the forests, and grazing and tilling the plainlands. More or less in balance until we got too greedy and over exploited an area and nature took its course.

    Then we realised the was an energy jackpot in the basement. All the easy cheap energy in coal & then oil. Did what any organism does when it finds a new resource, we bred and multiplied. But these resources are finite, getting harder and dearer to exploit (look at the oil shock triggered by a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, last decade) and causing environmental degradation we are only now coming to understand.

    Dealing with is emerging combination of resource depletion & environmental degradation means trying to carry on with business as usual is really head in the sand stuff. Corn to ethanol is a business as usual con job, unless there is a real attempt to use on-farm energy to power the tractors etc and limit water use to that provided by local rainfall and not plundering ground water reserves.

    Lots of vested interests here. Lot of lazy and little innovation.

    Here, when a local ethanol plant opened, they draw far more water than they where allowed. Only a town water crisis had people look at where the water was really going. The promoters were all about maximizing profits while they thought no-one is looking at the cost of the wider community & environment.

    Discloser: I’m the son that didn’t go farming. My family farms mixed grain and livestock in eastern Australia.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gerald-Kupeerus/100002839389090 Gerald Kupeerus

    That’s why our Wall mart still throws out rotting food no one bought, and corn flakes were on sale.
    we will have 100 million bushels of corn surplus how about we drop it in front of your place.
    When a drill bit hits the ground or when we microwave the shale, or tanker oil, it starts a toxic compounds and carbon stream with no end a volatile organic compound stream considered bad by any group, Fracturing also pollute wells and ground water, you guys wouldn’t be happy till we live in caves and pedal a bicycle to to fry an egg,
    when was it Americas responsibility to feed the whole world ? but we do much of it, and ask why farm industry is paid not to plant 80 million acres, or the world by 1 billion acres , to keep ever increasing crop yields from loosing value ? Maybe you should look at this administration for answers why we over sold corn to communist China, and we could have sold them dry grind for the same purpose to feed animals, i would invite you to go to sea to help protect our jihad der oil interests around the world . serve with our fine military, and ask why oil subsidies will hit 600 billion, you all seam to forget the Alaskan pipe line we ended up paying for now in need of maintenance, or the intercontinental pipelines aging badly we all paid for, and we argue about blender pumps?Why is it bad when America has a product to sell it is evil? and when slave labor and communists make goods we buy it at Wall Mart and everywhere else , Ask yourself why we only have 9 million industrial jobs down 100 million in last 20 years, we made it impossible to make anything without over regulating and taxing, we must be the cleanest country in the world production everywhere is way down but that is what you enviro wackos seem to want, no factories n o jobs no work ?and tiny electric cars that cant warm up in a snow storm or pull a god forbid camper or boat , they pollute to, come to think of it when these guys write stuff like this how much carbon is produced, Algae make oxygen and corn does too, oil makes toxins, Gee i am not sure which sounds better the 100 year multi billion dollar lobby groups for foreign or big oil or American Farmers asking for fair play, and fair EPA testing and better ASTM regulation not to be weakened like big oil wants so they can put more garbage in our fuel and spruce it up with ethanol

  • http://www.facebook.com/tim.gieseke Tim Gieseke

    Both petroleum and ethanol are wonderful additions to our lives, livelihoods and our economic system. To date, they have been given a fairly free pass on the not so wonderful additions to our lives, livelihoods and our ecological system. We should not slam the door on either, but begin to provide some economic feedback on the not so wonderful aspects of each. We don’t listen to each other very well, but we do listen to market signals. Agriculture could put itself ahead if it would adopt an ecocommerce approach to its accounting systems as it is an industries that is extensively intertwined with both ecological and economic system. I assume that was Jeff Broin’s point in the statement that, “Ethanol does become a fuel that is almost perfectly in sync with the environment in the long run”. But that syncronization can not occur if an ecocommerce feedback loop does not provide a market signal to guide us.

  • http://www.ewg.org/agmag Don Carr

    Scott — thanks for the comment. I’ve watched the Growth Energy infomercial three times, and the picture of deception in it gets clearer on each viewing. Three questions for supporters of corn ethanol like yourself and Josh:

    1. Ag pollution, in part spurred by ethanol mandates and subsidies, are choking Minnesota waterways, the Mississippi River Basin, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay and untold other waters. The rush to plant more corn is decimating wildlife habitat (and the attendant recreation dollars for struggling rural economies) Government and NGO studies confirm this. Why is this OK with you?

    2. Are you suggesting that the massive water pollution and soil loss is a necessary hit to the environment that that we must endure to get to advanced bioufels?

