I agree with the sentiment of the article, that the ethanol strategy makes no sense; in fact I think it radically understates the drawbacks. But the argument that we can't produce enough corn to fulfill the mandate seems disingenuous.

Given 2006 crop yields, it would indeed be impossible. But with a firm projected future demand, we can ramp up domestic corn production significantly, both through shifting crop priorities and using currently unfarmed land. We're already shifting reducing soybean production in favor of corn. Also, crop rotation between corn and soybeans which currently makes sense, because it reduces pathogen buildup and replenishes soil nutrients, will have its equation tilted in favor of continuous corn plantings; as corn prices go up, farmers can use currently cost-prohibitive herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and fertilizers on cornfields. There's also a lot of federal land that currently lies fallow or is used for cattle grazing; as corn prices rise, political pressure will increase to turn it into "productive" farmland.

Corn for livestock, weekend barbecues, and cornsyrup does not need to be domestically produced (in fact cattle don't need to be domestically produced) - the Senate doesn't ban corn imports, it only requires domestic corn for ethanol production. That means that Mexican farms previously decimated by US dumping of our subsidized corn will suddenly have the equation tilted in their favor; there are already articles about Mexican farms replacing agave plantations in favor of corn this year. And the Amazon rainforest is some of the most fertile land in the world...it's already being burned for farmland and livestock pasture at record rates, and increasing corn prices will hasten its conversion.

I'm not saying this makes economic or environmental sense, but it's easy to foresee how we can grow enough corn for ethanol domestically, and still acquire enough to fill our non-energy needs.

I think it is unethical to use food to fuel your car. I see no mention of industrial hemp as a substitute. I wonder why?

Corn is simply a transitional crop for ethanol. Even if all of the plant is harvested, it still yields low Btu per acre and has all the drawbacks of not having good energy balance. Inputs way outweigh outputs. Miscanthus has 3 times the Btu per acre output, has a positve energy balance, is economically viable for farmers, uses little water, has many by products and is now commercially available.

The Amazon rain forest is not fertile and productive soil. In fact after brazillians have used it for only a few years it is nearly sterile and useless.

Your post does not address the need for rotating crops or the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of acres of farm land used for growing things other than corn or feed.

The additional herbicides and insecticides you are advocating will be an ecological disaster. I am not against ethanol and stand to make a lot of money myself if its use continues to increase. but we better be honest about what the true costs will be.

I have not even begun to address the issues of potable water effects and food prices.

It's even easier, and cheaper, to produce ethanol from miscanthus. Farmers simply need to shift crops to somehthing that needs 1/10th of the chemicals and has more Btu per acre. Corn is strictly transitional and will do us in if we stick with it. Corn energy per acre will never equal miscanthus.

1) Corn farming as it exists is not sustainable

a) Ground water is used 20 - 25 % faster than it is replenished

b) Soil quality/quantity is diminished as a comparable rate

2) Ethanol is only 0.67% efficient as compared to gasoline
(and requires the use of fossil fuels for production)

Suppose that your car gets 25mpg. Four gallons of gas will get you 100 miles down the road. Four gallons of E85 blended fuel will only let you see 71.95 of those miles. That's equal to just under 18mpg (17.9875)!

3) 36 Billion gallons of ethanol would only replace 574,285,714 barrels of petroleum products.

4) According to the Department of Energy, the U.S. consumes 7,550,755,000 barrels of petroleum annually

If all of the crop land in Iowa (>22 million acres) were converted to corn for the production of ethanol, the resulting fuels would replace approximately 3.48% of the total U.S. annual petroleum consumption (2006 figures according to the U.S. Department of Energy, <link>

I agree with most of the replies that you should never use food for fuel. The simple fact is that corn which is a starch needs to be converted to sugar to make fuel. The key componet is sugar. So why not subsudise sugar cane or grow sugar beets, It's ever cheaper in the the long run.

in a relatively short time, the fray has posited many different solutions to this problem. they may not all be realistic or viable, but we're all thinking about it and trying to come up with something that works.

So what is wrong with our government??? Sure, we all joke about beauracracy and what not, but this is the kind of thing the feds should be working on. If the farmers need to do a different crop, why aren't the feds educating, encouraging and possibly even subsidizing said change. It makes no sense in this day and age for us all to be sitting on our thumbs wondering why the world is going to hell so quickly when someone should actually be DOING something. and on a national level.

deduction:

If the farmers need to do a different crop, why aren't the feds educating, encouraging and possibly even subsidizing said change.

Because a few fat cats are making $$BIG$$MONEY$$ off ethanol, that's why.