Dead Zones In The Gulf Of Mexico

The Corn Con

T

he ethanol scam is making America insane. That’s the only obvious conclusion after the Environmental Protection Agency denied a request from Texas governor Rick Perry in August to allow the Lone Star State to opt out of federal ethanol mandates for automobiles. The Bush Administration apparently believes that the dangers of foreign oil are so great that nothing should derail the ethanol scam. Higher food prices? Worsening air quality? A massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico? None of those crises appear to concern the E.P.A., the agency that in theory is charged with protecting the country’s environmental resources. In his statement of August 7 denying the Texas request, E.P.A. administrator Stephen L. Johnson said that the ethanol requirements are “strengthening our nation’s energy security and supporting American farming communities.” And that they are not causing “severe harm to the economy or the environment.” Not causing “severe harm”? Huh? So moderate harm is OK? Indeed, in its own public statements the agency has already admitted that ethanol is worse for air quality than conventional gasoline. Readers should recall that America’s ethanol insanity is the result of bipartisan corruption. While Republicans in the Bush Administration are enforcing the mandates laid out by Congress, Democrats on Capitol Hill, particularly those from farm states like Iowa and Illinois, are working hard to avoid any discussion of the ethanol scam before the November elections. And this bipartisan insanity continues, even though it is apparent that ethanol is a multi-faceted disaster. In the words of Frank O’Donnell, president of Washingtonbased Clean Air Watch, “Corn-based ethanol isn’t just raising food prices. It is causing more smog, adding to global warming, and causing more water pollution.” Clean Air Watch is one of several environmental groups now opposing the ethanol mandates. Friends of the Earth, the Environmental Working Group, and the Clean Air Task Force have all joined the opposition. All of this matters, because energy is emerging as a key theme of the 2008 elections. Their positions on ethanol are a major difference between John McCain and Barack Obama.

As is his wont, McCain has staked positions on both sides of the ethanol fence. For years he was an ardent ethanol opponent. In 2003 McCain said, “Plain and simple, the ethanol program is highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress.” (McCain’s attacks on ethanol are still easily accessed via his Senate Web site.) Then in 2006 he switched sides, declaring that ethanol should be part of our energy mix. This year, McCain switched back to his original anti-ethanol position. In May, he and 11 other Senate Republicans co-sponsored a bill authored by Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to freeze the ethanol mandates. On his Web site, McCain points to the recent increases in food prices, saying they are “directly related to transportation cost increases and the ethanol mandate.” In contrast, Obama has consistently been a corn ethanol booster. And that support continues even as the news on ethanol gallops from bad to worse. While the ethanol issue will not loom as large as the war and the economy in the November election, it remains one of the most divisive – and costly – agricultural programs in modern American history.

The E.P.A. has already admitted that ethanol is worse for air quality than conventional gasoline.

Ethanol Insanity - October 2008 25