Ever wonder why there’s nothing growing in those fields on the Obama logo?

In 2000, many of us wondered how George W Bush could come from a state like Texas and profess to be independent from the influence of big oil interests.  Some of us wondered how, as President, he would work to achieve energy independence when he was so closely tied to moneyed groups who clearly didn’t want to change the status quo.  His answer?  “Yeah, but wouldn’t you love to have a beer with me?”

Fast-Forward to 2008.  This time the candidate is from a large corn-producing state.  Some of his biggest backers have ties to the industry.  So Again, some of us ask, how can he promise to help us achieve energy independence when he is so closely tied to corn/ethanol production? Especially after he has consistently shown himself to be a candidate that makes promises he has no intention to keep.  Well, but “We’re the ones we’ve been waiting for”, so there!

I don’t claim to know much about Ethanol, but the following article in the New York Times caught my eye.  Hopefully some of our readers who know more about these things can enlighten us further in comments (I’m thinking about you, dotcommodity). 

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”

It also helps “big corn” interests as well.  And it seems that Obama is quite tight with “big agriculture”, contrary to his message of ending the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington.  In addition, one of his top advisers, former Sen. Tom Daschle, sure seems like a lobbyist, even though he vehemently denies it:

Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”…Mr. Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his role advising the Obama campaign on energy matters was limited. He said he was not a lobbyist for ethanol companies, but did speak publicly about renewable energy options and worked “with a number of associations and groups to orchestrate and coordinate their activities,” including the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition.

But he’s not a lobbyist. Nooo.  Even though he works at a law firm that just happens to have the following mission statement on their web page:

“Our Washington office takes advantage of its location in the nation’s capital and focuses on helping clients transition the  gap from the development of legislation, public policy and regulations to implementation.”  

Dennis Garris

Maybe Daschle is confused by the address of the law firm.  See, they don’t have the usual K St. address.  No, they’re actually a couple blocks down on F St.  Regardless, the above statement pretty much sounds like what a lobbyist does, doesn’t it?

So why, you might ask, am I so down on ethanol production?  At least Obama is trying to get us off of our oil dependence, right?  Well, maybe not so much.  Obama is a champion of subsidies to ag giants, like ADM, to produce more corn for ethanol production.  But it turns out that corn isn’t really all that efficient for making ethanol, as Obama’s opponent John McCain points out:

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.

“We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.”

Obama’s position is clear.  He is all for the subsidies.  He doesn’t really explain why he is, other than the usual vague responses about it creating “security for the long term”.  I think it has more to do with where he is getting his money from:

Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland.

Not long after arriving in the Senate, Mr. Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation’s largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.

But isn’t it worth it if we can have a cleaner, cheaper energy source like ethanol?  Well, according to many experts it is neither cleaner nor cheaper. 

Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers. Those complaints have intensified recently as corn prices have risen sharply in tandem with oil prices and corn normally used for food stock has been diverted to ethanol production…

Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more efficient source.

It is disturbing that not only does this affect energy prices, people might actually go hungry because of this kickback to big agriculture.  The NY Times even goes so far as to say that this might actually benefit oil companies as well, not to mention the legality of the subsidies:

Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.

And before anyone accuses me or the Times of being shills for the Republican candidate on this issue, I found this tidbit from the website of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein:

There’s just one catch: According to scientists in New York and California, it takes more energy to make ethanol than you get back in fuel savings. More precisely, says David Pimentel of Cornell University, it takes the equivalent of 1.29 gallons of gasoline to produce enough ethanol to replace one gallon of gasoline at the pump. Instead of making the nation more energy self-sufficient, ethanol production actually increases our need for oil and gas imports, Pimentel says.

 So let’s be clear.  Obama says he is against lobbyists and special interests, yet he employs lobbyists in his campaign and flies around on corporate jets.  He says he is for a greener economy, but supports subsidies that actually harm the environment and may actually contribute to world hunger.  So am I too harsh when I call Barack Obama a BIG FAT LIAR?  I don’t think so, do you?