The U.S. Farm Industry wants protection from outside competition. That’s what it means for Obama to subsidize the corn industry. That’s why they tax Brazilian farmer .54 cents a gallon for superior, sugar-based ethanol.

This puts developing world farmers off their lands, out of their livelihoods. For every ton of U.S. corn we subsidize, we push 2 Mexicans off his farm. That’s a reality. Obama helps the rich corporate farms at the expense of the developing countries. Maybe you don’t care about that, but I do.

Oxfam.org

Maketradefair.org

To those who wish to attack me for “slandering” Obama or ethanol, I think you should consider several things. While cellulosic ethanol does show promise, do you see it as a final solution or as another transistion stage? How many transistion stages do we need to go through? How much industry and infrastructure will be built around these transistions, and how many decades will they last? Most of all, consider the comparative advantage of spending billions on ethanol and building that industry compared to spending that same money on research for battery electric vehicles.

Electric vehicles are not only more efficient than internal combustion engines, but wall sockets are in every home and are easy to add to parking spots on the street and in lots. While it’s true that the grid would have to be beefed up for widespread use, the grid in many parts of the use is already buckling under increased demand, and much of the EV use would come during off peak. Compare this to the prospect of continued production of ethanol and maintenance of things like gas stations, which there are many of.

I don’t hate ethanol, but, like hydrogen, I think that the money being invested in it is inappropriate considering the other, better solutions currently on the table. Therefore, I think it’s good to understand not Obama’s position, but possibly why he takes this position. As wel come into the general election and both candidates float closers towards the middle, we should look beyond positions and towards motivations. There are plenty of people would pick a candidate and then believe anything he or she says as some sort of divine proclamation, without thinking more closely. I’m not trying to advocate positions, but examination of the issues.

Thank you all for the comments.

1. Jumping to complain about people’s affiliations (with lobbyists, oil companies, etc, while pertinent to review, clouds the issues. It doesn’t disprove any claims; it merely calls the motivation for the claims to question. If you want to argue against them, try attacking the evidence, not the person signing the paycheck. Besides, who signs the paychecks of environmental lobbyists? Do you want to discredit them too?

2. While global warming is happening, and human released CO2 is part of the increase in global CO2 levels, having read many scientific papers on the topic, and having analyzed the data myself, I am an independent skeptic as to whether (a) CO2 causes global warming, and (b) humans are the cause of increased CO2. Historical records indicate that when temperature goes up, CO2 goes up a short while later. I don’t have evidence to claim this isn’t happening, but the cause/effect relationship is difficult to distinguish based on the existing evidence – skeptics should not be dismissed. Policy decisions to eliminate our biggest industrial byproduct should be based on firm evidence, more firm than is currently published. If you understand how scientific modeling works, you’ll understand the challenges when working with a system as large as global climate – there’s little basis for testing the model, since it’s a whole planet and over such a long period of time.

3. It is indisputable that our dependence on foreign oil is expensive for consumers, affects the quality of life in oil-rich countries, and has helped inspire substantial numbers of military conflicts (the first gulf war being a direct example – that’s why Iraq invaded Kuwait). This is an unambiguous motivation to try to find alternatives, and it happens to be inline with the anti-CO2-emission agenda. Therefore, the environmental debate is trumped by a clear point that agrees with anti-CO2-emission.

4. Nobody is saying that ethanol will only come from corn. That’s the current main technology. The current technology lacks efficiency, but it is constantly improving. Beyond that, look for switchgrass based ethanol and many other fuels that come more from biomass in the near future. There will be hurdles, but imagine the ability to eliminate debates about oil-based foreign policy, polluting oil wells, and excessive CO2 emission. Could be great!

The Brazilians are in fact already using 40% of their fuel based on ethanol. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil ) And while I cannot get back to the exact source, they simply want to help us develop ethanol production so that a market for ethanol is created. They really don’t care about giving us their fuel anymore.

\r\nAs far as policy is concerned, Obamas support for ethanol is based primarily on for…

Aren’t you concerned that diverting corn harvests away from food production will drive up the cost of the most basic food stuffs.

Your primary thesis is intriguing none the less. His relationship with ADM and former Sen. Daschle from South Dakota bear some scrutiny.

Brian