Ethanol Gets Gore'd

Turns out that Al Gore could have loaned some snow to Kilimanjaro.

Gore has now fessed up that his previous support for first-generation, corn-based ethanol was a “mistake.”

“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president,” Gore said, according to Reuters.

 I know, I know. A politician pandered. Gasp.

But media types with coastal addresses gleefully pounced. They had feedstock for one of their favorite narratives. Ethanol and Iowa's presidential caucuses are a sinister plot to defraud America, likely hatched in a barn outside What Cheer. And any White House wannabe who doesn't bow to the power of liquid gold had better steer clear of Iowa, or risk being met by mobs with pitchforks.

We all love ethanol here. Heck, we occasionally bathe in it, rumor has it.

Of course, this is lazy hackery. It was overblown to claim Texan George W. Bush absolutely had to embrace ethanol to win here. It was an oversimplification to claim that John McCain skipped Iowa in 2000 because he refused to support credits. Now, the value of Gore's convenient fib is being overestimated.

But soon, it may simply be over.

The much-bashed 45-cent-per-gallon federal tax credit for ethanol expires Dec. 31, and is hanging by a thread politically. U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley is tweeting his heart out to save it, but when far-right U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint and lefty environmentalists are joining forces, the apocalypse may be at hand.

And yet, back here in Iowa, the riots have not started. Ethanol is an important industry to this state, clearly. But Iowans are more than capable of looking upon it with a clear, critical eye. Like most other Americans, we don't want our government to waste money. We also want honesty from folks running to lead us.

 And more than a few of us are willing to concede that after three decades, we can accept the tax credit's demise.

For one thing, it makes little sense to provide a $6 billion tax credit at the same time the government is mandating the use of billions of gallons of ethanol. That's one big reason Iowa State University economist Bruce Babcock argues the loss of the credit won't have much short-term impact. And yes, he still has a job.

We'd be better off using some of those dollars on research to develop what's next. Because for all the outside complaints we've endured, the most hopeful legacy of corn ethanol will be that it led us to something better.

Without a first generation, there's no second. A guy who dreamed up the Internet should know that.

Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@sourcemedia.net