For an enviro-type, it’s difficult if not impossible to support Barack Obama when he claims we should be giving ample taxpayer support to growing corn for ethanol, but should not allow Brazil to sell its sugar cane ethanol in this country free of tariff….even though sugar cane ethanol is a far more efficient fuel.
That’s according to The New York Times (here):
Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of
energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is
more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices
in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more
I hate to have to agree with the National Review on anything, but they rightly criticize Obama for backing subsidies to grow corn for ethanol in the Midwest. All the while Obama enthusiastically supports taxing the importation of ethanol from Brazil, which requires no subsidy, is a better fuel, environmentally speaking, and doesn’t crowd out land better used for food crops. Stuttaford writes:
goes on to report that Obama "talk[s] regularly about developing
switchgrass, which flourishes in the Midwest and Great Plains, as a
source for ethanol." So he should. It’s promising, but not for years,
much like the drilling for oil off the U.S. coast that Obama opposes
partly because it will, uh, take too long. Odd, that.
Argggg. My political innocence is getting pounded. Here’s Obama speaking at the Corn Palace in South Dakota, thanks to John Haroldson.