    3. Credible organizations from Oxfam to Action Aid (you know, folks on the ground in developing countries who see hunger first hand) have identified US ethanol policies as contributing to hunger in impoverished regions. Josh’s corporate advertisement puts the blame on Africans, not with US policies and those pushing them. Why are you OK with this?

  • http://www.facebook.com/henryjburnett Henry Burnett

    Hey Josh…….Just Three Big Cheers and I am Out Of Breath.
    The Critics Have NO Alternatives to BioFuels and then the default Transportation Fuel come from “Their Friends” @ OPEC!

  • Helen Lee

    I also liked Fuel and was disappointed after watching the premiere last night. I wish the movie went more in depth of the issues that are associated with corn as Don had said.

    The burning question I had last night that I couldn’t ask during the short q&a (short being, 2 questions were answered) was, where is the bibliography for this film and for FUEL? I want to see the actual calculations and papers that were used to determine the facts on the two movies.

  • http://twitter.com/AltaKocker hugh kaufman

    Interesting reading your, and Glover Park Group’s, coordinated attacks.
    Sad to see that you escalated to ad hominem attack on Josh Tickell.
    You could have disagreed on the issues/facts without name calling.
    In light of the $ issue you raised, how much $ has your new Board Member, Francesca Vietor, paid EWG to help her greenwash her organization growing food on toxic sewage sludge?

  • http://www.ewg.org/agmag Don Carr

    Hugh – had a comment written but it disappeared, so if it pops up this is an attempt to recreate.

    Please specify the ad hominen attacks. You’re the one that engaged on name calling on Twitter (hypocrite, putz).

    Josh got funded to promote corn ethanol. I haven’t seen anyone dispute that, including Josh. Corn ethanol is bad for the environment as it pollutes water, damages soil and destroys habitat. In defending Josh are you getting behind corn ethanol? I know we disagree with your sludge characterizations:

    http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2010/04/ewg-to-monitor-san-francisco-sludge-policy-criticizes-unfounded-accusations-aimed-at-vietor-waters/

    But I would think more corn ethanol being a bad thing is something we could agree on.

  • Anonymous

    One of the problems with corn based ethanol is the multiple billions problem. Billions in ag subsidies with programs including investment and profit insurance for corn farmers. Billions more for consumers to pay in increased food costs due to less acres of food available due to increased corn acres. Billions more to pay in food stamps caused by increasing food costs. Billions the taxpayers pays the to keep the ethanol industry to get consumers to buy the product. If ethanol was such a wonder fuel why is not it used to power the ethanol plants? As a farmer I know a dead horse when I see one. The only thing keeping this dead horse moving is the billions the government is shoveling ethanols way. Just because the government is wasting billions with other multi billion dollar schemes, this is supposed to justify billions for ethanol?

  • http://twitter.com/AltaKocker hugh kaufman

    Also Don
    RE: EWG “monitoring” your Board Member Francesca Vietor’s SFPUC growing food on toxic sewage sludge-

    According to the SFPUC, over 40% of their toxic sewage sludge is still used as a fertilizer

    (San Francisco produces 82,000 tons of sewage sludge annually. According to a public fact sheet, SFPUC disposed of its sludge as follows in 2008:
    56% goes to the Hay Road Landfill in Vacaville, CA
    28% is applied to land as fertilizer in Solano County, CA
    14% is applied to land as fertilizer in Sonoma County, CA
    1% is applied to land as fertilizer in Merced County, CA
    1% went to the composting program to be given away to gardeners)

    Note this photo: http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/4d/Gardennut.jpg

    SFPUC also sends their sewage sludge to the Synagro CVC plant in Merced CA, where it is bagged as “compost” for sale as a soil amendment (Synagro is a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group.).

    Looks like nothing’s changed since EWG joined the fray, other than the inclusion of Jello heiress and SFPUC Head Francesca Vietor to your Board.

  • http://www.ewg.org/agmag Don Carr

    Hugh — what happened to the comment you posted last night endorsing corn ethanol as a bridge fuel? The corn growers have jettisoned any pretense that advanced biofuels are a viable reality and NAS just released a report doing the same.

    Again, are you endorsing environmentally damaging corn ethanol?

