We here on the West Coast when talking about the need for renewable energy usually point to climate change. It seems the people and organizations behind corn ethanol, mainly in the Midwest, prefer to make the case in more patriotic terms, as in greater “energy security” from relying less on imported oil. And they’re finding favor in Congress at the moment.

I noticed the nuance today after doing some follow-up reading on an article that reported on the skyrocketing costs of farmland in the Midwest. The price hike is attributed to the demand for corn by ethanol producers. Can’t help but feel we’re in the midst of yet another real estate bubble and those buying the farmland today at highly inflated prices, their lenders and the taxpayers who will have to bail them out, will be big losers down the road. Among the losers right now, as the article points out, are the younger farmers who are priced out of buying more farmland.

The farm bill recently passed by the House contained provisions that apparently made the corn producers and ethanol lobby happy. One major lobbying organization, the Renewable Fuels Association, sent a letter to the House Agriculture Committee praising it for passing the bill (HR 2419) out of committee. It called the bill “a pathway that will provide a more stable and sustainable energy future for all Americans.”

A Sacramento Bee columnist called it and the recently passed energy bill “monuments to waste, stupidity and policy distortions.” Peter Schrag says the farm bill is more akin to an energy program.

“The link is corn — already subsidized to the tune of billions — since corn is the source of ethanol, which refiners are now required by federal law to mix into almost everybody’s gasoline. The theory is that gas blended with ethanol doesn’t emit greenhouse gases in the same concentrations as regular gas, and that it reduces dependence on imported oil. In fact, it does little of either.”

Schrag explains some of the reasons for this and why “the cheers for corn ethanol are far more political than they are scientific.” If the corn ethanol lobby cannot make their case as the best option for reducing greenhouse gases, it’s understandable they would hang their hat on energy security. In our post 9/11 world, politicians prefer to be seen fighting for security than against global warming. But the scientific, environmental and economic facts are not on the side of corn ethanol as a viable solution for either energy independence or lower carbon emissions.