Chicago Tribune

It is now beyond dispute that congressional mandates on ethanol use are having a number of deleterious effects, soaring food prices chief among them. So given that, plus recent findings that greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol and biofuels may actually be greater than those created by conventional gasoline, a natural question arises: Which presidential candidate will first call for a change in U.S. ethanol policy?

Sens. John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all have come out in favor of ethanol and biofuels. But the candidate who renounces the corn ethanol business would gain traction among U.S. voters and foreign leaders for doing the right thing on food and greenhouse gases.

McCain and Clinton would have an easier time switching sides. Doing so would merely require them to re-reverse themselves. Before they set their eyes on the White House, the two politicos were among the Senate’s most ardent ethanol critics.

In 2002, Clinton told colleagues that it was “impossible to understand why any pro-consumer, pro-health, pro-environment, anti-government mandate” member of the Senate would vote for the then-pending bill that was going to boost ethanol mandates from 1.7 billion gallons to 5 billion gallons.

In 2003, McCain said, “Plain and simple, the ethanol program is highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress.”But since declaring for the White House, both McCain and Clinton have become ethanol boosters. (McCain now says he no longer opposes ethanol, he only opposes the subsidies.)

The issue is trickier for Obama. Coming from Illinois, which trails only Iowa and Nebraska in ethanol production capacity, Obama has gone out of his way to promote corn ethanol and slam hydrocarbons. On several occasions he has said the U.S. must free itself from the “tyranny of oil.”

Yet hard facts show that ethanol mandates will do little to stem our oil import needs. Even if U.S. corn farmers and producers of advanced biofuels manage to meet the target set by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022), that quantity would equal only about 18 percent (by volume) of America’s oil imports.

Meanwhile, the mandates are helping push food prices higher. And few issues matter more to voters than the rising cost of food.

Several factors are at work here, including a growing global demand for grain, the falling value of the dollar, higher energy costs and poor harvests. But there’s no question that the ethanol mandates are a key factor in the rising price of food. And the consequences are troubling: Food costs have led to riots in several countries in recent months.

Here at home, American consumers are having their pockets picked.

This month, the Coalition for Balanced Food and Fuel Policy, a group funded by domestic beef, pork and chicken producers, released a report estimating that ethanol mandates now cost U.S. taxpayers $33 billion per year. That figure—which includes the costs of the ethanol subsidies and higher food prices—amounts to about $106 for each American.

A year ago, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University determined that higher food costs resulting from ethanol mandates were costing each citizen about $47 per year.

Anti-ethanol forces are growing. On Friday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, requested a waiver from the federal ethanol rules, saying that the “misguided mandate is significantly affecting Texans’ family food bill.” A press release issued by his office declared that the corn ethanol sector was creating “artificial demand” for grain that “is devastating the livestock industry in Texas.”

Yet the ethanol industry’s appetite for grain will likely keep the pressure on food prices.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last month that global grain demand is estimated to grow by 5.4 percent this year. Fully half of that growth will come from U.S. consumption of corn for ethanol.

A World Bank report this month pointed at biofuels as a cause of higher prices, saying “almost all of the increase in global maize (corn) production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for biofuels production in the U.S., while existing stocks were depleted by an increase in global consumption for other uses.”

Greenhouse gases are another area of concern. Several recent reports have shown that, when accounting for changes in land use, the production of corn ethanol may result in greenhouse gas emissions that are twice those of conventional gasoline.

Already, the Europeans are reconsidering their biofuels mandates. This month, the European Environment Agency recommended that the European Union suspend its plan for meeting 10 percent of the region’s transportation fuel needs with biofuels by 2020.

Unfortunately, even if McCain, Clinton and Obama change their views on ethanol, it may not matter. Whoever gets to the White House will likely find that it is far easier for Congress to create mandates and subsidies than to repeal them. In the meantime, food prices will continue to rise and the greenhouse gas issue will continue to fester.

Original story available here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-ethanol-politics_thinkapr…