    And re your attempts to hijack an ethanol comment thread re sludge:

    http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2010/04/ewg-to-monitor-san-francisco-sludge-policy-criticizes-unfounded-accusations-aimed-at-vietor-waters/

  • http://www.ewg.org/agmag Don Carr

    Hugh– a lot of other folks in the environmental community were on the same tack, but it became obvious that the corn lobby wasn’t going to let go of the market and truly sustainable — and viable — biofuels that don’t compete with resources and food — could never get where they needed to go. In essence the bridge has become the destination and entrenched interests making money off corn ethanol are an actual barrier to truly advanced biofuel development. Our own NAS remarks on this in a new report.

    Now we have a situation where the ethanol industry, and Growth Energy who in part is behind Freedom, are lobbying to have the RFS changed and corn ethanol reclassified as and advanced biofuel — essentially Armageddon — as billions more gallons will then be produced – for the environment. Again, this is something not touched up on in Josh’s movie as it punctures the guise of the ethanol industry transitioning to next generation biofuels.

    Oil is bad bad bad bad. Federal support for both oil and corn ethanol should go away. Speaking of which, did you know that corn ethanol has hoovered up almost 2/3 rds of all the federal gov’t support for what it classifies as “renewable” to the detriment of wind, solar and geothermal?

    http://www.ewg.org/reports/Ethanols-Federal-Subsidy-Grab-Leaves-Little-For-SolarWind-And-Geothermal-Energy%20

    Thanks for the spirited conversation. Take it easy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=719641173 Anonymous

    While environmental purists like you criticize corn ethanol, Brazil fuels its economic miracle with sugar ethanol and America continues its 42-year decline from the moment we started importing foreign oil from countries that don’t like us. And corn ethanol is but a pathway to second generation biofuels like algae that have the real chance to replace petroleum as our main liquid fuel source.

    And what are your solutions? None. Just bitching about an imperfect industry but one that is 1 million times better than our destructive addiction to dirty oil.

    You are unwittingly playing right into the hands of Big Oil. They love you. And the natural gas industry loves you as they poison our waterways with the fracking method. And the coal industry loves you too.

    Have you even seen “Freedom”? I suggest you see the film before you judge it. Ethanol and biofuels are one of the answers (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc…) if we are ever going to be really serious about ending our addiction to imported oil. Take the leap with us!

    Read more about the “Freedom” D.C. premiere on my blog. Link: http://www.greencenterblog.com/2011/10/freedom-from-oil-by-embracing-ethanol.html

  • http://www.ewg.org/agmag Don Carr

    Josh — You’ve said a lot of wrong things here, but let me address the purist charge first. Yes, I, and EWG are environmental purists when it comes to corn ethanol because its horrible for the environment. Ag pollution, in part spurred by ethanol mandates and subsidies, are choking Minnesota waterways, the Mississippi River Basin, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay and untold other waters. The rush to plant more corn is decimating wildlife habitat (and the attendant recreation dollars for struggling rural economies) Government and NGO studies confirm this.

    You’re suggesting that this is OK, that the folks that have to deal with polluted water are a necessary hit to a future without oil. I could buy that argument, except that most informed observers – including our own National Academy of Sciences and the NCGA believe that advanced biofuels like algae are no where near viability. Corn ethanol sold as a bridge is now the destination, and you’re one of their prime defenders. Further, our current ethanol use barley makes a dent in our foreign oil consumption (recall that we get oil from Mexico and Canada too) despite 40% of the corn crop going to ethanol. Not the best trade off for communities enduring water pollution.

    It’s also helpful to do some research before taking shots at people. You say:

    “And the natural gas industry loves you as they poison our waterways with the fracking method.”

    Um. No they don’t.

    http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/08/eid-statement-on-latest-joint-effort-by-nytenvironmental-working-group-aimed-at-attacking-natural-gas/

    I watched Freedom three times to write that review. As an observer of the corn ethanol lobby it was easy to smell the con early on.

    You talk about answers to solving our dangerous addiction to oil through many means — did you know that the corn ethanol industry has hoovered up most of the federal support for what the gov’t classifies as “renewable” to THE DETRIMENT of wind, solar and geothermal?

    http://www.ewg.org/reports/Ethanols-Federal-Subsidy-Grab-Leaves-Little-For-SolarWind-And-Geothermal-Energy%20

    Best

    Don

  • http://www.facebook.com/brandon.ranauro Brandon Ranauro

    Great article! Corn I have learned already is one of the worst polluters. On top of that most corn in the united states is genetically engineered. Thanks EWG for letting people know about the truth when it comes to this green washing.

  • http://www.ewg.org/agmag Don Carr

    I will be out of the office until 11-28. If you need immediate assistance from EWG public affairs please contact Sara Sciammacco ssciammacco@ewg.org/202-939-9122 or Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org/202-939-9140