On one hand, we have super-expensive corn subsidies that any reasonable economist will tell you are ridiculous and which cannot help our clean-fuel needs even under the most optimistic scenarios. On the other hand, we have super-high import tariffs on Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol, which is not only is produced far more cheaply than corn ethanol, and not only exists in surplus, and not only comes from a pleasant democracy in our hempishere, but is a proven technology currently fueling millions of Brazilian cars.

There may be no better sign of how America has lost is place as a world leader than its blinders-on ignorance of the Brazilian sugarcane example. To visit Brazil and see its gas stations delivering sugarcane ethanol (a real gas substitute, not a paltry 5% additive) to its thristy cars -- one can only shake your head. Will is the issue, not techology, folks.

Brazil should thank us for the high tariff we place on their fuel. Without a tariff, the "surplus" would vanish faster than you can say "No bid contract for halliburton".

Do you really think American SUV owners can't outbid brazilian peasants for fuel? And, when "pleasant" brazilian consumers have to compete with american consumers... they won't be so pleasant. If we remove the 54 cent tariff, prices in the US might drop 4 cents, but will rise 50 cents in Brazil. Why? Because our economy is that much bigger, so the price would end up closer to the American price rather than the Brazilian.

This whole ethanol thing is frustrating because only recently have our citizens been exposed to the economic realities of this fuel source. After only a small amount of research, it is painfully obvious that ethanol is not a viable, long term solution to our energy situation. However, Congress isn't through lying to us yet. So it's going to take some time for common sense and the truth to finally surface...

Ethanol is a solution for our FUEL problem, not our ENERGY problem. Our fuel problem is, not enough fuel. Our energy problem is, our energy sources pollute too much.

We have oodles of coal and uranium. It's just very dirty.

But you can't put coal or uranium into your car, not directly anyway. If you could, we wouldn't be making ethanol. We have coal-to-oil technology. We stole it from Hitler 60+ years ago. But it's not politically or economically viable yet. Ethanol has more political and economic viablity because it gives farmers a stable source of income. Once we find a better way to turn midwestern sunshine into fuel, (and we will), ethanol will fall by the wayside.

I believe the ultimate fate of biofuel will involve geothermal energy to assist chemical reactions. Geothermal has energy but no carbon. We need plants to gather our carbons up, then we can turn them into dense fuels.

Brazil has always subsidised its ethanol industry, whether it was sugar cane producers or ethanol plants or spending on R&D. Taxes on 'alcool' are 20% those on conventional gasoline. Politicians would likely tax exporters higher and use those funds to keep the domestic price lower if the US lowered its tarrifs

So we *might* improverish the brazillian peasants, or we *might* enrich the brazilian government. Or both. None of those prospects are particularly appealing.

Meanwhile, gasoline demand is slow to change. People near to either switch cars, or switch houses to change gas consumption patterns. Those are expensive, time-consuming decisions, and not made lightly.

If the government does too much to keep ethanol prices low, gasoline prices will be kept low as well, and people will delay fuel-saving decisions, or make decisions that use more fuel than necessary.

I'd rather gasoline prices be higher for various reasons. It would cause demand to be shaped differently in certain ways with long term impacts. Gas prices can determine where houses are built, and THAT's an impact that lasts for decades.

I don't think dropping the tarrif would impoverish Brazillian peasants. The peasants there are already impoverished, its their rising middle class who would feel the pinch if the governement didn't furrther subsize ethanol.

Gasoline demand is slow to change, with good reason. Its simply the most convenient, high energy density fuel available. The only way we're going to be weaned off it is when an alternate source, hydrogen or fast charging, high density batteries become available economically - whether thru falling prices as production gears up or rising cost due to scarcity of gas makes them viable.

I have moved close enough to my work so as not to require a car, I did this to save money, not the environment, but its got the same benefits.

Wow, that's the first I've heard of that. I suppose you mean that it produces radioactive material, sure I guess, but it doesn't exactly pump it out in huge quantities.

Your response is typical of that which I hear on Slate time and time again, nothing's ever good enough, no proposition is solid enough, no plan of action detailed enough to execute. People like you give Democracy a bad name.

Eigenvector, that's a ridiculous personal attack.

I have nothing against using coal or nuclear power. However, the fact remains they have issues. I'm sure you're aware of the fact we haven't built any new nuclear power plants in quite some time.

Before you whine about me "giving democracy a bad name", just face the fact uranium indeed has a little public relations problem.