by John
A few months ago, Matt Yglesias suggested that the incredible awfulness of corn-based ethanol and other such biofuels could provide an occasion for the presidential candidates to come out against what was later named the stupidest bipartisan policy decision of the last 50 years. John McCain did just that. Barack Obama? Not so much, as Monday morning's Times explains.
Color me unsurprised. The extent of it, though - and I'm well aware that McCain has plenty of bad policy ideas that are the result of ties to industry and special interests, and also that the reporter may be making a bit too much of certain things for the sake of a good story - is pretty startling. Not only does Obama call for an embrace of corn-based ethanol fuels as a means to energy independence and national security, and not only is his campaign closely tied to people closely tied to the ethanol industry, but he issued a statement "applauding" the passage of last month's farm bill and criticizing John McCain (who said he wished he could have vetoed it) for his opposition to it, spoke out in favor of preserving the tariffs on imports of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol (which McCain wanted to eliminate) on grounds of "national and economic security", and so on. (Obama's campaign web site reprints an article on Brazilian ethanol, but nowhere does it mention that sugarcane ethanol is four times as energy efficient as the stuff made from corn.)
But perhaps this is just another case where a President Obama, freed as he surely will be from the pressures of interest groups and the demands of politics as usual, will put such pandering to the side and lead us into a new, hope-filled tomorrow. Yes, that's it. Change we can believe in, right?
Comments