5-14-08, 12:45 pm

Slamming John McCain for failing to vote for renewal of the Investment Tax Credit for alternative energy, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama at a campaign stop May 13 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri touted a plan to invest in cellulosic ethanol, wind energy, and solar power as alternatives to fossil fuels.

These industries want to grow, Obama told the crowd. 'But the problem is,' he added, 'Washington hasn't acted to give them the incentive where its economical for them to expand.'

Obama pledged to invest $150 billion in wind, solar, and ethanol over 10 years to help companies develop new energy products.

Significantly, Obama also stressed the need to convert from corn-based ethanol to 'ethanol that is made from non-food stock.' Obama linked corn-based ethanol to higher food prices and as being less efficient than experimental cellulosic ethanol, a situation that has impacted consumers generally and livestock farmers specifically.

Some experts have agreed with Obama's assertions about the inefficiencies of corn-based ethanol. Stephanie Leland of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs asserted that as much as half of all US land would have to be devoted to corn-growing for producing ethanol to keep consumers from using imported oil. She added that '[t]he actual cost of corn-based ethanol is higher than the current prices for gasoline.'

An alternative to corn-based ethanol is cellulosic ethanol, which Obama explained, would rely on non-food agriculture waste and other naturally growing vegetation to produce ethanol additives and alternatives.

Farmers could grow corn and other food items, Obama said, earn income off those products, and then the waste could be used to make ethanol. But the process for producing this type of ethanol is new and requires new investment and public-private partnerships to accomplish.

John McCain's refusal to back the Investment Tax Credit suggests his disinterest and lack of seriousness about alternative energy.

Obama also suggested that new investments in alternative energy will be a major source of economic growth and job creation.

Some environmental writers are extremely critical of cellulosic ethanol as the main alternative to petroleum. Glen Barry of Ecological Internet sarcastically states, 'Let's skip the step of clearing rainforests to plant crops and just toss the chopped up liquefied rainforests directly into our gas tank instead. The use of wood biomass from natural forests is already occurring on a limited scale and will be ramped up. Such is the promise of cellulosic ethanol.'

Clearly, Obama is justifiably seeking to strike a balance between many competing interests on the issue and is unwilling to write off US farmers or emerging industries in the process of developing new energy sources.

Likewise, the public-private partnerships that Obama hinted at could be an efficient means of inventing a whole new alternative energy industry. But when it comes to natural resources and energy policy, it makes more sense to reverse the ownership trajectory: start with public-private operations to launch new alternative energy projects that can then be purchased by taxpayers and held in trust by public entities.

Carefully planned and highly regulated ethanol production (and other 'biofuels' for that matter) that takes into account the need to stabilize and reduce global food prices, preserves global supplies of sanitary water, and restrains overuse of land to prevent soil erosion and deforestation provides a better basis for allowing ethanol to be a limited player among the many alternatives needed to replace gasoline and other petroleum products.

As ill-suited to maximizing profits as such projects might be, publicly owned and controlled enterprises that look beyond the fad of 'biofuels' to solar and wind power and carbon-neutral electric-powered transportation and industry are better suited to the task of developing diversified alternative energy sources. Indeed, eliminating profit motive in ethanol production could save us from going down the road to disaster.

For his part, John McCain began to talk about the environment this week to pander to voters who disapprove of his close affiliation with most Bush administration policies. But voters need someone with a commitment to a transformation away from an oil-based economy to one in which a diversity of energy sources heat our homes, power our buses and trains, and keep the lights on.

Unfortunately, McCain is as beholden to big oil as Bush. There is no chance that a McCain administration would take the country a step away from the interests of the corporate giants that financed the Bush administration and benefited from the policies it implemented.

--Reach Joel Wendland at