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: Read The Full Story…