Global food supplies are surely tight. So how does this make sense?
Ethanol makers are expected to consume a record 5 billion bushels of corn this year, or some 36 percent of the harvest.
Despite criticism that using food for fuel was driving up prices and contributing to thin stockpiles, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the conference the government had no intention of scaling back on ethanol.
"There is no reason for us to take the foot off the gas," Vilsack told the conference. "This is a great opportunity for us because we can do it all, make no mistake about it."
Tight global commodity stockpiles have pushed food prices higher, contributing to political unrest in countries with high poverty rates and unemployment.
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton struck a more cautionary tone on ethanol. "We have to become energy independent but we don't want to do it at the expense of food riots," Clinton said in the keynote address.
Vilsack's attitude is astounding. Obviously, we aren't doing it all right now. And with people worrying that Islamists might take advantage of a power vacuum caused by the fall of dictators, ethanol's "green future" takes on a whole different meaning. And what the heck, Vilsack has no responsibility for foreign policy, so from where he sits, what does revolution across the Moslem world mean compared to a few happy agri-businesses and ethanol lobbyists?
Still, even though the blinkered view of Vilsack is understandable (not justified, mind you) by his portfolio, isn't this something that should be addressed by the Oval Office which should have a broader view?
Shouldn't the president tell Vilsack that food is more important than ethanol right now? Just suspend the government supports for ethanol (on both the mandated use and subsidy sides) and corn will reach family tables instead of fuel tanks.
