So yeah, about that whole “posting later in the week” thing. Technically, we’re still on the up-and-up, since it’s only been 5 days since our last post and a week is 7 days long. And since this is our blog and we’re free to hedge our own scheduling inconsistencies as we see fit, we’ll leave it at that.

The economic climate has cast a pretty big shadow on ethanol’s future, and much of the reporting on the subject has been little more than “I-told-you-so” juvenile glee; the Wall Street Journal blogs, for example, ran a story on Nov. 3rd about how ethanol has already washed up dead on the beach, and only a total nincompoop wouldn’t have seen this coming. Hell, the reporter sounds happier about diminishing ethanol investment than her own sources do.

The Globe and Mail was even less objective, celebrating the news that “an industry that should never have thrived is getting its comeuppance.” The headline for their item is “Ethanol producers’ unworthy heyday finally over,” just in case anyone didn’t know where they stood on the issue. We’re surprised they didn’t include a picture of their editorial staff setting fire to a heap of corn cobs, their middle fingers extended towards the camera.

Neither item considers cellulosic ethanol and the huge strides made in its development as a legitimate biofuel, and the Globe and Mail clings onto the “ethanol raises food prices” fallacy, while shaking its fist at the ethanol lobby as though oil companies never have their phone calls returned from DC. They’re right that ethanol is on shaky ground, like many other industries are, but to ignore any and all advances made in favor of resistance based on vastly overstated data is absurd. So if you meet any of these people on the bus or something, send them here. And link them to this recent ethanol study while you’re at it.

So now that Corn Car readers know how John McCain feels about non-Brazilian ethanol, what does he propose we do instead to decrease our reliance on foreign oil/oil in general? Aside from taking up a collection for the electric car, we weren’t really sure. So we did a little research and composed this overview, in our usual highly objective format, of McCain’s energy plan, aka McCain’s Ethanolternatives:

1. Offshore drilling - According to McCain, there are “21 billion barrels of proven oil reserves” that are sitting untapped, thanks to the 1981 ban on offshore exploration. According to him, “it’s safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs,” adding that “it is time to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.”

Of course, we wouldn’t see any oil from those reserves for at least 10 years, so we don’t really know how much, if anything, we would save from their inclusion a decade from now. Plus, oil companies are already sitting on unexplored, leased land, and we think it’s safe to say that the cure for America’s crippling oil dependence isn’t oil. Christ, even other offshore drilling supporters think we should ramp up our ethanol production. But luckily, McCain has other ideas, such as…

2. Nuclear power - If there’s one thing that McCain loves more than talking about Vietnam, it’s nuclear power. He’s said that “the experience of nations across Europe and Asia has shown that nuclear energy is efficient. It is safe, it is proven, and it is essential to America’s energy future.” And we agree that tightly regulated, well-overseen nuclear power facilities contribute much to the countries they serve, but given the tone of McCain’s pro-business rhetoric, the invisible hand of the free market will probably end up with several extra fingers; until the government proves that it’s learned from what happened when Enron and other private energy companies were allowed to police themselves, we’re not comfortable pushing them ahead of other alternative energy sources.

There’s also the question of where to store the waste; according to McCain, Arizona is not an option.

3. Coal - McCain has obviously never seen coal beyond a barbecue pit, because he has a serious jones for the stuff, claiming that clean coal will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We can understand this to a certain extent, because states like West Virginia depend on coal mining, and McCain wants those people to vote against their own interests for him. But clean coal is an expensive technology still mired in development, which are two of his complaints about ethanol, and regular coal is simply disgusting. He’ll have to do better than this as a serious solution to our energy woes. Clearly, he’s considering…

4. Magic - It’s an inexhaustible resource that only a small number of gifted people can channel and distribute, which limits the impact that growing nations like India and China would have on its availability. And it’s also pretty much the only feasible way to fund any plank in McCain’s energy platform, unless one of our readers can suggest how to build dozens of fully operational nuclear plants in enough time to supplement current energy usage, or drill off the coast of California without damaging the shoreline and local ecosystem. Seriously, comment if you have any ideas.

So there you have it! Oh, and since McCain is so fond of bringing up his record, here it is. Have fun taking him seriously after reading through it.

Decision time has come, and it’s good news for ethanol - the EPA has decided not to roll back the ethanol mandate. After a recent statement that “the impact of ethanol on corn prices was only 7 cents per bushel–a fraction of the overall price increase since last year,” the EPA maintained that ethanol was not the economic disaster it was purported to be and kept the mandate as-is.

Of course, there’s been some opposition, specifically from Texas’ livestock industry, but the “rational policy on energy and environmental protection” they’re wishing for depends on the ethanol mandate and the associated boom in biofuel-related investing. Advances made in the process now will make the transition to cellulosic ethanol production smoother down the road.

Besides, the ranchers can direct some of that bitching at their oil tycoon neighbors; $4/gallon gas is more responsible for their situation than ethanol is, or ever was. Local and perhaps financial loyalties aside, the situation is quite literally down to this or this.

As diligent readers may recall, we weighed in on Bush’s lifting of the executive ban on offshore oil drilling, noting that it was a particularly stupid idea and an obvious giveaway to his oil tycoon social circle. One of our readers agrees, and sent us a list of his own “talking points” on the issue, in the hopes that they will gain momentum and roll back the “drill drill drill” Republican mantra that has seized control of the issue. Here they are, unedited.

