GM Promotes Flexfuel When You Can't Find Ethanol
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 09. 5.06
Life is full of coincidences. On the same day we see a two page spread in Wired promoting GM's initiatives in flex-fuel cars, we read in the New York Times that even in corn country in the Midwest, supplies are difficult to find and it is almost impossible to drive from Chicago to Kansas on E85 fuel. So why is GM promoting Flexfuel? It turns out that the Government gives GM a bonus in the average fuel economy standards, whether or not the pickup truck or SUV ever sees a drop of the stuff. Some purchasers don't even know they are driving flex-fuel vehicles. “Ethanol should be saving us twice as much oil as it is today because we are letting really big, inefficient flex-fuel vehicles on the road,” said Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. So GM can keep selling big pickups with lousy mileage by making them flex-fuel. That makes sense. ::New York Times
Though GM may be taking advantage of the law it will still have the effect of encouraging fuel station owners to put in E-85 pumps.
I live in the Chicago area I know of several stations with E-85 (mostly used by government vehicles). I will be trading in my regularly fueled Dodge Dakota for a Flex Fueled Dakota. I have been planning this for about two years. I use my light truck for hauling and delivering labels and other shipping consumables. I have always wanted to minimize the amount of foreign oil that I consume. Therefore, I was ecstatic to find that my favorite truck was available in Flex Fuel. I am of the opinion that this only occurred due to GMs advertising of their Flex Fuel vehicles (competition is a great thing). Now all I need is three or four more strategically placed E85 pumps and I will be able to always refuel with E85.
I don't care what it took to get there I am just happy that we are there.
The flex-fuel escape clause from mileage standards is a double whammy, because corn ethanol is not actually a green fuel. The process, which starts with industrial corn farming, consumes almost as much energy as the ethanol delivers, and releases more greenhouse gas than an equivalent amount of gasoline use.
If you have seen "Who Killed the Electric Car," this will seem very, very familiar.
Oh, woe is me. Woe and longing I have for the days gone by, where progressive types weren't de facto anti-corporate conspiracy theorists.
1) Would you prefer they not even sell the option?
2) Did you make this an issue in your local election?
3) Do you spend your consumer dollars in a manner which discourages CAFE credits?
Well, GM addressed all of those things, and they got what they wanted. This is democracy; this is how it works. Cry me a river.
But please, get off the "evil corporation conspiracy" bandwagon. It's so rediculous that normal, moderate people treat "progressives" with disdain.
GM isn't an evil wizard behind a curtain. It's American men and women working together under the banner of a legal fiction. There is no conspiracy. There's just people trying to turn a dollar the best way they know how.
The reason I'm angry is because all of this flex-fuel bashing is going to tick off GM, and things are going to be worse than they were before.
Instead of going negative, why not go positive? Why don't you work to pass a tax incentive (or divert the tax breaks on fossil gas) to ethanol? Then the flexies will burn corn.
Simple economics. See? No conpsiracy. Just democracy.
Ethanol is beginning to be another big corporate victory. With big automakers pushing ethanol and having enough leverage to get legislation and tax incentives passed for it, ethanol is bound to be the next "green bust". Sooner or later the general public and the government will figure out what a poor option ethanol is - difficult to transport (it takes on H2O), unable to use existing pipeline infrastructure, inefficient to produce with only a minimal amount of positive energy produced and thousands of acres of farmland consumed, requires modification to cars, etc. Biodiesel and butanol are where it's at as far as an interim combustible energy source but we're not done there.
Why can't our goverment actually get organized and create an expert panel/task force to research these biofuels and develop the most efficient ones?
Flex-Fuel, Scmflex-Fuel. 30/35! Who cares what fuel is used. If a car or truck doesn't do 30 mpg city / 35 mpg highway or over then it doesn't matter.
WHY OH WHY Can't our gov't do anything for US..?Because, like matt said about the corporations, the government is us. American men and women, who have jobs and other problems. Not everyone is so well informed as the treehugger reader. You want the government to fix stuff? You want corporations to fix stuff? Quit crying to other groups of treehuggers and get the attention of the rest of the country. Find a way that appeals to them instead of the typical whining environmentalism that is rampant among eco-geeks. Maybe try selling flex fuel SUVs as a start, or really cool electric cars, then work it to the real people. GM, Tesla, others like you, keep up the good work, move forward smartly.
I don't like the idea of Ethanol. I agree with Japan, these alternative fuels are a trend and going backwards. We've already moved beyond this in technology.