Can alternative energy save lives? Stanford University prof Mark Jacobson says yes — except in one case: ethanol. His research, recently presented at the University of Minnesota, suggests that electric and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles powered by wind energy will eliminate 10,000 to 20,000 air pollution deaths in the U.S. every year and that “ethanol vehicles will increase or cause no change in the deaths.” Jacobson, a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, advocates for a combination of wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal power combined with electric vehicles to combat global warming.

But Bob Moffitt disagrees — vehemently. On March 31, the media relations director for the American Lung Association of Minnesota (ALAMN) penned an opinion piece for the Minnesota Daily characterizing Jacobson’s research as “more fiction than science” and questioning Jacobson’s methodology:

Jacobson repeated some outlandish claims he published last year, that air pollution from E85 would kill people – in the Los Angeles of the future. Sound like science fiction? To me, it sounds like more fiction than science, and I was astounded that a visiting professor with such impressive-sounding credentials would offer cherry-picked, tortured data to support his study on E85 and mortality rates.

In his studies, which are entirely based on computer modeling using data he selected – no actual vehicle emissions were measured or tested – Jacobson “writes the rules” even as he plays the game. He first selected the emissions studies that best fit his hypothesis, then told the computer to convert every gasoline vehicle in Los Angeles to cars using only E85 fuel, plugged in predicted weather/climate patterns 14 years in the future (14 years? – predicting tomorrow’s weather is tough enough) and predicted how many people will die or become ill in 2020, based on direct causation ties to ground-level pollution based on today’s emergency room visits/mortality rates.

Moffitt also sought to connect Jacobson’s anti-ethanol message into greater University-wide effort to discredit corn-based ethanol and other biofuels and pushes a line that University president Robert Bruininks has responded to before.

No doubt some people will view Jacobson’s guest lecture as part of an intentional effort by the University to discredit alternative fuels made from crops like corn and soybeans. I hope this is not true, but there is no debate that a number of controversial studies criticizing biofuels have been coming out of the University of lately – a trend that is raising eyebrows and ire across the state and nation. At least one major farm group has already threatened to withhold more than $1 million dollars in research funding because they feel that these data and research are not being presented fairly.

Some may wonder why the communications director of ALAMN is taking such a strong position against an academic researcher combating air pollution. The American Lung Association of Minnestoa has a public/private partnership called Clean Air Choice Team, which has been a leading advocate of ethanol and other biofuels in Minnesota and throughout the nation. Moffitt says the team currently consists of the U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities, Minnesota Department of Commerce Energy Division, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, General Motors Corporation and the American Lung Association of Minnesota with assistance over the years by Flint Hills Resources, Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company, the AgStar Foundation, Ford Motor Company and the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (now part of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency).

Prof. Jacobson responded to Moffitt with his own opinion piece in Monday’s Daily and obviously understands the connection. Jacobson accused Moffitt of making inaccurate statements about his published research and subsequently takes ALAMN’s Clean Air Choice program to task:

Continued: Click “Read more”

Although it has been about a year since the paper was published, no peer-reviewed paper has challenged the results. The only challenges have come from advocates, such as Moffitt, and those with a financial interest in ethanol, such as the Renewable Fuels Association and venture capitalists, but not scientists. It should also be noted that the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest, who Moffitt represents, does not represent other American Lung Association branches, who have not acted as advocates of E85 to nearly the same extent. The ALAUM Web site in fact misinforms the public about E85. It states, for example, that “E85 can reduce tailpipe emissions such as ozone-forming pollutants by about 20 percent.” This is incorrect, as E85 increases organic gas emissions in nearly all known studies to date and the nitrogen oxide reductions due to E85 increase ozone in most polluted cities of the United States.

Further, the study I did is still the only published study worldwide to date to examine the effects of E85 on outdoor ozone in the United States, and the results of my study do not draw this conclusion. As such, ALAUM is making estimates it has no ability to make. Finally, it states that “a typical FFV driver can prevent 4 tons of lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions … with E85 …” All of the latest scientific studies on the lifecycle of E85 versus gasoline show that there is no carbon benefit of most forms of ethanol. A detailed explanation of the recent research is summarized for the general audience in a cover story in Time Magazine. It is time Moffitt and other advocates provide the public with accurate information about the air they should be protecting.

In an interview with the Minnesota Monitor, Moffitt stated that ALAMN “has never suggested that these fuels were perfect, or that E85 or biodiesel were the sole solution to air pollution, or a ‘magic bullet’ that might make Minnesota independent of imported petroleum overnight. We do say that these fuels are cleaner-burning and less polluting than traditional petroleum fuels, and we strongly recommend that Minnesotans who drive one of the estimated 175,000 flex-fuel vehicles already on the state roads use E85 instead of gasoline.”

When asked why individuals should believe ALAMN and its business alliance over the University of Minnesota or a Stanford professor, Moffitt noted that ALAMN is not alone in questioning recently publicized studies and reports critical of biofuels, including some published by the University of Minnesota. “Others include the U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Lab, National Renewable Energy Lab, Oak Ridge National Lab, Pacific National Lab and the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” according to Moffit.

A video of Jacobson’s presentation and a copy of his handouts are available online.

The Back Pages is a weekly roundup of editorial opinions on issues that face Minnesota.