This sums it up:

Corn and Ethanol

Phin here... I know many of you are concerned about the use of corn ethanol (E85) and we hear you loud and clear. We share your concerns. That is why we want to stress that our campaign goals are to increase auto fuel efficiency to stop global warming and reduce dependence on oil.

At what point do people like this finally get that responding to the climate crisis means bringing an END to auto dominance entirely?  Not tweaking it -- but figuring out how to make it possible for people to live the good life without owning a car at all.

We sit around here making lists of "breakthroughs needed" and talking about "bridge technologies" and policies to promote innovation, all the while ignoring that we have all the technology necessary to dial back our consumption and the damage we're doing--we just lack the imagination and the determination, and we settle for being herded from opinion to opinion by celebrity sock puppets like the Phin & Co.

The 5% Project

We know that ethanol produced from corn is only one near-term solution to our dependence on oil.

A solution implies that applying it solves the problem. The USA is still as dependent on petroleum oil as before the ethanol boom.

Other low carbon fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, electricity (with the development of plug-in hybrid vehicles) and hydrogen, will play a larger role in our path to long-term energy independence.

Other low-carbon fuels?? Substituting corn-based ethanol for gasoline saves only 18% GHG emissions on a life-cycle basis. If the ethanol has been processed with coal, then the gains are close to nil, at best.

Therefore, the Center for American Progress Action Fund believes that E-85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) ought to be available so that drivers can use this cleaner fuel in their flex fuel car, and achieve reductions in oil use and global warming pollution.

Cleaner fuel? Haven't these guys seen the recent study (PDF alert) by Stanford University's Mark Z. Jacobson? Here's a quote:

Under the base-case emission scenario derived, which accounted for projected improvements in gasoline and E85 vehicle emission controls, it was found that E85 (85% ethanol fuel, 15% gasoline) may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9% in Los Angeles and 4% in the U.S. as a whole relative to 100% gasoline.

But, all that is irrelevant, I suppose, if you are Phin:

So why, you ask, do we have so much corn imagery and references in our videos? We were looking for a message that would get all of you to take notice of the urgency of these issues and make your voices heard, loud and clear. I think we have done that.

By that logic, one could justify promoting the flex-fuel Hummer as an icon for environmental stewardship.

These are only my personal opinions.

Intimately linked politically and economically are the flex fuel vehicles.  Part and parcel of the corn to ethanol campaign by creating more demand for corn.  

Does Phin advocate removing the auto industry mileage standard loop hole for placing more flex fuel vehicles in their fleets?  

CAP surely diluted its message about mileage standards by getting mixed up with corn ethanol.  They would have been far more effective with much greener consequence to have just pushed the higher mileage standards.