I find the ethanol bill an interesting example of what seems to me a trend in "environmentally-sound" legislation. Instead of legislation that actually is aimed at achieving a particular environmental goal, the legislation is written in a way that almost certainly will benefit a few choice lobbies and will be of questionable value toward achieving the stated goal.

In this case the bill targets ethanol specifically when it could instead mandate an increase in biofuels more generally...or perhaps even most generally fuel alternatives. This would leave open the possibility that someone might develop another technology that might yield higher energy return and lower economic and atmospheric cost. A bill such as this, however, actually stifles innovation b/c it narrowly directs the scope of R&D. It's hard not to see it as a pander to the corn lobby. And I understand that there are probably some well-meaning senators who really got caught up in they hype about ethanol saving the world...but as someone else mentioned, it doesn't take a lot of research to find out that there remain many unknowns about the viability of ethanol. As a sort of response to a previous post in this thread...the problem here isn't that the Senate is shooting for the moon, the problem is they are also dictating the kind of rocket we have to use to get there.

This is a little bit off topic, but another striking example of this kind of narrow legislation is hybrid-engine technology. Instead of incentivizing fuel efficiency, we incentivized hybrid engines. The result is that there are now many vehicles with hybrid engines on the road that get worse mileage than some gas engines (even in the same vehicle class).

All I can say is, "Welcome to the Nanny State". Ethanol is the Enviro-Stasi "magic bullet" of choice, so no other possible alternate biofuel is officially allowed to exist, period, much less be mandated or subsidized.

This is especially moronic and blind (I can't even say "short-sighted", as that implies any foresight whatsoever went into this) in light of the fact that biodiesel made from vegetable oil exists now, and is comparable in energy to petroleum diesel; and from biodiesel technology, researchers are working on perfecting biogasoline, which will be comparable in energy to petroleum gasoline. The best part? Biodiesel (and presumably biogasoline) produce very little by way of air pollution.

But of course the bean growers (primarily soy, but also some other types of oil beans) don't have a huge lobbying machine on capitol hill, and the Enviro-Stasi don't love them, so they have approximately a snowball's chance in hell of getting any support from a blindered, PC-Cred-hunting legislature.

You are right, completely right. The problem is that candidates say what key contributors want them to say, and even appoint people they want them to appoint and programs are made to bring the most support in Congress. And the original intent is left by the wayside.

Another, possibly worse example is the plan to build a bunch of plants to liquify coal. There is no evidence of how much will it cost and whether it would use more energy to remove the Carbon Dioxide than the energy produced from burning it.

Incredible! We don't kinow if it works, how much it costs and whether it will do any good.

Yet, they want to sign contracts to commit USAF to buy their fuel for use in airplanes that have not been build or modified to use that fuel.

If we are dumb enough to do this, we deserve whatever penalties they outcome will bring.