Schrag: Corn Ethanol Subsidy a California Presidential Primary Issue?

Corn cultivation also requires enormous quantities of water and fertilizer that generate polluting runoff into rivers and groundwater. And while ethanol does reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it also generates smog-producing pollutants such as nitrous oxide (NOX) that have a wide range of health and environmental effects.

Since the feds subsidize corn ethanol (a 51 cents tax credit for every gallon of ethanol blended into gas) in addition to the regular multibillion-dollar corn subsidy, and since Congress protects corn ethanol with hefty tariffs to prevent the import of cheaper Brazilian ethanol, ethanol, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein complains, enjoys a triple subsidy. Some $600 million annually comes from highway funds.

Every major presidential candidate, even John McCain, who once called ethanol "highway robbery," has been to Iowa, the nation's leading producer of corn, to cheer for ethanol. Given the fact that most experts believe that the future of bioenergy lies in "cellulosic" technology -- ethanol from biomass, switchgrass and various forms of ag waste -- the cheers for corn ethanol are far more political than they are scientific.

When California moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger saw it as a chance for Californians to challenge candidates on their vows to Iowa voters -- he mentioned ethanol in particular. Most of our political seers seem to believe that rather than diminishing the clout of the traditional early primary and caucus states, the glut of February primaries is likely to increase their influence. Still, it might give Californians a chance to be heard. We're the ones paying the price.

Last week, the University of California energy experts at Berkeley and Davis whom Schwarzenegger commissioned to develop a California "low carbon fuel standard" issued a cautiously optimistic report indicating that California could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fuel by 10 percent by 2010. The goal, though ambitious, they said, was possible.

But one of the report's two authors, Alex Farrell, director of Berkeley's Transportation Sustainability Research Center, also acknowledged that their assignment was only to look at fuels, not at engine design, fuel economy or broader policy changes.

And it's there -- in improved transit, in tolls and other forms of demand management on roads and bridges, in higher fuel taxes -- that the real possibilities lie. Classic economic liberals, people we call conservatives, argue that if government didn't meddle so much, the market would take care of the problem.

But attaching a cost to depletion of the ozone is virtually impossible. So is costing out the foreign policy consequences of empowering hostile foreign governments with our petrodollars. We all seem to want to check global warming and our energy dependence on Venezuela, Nigeria and the Middle East. The question is: What are we really willing to pay for that, and how soon?

Peter Schrag is the former editorial page editor of the Sacramento Bee. This article is published with his permission.