Robert Moffitt: Minnesota needs the option of ethanol

The Oct. 4 editorial "Time to take stock of ethanol subsidies" began as a legitimate discussion of the tax credits and federal and state subsidies for Minnesota's growing ethanol industry, but unfortunately it soon veered into some unsubstantiated claims and urban myths about ethanol.

First, it is disturbing the Star Tribune's editorial page has to parrot the New York Times' take on a story that is happening right here in Minnesota. The editorial notes, "When ethanol was an infant, there were good arguments for public support," then goes on to note that as an additive, it could make gasoline burn cleaner, help wean us from imported oil, and provide a market for Midwestern farmers. In fact, ethanol has done all of that, and more.

October 2007 marks the 10th anniversary of Minnesota's first-in-the-nation mandate that required virtually all gasoline sold in the state be E10, containing a 10 percent blend of ethanol. Minnesota, a state with no fossil fuel reserves of its own, has displaced upwards of 2.5 billion gallons of gasoline during that past 10 years, enough to replace the entire state fuel supply for one year. Today, Minnesota is a fuel exporter. Ethanol made that possible.

Ethanol also helped to keep our air cleaner. In the 1990s, the Twin Cities was designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being in non-attainment for carbon monoxide pollution. While not a "silver bullet" solution to air pollution woes, ethanol-blended gasoline was one important tool Minnesotans successfully used to eventually come back into attainment with federal standards. Even though there are many more people driving more miles on Minnesota highways than a decade ago, we have remained within the EPA air-quality standards.

As for the economic benefits ethanol has brought to Midwest farms, the Oct. 1 Minnesota Public Radio news headline says it all: "Prosperity sprouts in Minnesota farm fields."

The Oct. 4 editorial's worst offenses came in a single, breathless paragraph that ended with a fanciful quote from University of Minnesota economist C. Ford Runge. In the 1990s, Runge loudly predicted "economic disaster" if Minnesota moved forward with its plan to require ethanol-blended gasoline. He was wrong about ethanol then; is it possible he is wrong now about his dire prediction that increased use of biofuels will starve the world's poor?

The editorial also suggests -- without proof -- that ethanol has increased food prices, even suggesting it has triggered "tortilla riots in Mexico." That myth has been long discredited and denied by experts on both sides of the border.

The American Lung Association of Minnesota is a strong supporter of cleaner-burning biofuels such as E85 and biodiesel. While we have no position on subsidies, we feel it is important to set the record straight. We understand ethanol, like all vehicle fuels, has its drawbacks and detractors. However, we also understand Minnesotans need and deserve a clean-air choice at the pump. Biofuels may not be the solution to all of our energy and environmental challenges, but they are certainly a solution that has worked well here. It would be a shame to go back to the oil barrel now, when we have finally taken a few small steps toward cleaner air and energy independence.

Robert Moffitt is the communications director for the American Lung Association of Minnesota.