Is Ethanol All Its Cracked Up To Be?

Every leading politician in the country is touting ethanol proposals right now, including both U.S. Senate candidates in Missouri.

According to TIME magazine, 40 billion gallons of corn will be produced in the U.S. this year, but Americans will burn more than 140 billion gallons in 2006. Some experts point out that while ethanol is cheaper by the gallon, it is less efficient than gas. Skeptics of the corn-based fuel fear that these highly promoted biofuels won't reduce the nation's petroleum use. Depending on which expert you consult, biofuels either take more to produce and transport than they save -or- they save a little, but not a lot.

Saturday, on a ranch in Halfway, Mo. Senator Jim Talent said it's a fair question. "It is true, if you were to fill up 100% ethanol, you'd lose a little mileage. Now that's not really ethanol's fault," Talent explained. Talent said right now most car engines aren't made to take ethanol, but he believes car manufacturers will be forced to adjust as ethanol becomes more popular.

"Ethanol is here and now, but it's still young. It will get less expensive and more high performance as time goes on," Talent said.

Talent, and Democrat Claire McCaskill have gone back and forth on ethanol votes for weeks now. McCaskill has criticized Talent for voting against an ethanol tax break back when he was a state lawmaker.

"That's a smokescreen," said the junior Senator. "The one she's referring to relates to the timing of an appropriation. Governor Ashcroft thought it couldn't be spent that year anyway. That was 18 years ago."

Talent is quick to point out the McCaskill opposed last year's energy bill, which included tax breaks for oil companies, but also included a market for renewable fuels.

Talent notes that every Midwestern Senator, Republican or Democrat supported the energy bill for that reason. He said his push for renewables forced him to get tough with the oil companies. "What we said to the oil companies was, you have to do renewables. It's a mandate, because they were freezing it out of the market," Talent said.

McCaskill said she would have voted against the energy bill because of the tax breaks for oil companies at a time when they are making record profits. "Most of the tax breaks in that bill don't go to renewables," McCaskill said in Louisburg, Mo. a few weeks ago.

She said while Talent supports ethanol now, he wasn't for it back in the late 1980s as a state lawmaker. "We had a bill that would lower taxes on gas with ethanol. I voted yes, he voted no. He was absolutely opposed to ethanol and he voted that way. I've never cast a vote against ethanol," McCaskill said.

But why is a 1988 vote relevant now? "Because when you are an elected official, you shouldn't be voting for the next election. You should be voting for the future," McCaskill said.