More focus on what’s next in biofuels

By The Gazette Editorial Board

---

U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack concedes that corn-based ethanol fuel faces fading political prospects on Capitol Hill.

A $6 billion federal tax credit that rewards oil companies for blending gasoline with ethanol was set to expire at the end of 2010, and it was saved at the last moment as part of massive tax compromise. Environmentalists skeptical of ethanol's benefits and conservative deficit hawks wary of the credit's cost nearly succeeded in killing it.

Vilsack, who has championed ethanol since his time as Iowa's governor, remains a steadfast supporter of the fuel. He notes that the industry creates scores of good jobs and puts dollars in farmers' pockets and in rural communities. He insists that ethanol is a plus for the environment and federal subsidies supporting it pale in comparison to the federal help extended to the oil industry. Vilsack also argues, persuasively, that ethanol is critical to lessening U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil from nations unfriendly to us.

But Vilsack is willing to consider a future for biofuels beyond corn. And he acknowledges that resources being poured into subsidies for corn ethanol should be redirected to develop other types of biofuels.

But he wants to buy more time for corn ethanol before switching gears. We think the time is now to refocus scarce resources on what's next.

We commend Vilsack's efforts to pump federal dollars into the Biomass Crop Assistance program, which will provide funding help to “proof of concept” plants across the country that could produce fuel from woody biomass, algae, perennial grasses or other material. The secretary hopes putting facilities outside the Midwest can help broaden understanding and support for the industry.

We also see merit in Vilsack's call for eventually shifting subsidy resources to help expand availability of biofuels, such as creating distribution pipelines and installing “blenders pumps” at gas stations that allow consumers to pick from a range of fuel options. He also wants to push Detroit to produce more flex-fuel vehicles.

We think more must be done to develop a more sustainable replacement for corn ethanol, one that doesn't cause negative economic ripples for livestock producers and food consumers.

We see little reason to continue an expensive tax break for oil companies when the federal government already requires them to use an increasing amount of ethanol over time. The credit and the mandate are unnecessary redundancies especially now, when the federal deficit and debt are spiraling out of control.

Resources would be better used searching for new fuel innovations and, as Vilsack suggests, expanding the industry's reach beyond the Corn Belt. The sooner, the better.