Even before Bush lifted the executive order on offshore drilling, such drilling was ONLY prohibited within 3 miles off the U.S. coast. Anything beyond that was open to drilling. However, by allowing drilling within three miles, Bush has created potential environmental threats to pristine beaches, many of which are important contributors to the local economies of states like California and Florida (indeed, the original ban was put in place after a major oil spill decades ago that harmed some of California’s beaches). It has also created environmental threats to endangered coral reefs. While much of this threat is from oil spills (caused by hurricanes, etc) the “ordinary” operation of offshore drilling also causes toxins to be dumped into the ocean on a daily basis.

Any new oil drilling will not provide immediate relief. Bush’s own Dept of Energy estimates that it will take at least 10 years for oil from new drilling to hit the market. And that’s likely an optimistic estimate, as, depending on problems (equipment/personnel shortages, etc) that could arise, it could take 15-20 years.

Contrary to the often repeated right wing talking point that “just talking about new drilling has caused the price of oil to drop,” this is not the case at all. The price of oil has dropped for two reasons: One, demand decreased as people started driving less and using less oil, in response to the high oil prices. Decreased demand in and of itself lead to decreased prices. Two, the big oil companies, and oil commodity traders, looked at the situation, and became frightened that if the price of oil continued to rise, people would start using even less of it, and do so on a permanent basis - a situation that would harm their profitability. They decreased prices accordingly, to prevent this from happening.

Even when the new oil does hit the market, decades down the road, the price impact will be minimal, and it will do nothing to wean the U.S. off foreign oil. The U.S. has already far surpassed its peak oil production, and, even if we open up new drilling, the new fields will barely make a dent in the decline of U.S. oil production, as thousands of old fields continue to dry up. The ONLY solution to our foreign oil problem is to move away from oil. PERIOD.

Gas prices are already a major issue in this election, but, sadly, people are buying into the “drill, drill drill” mantra. It’s important that we combat this line of thought wherever it arises. We need REAL solutions to our energy problems, some of which you can find here. More drilling will only dig us deeper into our hole, while providing a major boon for big oil.

We’d like to thank our reader for contributing these, and we’d also like to remind him (and anyone else reading this) that another consequence of drilling here is apathy - if people get lulled into thinking domestic drilling will solve our energy crisis, they won’t support efforts to develop alternative fuels because they won’t see the necessity. We literally can’t afford that. Again, this is something you should be writing your representatives about, and keep the above points in mind when confronted by someone who doesn’t see the bigger picture.

Y’know, as fun as it is to champion ethanol and shine some much-needed light on where the research is going, it’s fun to take a look at what the anti-biofuels camp is doing. Seeing what they think is sound energy policy can be depressing when you remember that they’re still the dominant voice on the issue, but it adds helpful perspective and, in many cases, a dark humor that can’t be replicated elsewhere. Which explains why we laughed uproariously when President Bush, having passed the consequences of his remaining time in office off to the next poor shmuck in line for the gig, lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling.

There are quite a few reasons to oppose it, so we’ll attempt to explain what we feel are, or will be, the top five.

1. Reflexive dislike of everything Bush does
Disagreeing with the president has turned into a cottage industry over the past 8 years; Bush is almost Reaganesque in his ability to give leftist groups something to hate besides each other. And while consistently finding fault with every Bush decision makes one look like an irrational malcontent who hates freedom, his track record is hardly sterling.

2. Defiling the natural landscape
Drilling is messy business, threatening the flora and fauna of wherever said drilling is set to occur. Plus, while oil barons and their supporters claim that local wildlife will be protected, they never really explain how. On the other hand, enough drilling in and around California might upset the fault lines and push the entire state out into the Pacific Ocean, which could arguably be considered a national improvement.

3. It’s a handout to his oil industry friends
Bush lifted the ban despite there being 68 million acres of land leased for drilling and left idle. Hell, It’s such a brazen giveaway that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid officially rejected it, which is quite the show of spine for a Senate Democrat. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes lifting the ban, and there was a time when he looked like he ran on gasoline.

4. It will stall biofuel research
Knowing that there’s still oil around, even if it’s not very much, could be enough to keep Americans from exploring alternative fuel sources or making any major conservation efforts. The current media dismissals of ethanol as inefficient and hybrid cars as too expensive don’t help much, either. Whether their sponsors like it or not, oil is finite and we really need to examine other fuel options, if only to keep books like World Made By Hand from being written.

5. For every ten gallons of gas consumed, Susan Sarandon will punch a BP executive’s child in the face
Just look at that murderous gleam in her eye. We’d better shape up quick; children are fatter and more brittle than ever before.

With ethanol threatened by sways in farm-belt voter opinion and continued food-industry lobbying for the “food before fuel” campaign, more fuel-conscious people are looking towards hybrids for their automotive needs. However, a lot of them are turned off by the price tags - there’s no denying that hybrids carry a higher up-front cost than their gas-guzzling counterparts.

But that might not be the case in the long run; Consumerist reports that hybrid cars are less of an overall expense than regular cars. Notable reasons for this include hybrids retaining more of their value over time, insurance companies offering discounted premiums for hybrids, lenders offering discounted loan rates for hybrids, and tax credits from employers and the government (but only for the first 60,000 vehicles). And, of course, less pain at the gas pump.

Hopefully the media will stop hating on ethanol long enough to point this information out. There’s been a frustrating lack of solutions to the fuel crisis and far too much nervous hand-wringing over how expensive everything is. Of course, all this could change if someone ever finds a reliable, low-cost source of electric corn.