# 31 in the misc-blog series
Ten tips for covering biofuels
From a presentation March 14, 2007, at the University of Missouri School of Journalism
1. Professional networks are treasures.Specialized associations like the Society of Environmental Journalists and the National Association of Science Writers can be an enormous help. Experienced reporters are happy to share their insights. Both SEJ and NASW have contests for great writing and annual conferences where issues are discussed. SEJ has tip sheets on several ethanol controversies. Check http://www.sej.org Also see http://www.sej.org/pub/index1.htm and search for ethanol. (Also don’t neglect general associations, especially the Society of Professional Journalists).
2. Seek the truth. In biofuels as in many other scientific controversies, charges and countercharges are sometimes made by partisans just to sow doubt. As a journalist, your job is to get beyond simple doubts and to define and analyze the issues. Avoid “false balance” and “he said – she said” reporting by taking the time to understand the issue. In the words of Atlanta editor Ralph McGill, don’t let rigid objectivity get in the way of the truth. Sometimes one side has a lot less credibility than another. That becomes obvious when you spend the time learning the beat.
3. Consider the public interest. During the Civil Rights movement, many people in the media realized that there was a public interest in a vision of a South that was “too busy to hate.” The public interest was the median for coverage and the bottom line of excellence. Similarly, there is a public interest in a vision of long-term environmental stability, and there are similar challenges. Hate speech has become normal in the environmental debate, just as it was during the civil rights movement, and similar issues of credibility and taste are in play.
4. Consider the source. While industry trade groups have glowing things to say about ethanol and biodiesel, its important not to take them at face value. Check with credible authorities, especially scientists and non-partisan researchers. But avoid vitriolic comments. Remember, we are “watchdogs,” not attack dogs and not lap dogs.
5. Set a full public interest agenda. If you find yourself sniping from the sidelines or reporting on staged events, back up and evaluate the whole field. Who are the main actors? What are their goals and obstacles? How do they support (or fail to support) the public interest? Use your own initiative to explore the whole field. Find local scientists and engineers whose voices have not yet been heard, for example, through the Web of Science or the Science Citation Index.
6. Learn the technology and history of your subject. For instance:
- Ethanol has 2/3 the btus of gasoline, but that doesn’t mean the fuel tank has to be bigger. Ethanol has a higher octane number and therefore can run in more efficient higher compression engines. All things being equal, an ethanol engine runs more efficiently on a higher octane, lower btu fuel and the mileage is more or less equal. The problem comes with flex fueled cars, which have to have lower compression ratios to accomdoate gasoline. There are variable compression technologies that could solve the efficiency issue with flex vehicles.
- Ethanol vapor pressure is higher than some winter gasolines, but that doesn’t mean that ethanol pollutes more than gasoline. There have been numerous studies taking this issue out of the context of reformulated fuels and the variety of octane boosters. This is an area for caution. Generally, ethanol is a lot cleaner than most hydrocarbons.
- Ethanol is driving up the price of food. Yes, but there are disputes concerning how much this is and why this is.
- For more on the history of ethanol, see Bill Kovarik's ethanol history papers.
7. Understand the whole context of the issue. Understand that there are critics who insist on considering issues by the slice rather than in their whole context. Reporters should understand that “the perfect” is not the enemy of “the good.” • Alcohols are anti-knock additives that replace benzene and lead. Even if evaporative emissions are higher, or NOx tends to be slightly higher, biofuels in context are far less polluting in terms of CO, HC, air toxics and other emissions. • Another context issue for biofuels is the idea that ethanol demand will use up all cropland. Ethanol use from corn only involves the starch and leaves protein in the form of distillers grains. • Also, anti-knock additives represent only a percentage of the overall fuel supply and don’t necessarily represent a threat to all crops. It is the second generation of biofuels from cellulosic biomass that is considered to be the technology that can replace petroleum. • Even so, the “food or fuel” problem is a serious one because energy is now competing for food land and resources on a broad international scale.
8. Help your editors find enthusiasm for telling “the story of the century.” Environmental and energy technologies are the most important stories of our lifetimes, and we have to tell the story with accuracy, insight and power. You need your editor’s support to be able to do that.
9. Never lack sympathy with the poor. This is one of Joseph Pulitzer’s most important aphorisms that doesn’t get repeated enough. A biofuels industry could create jobs for millions in developing nations where solar energy is abundant. It could protect rather than destroy biodiversity. It could slow climate change. But all of those hopes rest on a very difficult international standards system and tax incentives regarding carbon footprints, biodiversity and labor. Keep in mind that we have the opportunity in our time to create a positive vision of a sustainable world. Failure is not an option.
10. Don’t be afraid to be humble. We in the news media have so much to be humble about. Go ahead, ask the dumb question. Don’t worry about calling back for clarification.
Final note: British poet Rudyard Kipling may have said that “a good reporter is a work of God” -- but notice that he left the flip side of that statement open.