Anti-ethanol lobby groups issued a letter to Congressional leaders March 1 urging them to allow ethanol subsidies to expire as scheduled at the end of the year and to discourage future federal support of biofuel infrastructure expansion. “At a time of spiraling deficits, we do not believe Congress should continue subsidizing gasoline refiners for something that they are already required to do by the renewable fuel standard,” the group stated in the letter. “We urge you to let VEETC expire and resist calls for spending on infrastructure for conventional biofuels.”

Signers of the letter said the diverse group of participants is proof that the opposition to ethanol is growing. Ninety groups signed the letter, including well-known ethanol opponents such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the American Meat Institute and the Sierra Club. However, the group also includes numerous groups that don’t have an obvious interest in ethanol policy, such as Catholic women’s group Leadership Conference of Women Religious, African human rights group Africa Action, and The SafeLawns Foundation, a group focused on changing lawn care culture in the U.S. and Canada.

Paul Tukey, founder and spokesman for The SafeLawns Foundation, said his group became involved in the anti-ethanol coalition because he believes corn ethanol is not economically feasible and negatively impacts the environment. Tukey’s view on ethanol was influenced by a conversation with Cornell University entomology professor David Pimentel and a report authored by Pimentel which concluded that corn ethanol is not economically feasible without federal subsidies, he said. “He’s done the math and doesn’t think ethanol from corn is an economically good idea anyway,” Tukey said. “Him being a scientist, he tells us that it doesn’t make economic sense unless you’re subsidizing it.”

Tukey was unable to immediately provide a copy of the report he referenced, however Pimentel co-authored a study in 2005 that analyzed the energy input-yield ratios of producing corn ethanol and determined the process was not sustainable and has been an outspoken opponent of corn ethanol for years.

Tukey said he strongly opposes corn ethanol and feels he has conducted enough research to have a valid opinion on the topic. He doesn’t feel nearly as passionate about eliminating petroleum subsidies, however. “The federal government subsidizing the oil industry in any way doesn’t seem like a really good idea to me, but that’s nothing more than an opinion,” he said. “The real reason we signed on to this [anti-ethanol subsidy letter] is because of the study we read. As far as general subsidies, it’s not something we would speak out with any expertise on and therefore, we’d probably keep our mouths shut.”

Growth Energy reacted immediately to the coalition’s letter to leaders of Congress. “It is efforts like these that perpetuate our addition to foreign oil,” the group stated. “If American consumers had a choice, most would choose the fuel that creates U.S. jobs, reduces harmful emissions and strengthens our national security.”  Growth Energy’s own proposed ethanol policy reform suggests redirecting tax credits toward infrastructure build-out, but states that a one-year extension of the ethanol tax incentive is necessary in order to provide assistance to the industry until the infrastructure is in place.