As impressed as I have been with the Obama campaign, one of the lingering issues I have had is popping it's head up in today's NYT. At issue is Mr. Obama's support of ethanol as a viable renewable energy source.
Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers. Those complaints have intensified recently as corn prices have risen sharply in tandem with oil prices and corn normally used for food stock has been diverted to ethanol production.It seems to me that Obama is about as far from right on this issue as one can be without trying. His continued support of farm subsidies that primarily benefit the big corporate farm interests is a problem. These subsidies also create an inherent policy preference towards corn and soybeans, which we don't really need to produce at the level we do. (Maybe he should call Wisconsinite Ron Kind). He also continues to support the tariffs on Brazillian ethanol, which offers significant protection to these same corporate farm interests. Lest we mention, that the Brazillian ethanol is at least three times as efficient in rating energy output vs. input ratios. So, the Obama support of ethanol seems to me to be less about ethanol and energy independence than it is about keeping Archer Daniels Midland happy. This is a real issue, and I can only hope that the campaign wises up a bit.
No comments:
Post a Comment