Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Ethanol

The more I read about the conventional wisdom of the 2008 election, and particularly some comments made about the Democratic side of the race, the more uneasy I get. Conventional wisdom badly missed when it came to Iraq and I think they're badly missing when it comes to our nation's needs in 2008 and the dynamics in play. For one thing, events are moving quickly on a wide range of issues—that's a consequence of six years of neglect and six years of major blunders on the part of President Bush and Republicans in Congress. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are smart people and not for a moment would I want to underestimate either one, but I believe they're going to have to work carefully to sidestep some of the same old tired thinking of the conventional media.

Here's an article by Shailagh Murray of The Washington Post:

The attack ads practically write themselves: Hillary Clinton voted against ethanol! Barack Obama wants to increase taxes!

Such are the perils of running for president as a senator. The two front-runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination are newcomers to the chamber. But in the two years that Clinton and Obama have overlapped, they have taken opposite sides at least 40 times. That's a lot of material to mine, and even misrepresent.

(snip)

In corn-growing Iowa, the first stop in the presidential nominating process, Clinton will have to explain the ethanol vote she cast on June 15, 2005. The senator recently softened her stance, but she is on record opposing a large federal boost for the grain-based fuel.

And Obama voted to increase taxes when he opposed a package of business breaks that included the extension of middle-class provisions. Clinton voted for the tax bill -- before she voted against it, as did Obama, in the legislation's final form.

(snip)

Over the past year, Clinton has warmed to ethanol. Buffalo has decided to build a big ethanol plant, making the issue a home-state concern. In May, Clinton said current ethanol production is "a long way from helping us deal with our gas problems" and added: "We need to be moving on a much faster track."

Obama voted for the ethanol mandate. "As a senator from a corn-growing state, Obama will have no problem on the ethanol issue and can tout his credentials on this score with a clear conscience," said Peverill Squire, who teaches politics at the University of Iowa.

First of all, the politics of ethanol is evolving very fast as we gain a better understanding of its potential role in the future of America's energy. Murray should be careful to learn what the ethanol issue is all about instead of merely understanding the politics involved. For one thing, ethanol is currently heavily dependent on fossil fuels for its production. Second, ethanol production isn't very efficient; areas like Iowa and some surrounding states may be able to gain enough net energy from production to justify turning to ethanol but it's still a very poor yield of energy. It's been pointed out that the efficiency of plants isn't all that great when it comes to converting energy from the sun for storage; in fact, in terms of energy return, most farmers might be better off planting windmills and solar panels because the energy return would be much greater.

There is a role for ethanol but not on the scale some of its promoters suggest, at least not at this time. There is a small role for ethanol to play at the national level but it has more to do with minimizing pollution in urban areas. There is a local role for ethanol in several states and if cars can use both gas and ethanol of different mixtures—as they do in Brazil—then ethanol can be part of a mixed economy that gets its energy from various sources, depending on what's best for any region in our country. There may come a time when ethanol may become more efficient to use, depending on how well various research efforts go, but it would be dangerous to put all our eggs in the ethanol basket, particularly given how a poor a substitute it is at the moment for our energy problems.

In fact, it would be far smarter, and sooner than later depending on how the politics work out, to start taxing fossil fuels at the pump. Higher fossil fuel prices will stimulate conservation and they will stimulate a broad range of possible alternatives, particularly if money is put into alternative energy research, ethanol included. If ethanol is meant to be used, it needs to demonstrate that it can truly be an alternative energy. One more thing should be added: ethanol doesn't do much for global warming if we're just burning fossil fuels to make ethanol and then burning ethanol to power our cars.

Politics is a tricky thing and pandering to any number of interests is sometimes unavoidable but I will be skeptical of any politician who pushes ethanol too hard and I will be skeptical of any reporter who criticizes a candidate for not pandering to the voters.