I asked him about what I consider to be the unconscionable shiftlessness and apathy on the issue from Democratic leadership. “I'm hoping that the Democrats, and I'm hoping that Barack Obama, will be bold and clear in articulating an energy policy that is a bold departure from what we're doing.” I asked, have you seen that boldness on the issue of corn ethanol from Obama? McGovern actually expands the criticism of his own party outward:
“No, I haven't. And I'm worried a little bit, quite frankly, by our Democratic party's willingness to move more toward drilling. Look, it's nuts, it's such a hoax on the American people that drilling is a way to our energy independence and energy security. Drilling is a 1950's solution to a 21st century problem. We need to be honest with the American people …
Change is not easy. Even little change is difficult. You know, changing from real cream to Cremora is difficult for some peopl.
(I might point out that Cremora is, in fact, a corn product.)
But as hard as this change might be, McGovern sees opportunities in the new energy economy for Worcester. “I live in Worcester, that's the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. Boy, wouldn't I love to fill those factories, from Worcester to Fall River, with people making wind turbines,” or for tidal or solar energies.
“We can become energy independent, be good to the envonrment, and re-invigorate our industrial base all at once. I mean, this is an incredible opportunity. We shouldn't be afraid to speak clearly about that. And we should stay away from trying to say, 'Oh, maybe we'll drill some more. Or, maybe we started corn ethanol, what the hell, we'll just keep going … So I don't want to hear any more talk about drilling. I feel like I'm in a dentist's chair. It's nuts, it's stupid.”
David asked about McGovern's support for Hillary Clinton. McGovern clearly feels a little bit wistful about her candidacy. “Look, I'm a liberal Democrat who thinks she's terrific. I don't agree with her on everything, but I found her positions on energy and green collar jobs, on FISA, were right on.”
He describes his own family's reaction to Hillary's candidacy, how they became more engaged and interested and hopeful in the possibility of a woman president:
“My mother was more interested in her campaign than in my campaign. My wife became a blogger on this campaign. My sisters were calling me constantly, because they were so committed to Hillary. My seven-year old daughter … all the little girls in her class were talking about Hillary …
She may not be perfect, but my mom says, “I've supported a lot of imperfect male candidates in my life, including you.”
McGovern feels that Bill and Hillary Clinton will unite the party in a “spectacular” way. But he mentions that he developed a meaningful friendship with the Clinton family.
But he insists that everyone at the convention will “enthusiastically” support Barack Obama: “If Barack Obama wins, the world changes overnight.”
Though I miss the little short videos that David’s doing!
<
p>I am so going to the convention in four years. Beh.
<
p>Yeah, I’m wicked junking out right now. Internet, TV, PBS/MSNBC, waiting for Gov. Patrick’s speech, etc.
<
p>I need an intervention.
<
p>(So does my husband. He’s on his laptop also watching TV.)
Stay tuned.
photos and vid from my phone. It’s keen.
<
p>However, no idea how to post to youtube yet…
<
p>Just wait til I do!! There will be madness.
although I don’t agree with him on corn ethanol. It’s not that I envision corn ethanol as a long term solution — I don’t. But, the reality is that corn ethanol is net petroleum positive, which is a good step. The political reality was that we could either support corn ethanol or make no progress at all at using agricultural waste, switchgrass, or even bacteria. Corn ethanol provides the means for the transition — the political willpower to support building the fueling infrastructure.
<
p>Instead he uses a cheap and thoughtless throwaway line:
It’s cheap because it sounds great, but it’s thoughtless because corn stopped ending up in our belly long before corn ethanol. Corn is used as animal feed, sugar substitute, and for industrial products. Of the roughly 9 billion bushels of corn that don’t become ethanol, roughly .2 bushels directly produced what you and I would call “food”. The vast majority of corn usage is to produce far less efficient meat; another large chunk is an outcome of protecting sugar farms in FL and MN from Brazilian imports.
<
p>
<
p>It’s true that corn could be used to feed people — but the reality is that corn hasn’t being used to feed people in America for a long time. Consider USDA corn use 2006-2007, as reported by an Iowan group:
<
p>5.6 billion bushels: animal feed. Since it takes 10 pounds of corn to produce 1 pound of beef, this means that there’s billions of bushels of Iowa corn that could go straight into the mouths of people if feeding people were ever the real political concern.
<
p>2.1 billion bushels: people and animal export feed, not broken down by animal destination.
<
p>.75 billion bushels: corn sweeteners. Fake sugar. Certainly not necessary in the context of hunger; in fact it’s likely played a sizable role in the unhealthy fattening of Americans.
<
p>2.1 billion bushels: corn ethanol.
<
p>.27 billion bushels: corn starch for food and industrial processes.
<
p>.19 billion bushels: breakfast cereal and Tostitos.
<
p>.14 billion bushels: corn-sourced booze.
<
p>
<
p>This just isn’t about feeding people efficiently — we just don’t do that because here in America we eat far more meat than most nations, and it takes many pounds of grain to create one pound of meat. If we were really worried about feeding people, we’d feed people the 10 pounds of corn instead of the 1 pound of beef it produces.
<
p>Food is more expensive because oil is more expensive. Shipping food — especially fresh fruits and veg — is incredibly fuel intensive. Much of our food is fertilized with oil and natural gas based fertilizers. As the price of oil has gone up, so has food. In November 2006, a bushel of corn was $1.88. 56 pounds of corn, $1.88. By April 2008, it’s gone up to $5.42. Again, the price of 56 pounds of food have gone up three and a half bucks.
<
p>So if the price of corn has gone up by six cents a pound, can we really attribute the increased price of food to be the increased price of corn? I don’t think so. I think a combination of a weak dollar, high fuel prices, and the American refusal to reduce their consumption of meat are to blame.
stomv, he talked to us for 18 minutes. I’ll put the audio up so that you can see the line is in the context of a policy discussion.
<
p>Just briefly, your proposed solutions are heavily dependent on people changing their behaviors, and on heavily entrenched interests changing their ways. They won’t do that unless they’re told to.
<
p>It’s the subsidizing of special interests that’s the real problem, because the corn policy entrenches doing fuel the wrong way, even well after better alternatives are available. McGovern made that point.
The line is a throwaway, not the entire interview. It’s a throwaway line because it’s not based on fact, nor backed up by later statements.
<
p>
<
p>I didn’t propose any solutions. I’m not proposing that people be forced to eat less meat nor that we eliminate the sugar subsidy, nor that we change the ethanol subsidies.
<
p>I’m simply disagreeing with the claim that ethanol production has had a substantial impact on the price of food, given that (a) corn doesn’t generate much food directly, (b) it’s gone up by six cents a pound, and (c) corn as food hasn’t gone into American’s bellies in many years; it’s not as if ethanol has created the diversion.
<
p>Subsidizing special interests aren’t implicitly wrong if that subsidy creates a better outcome than a non-subsidized market would create. In the case of corn ethanol, subsidizing corn has helped create both public and private investment in alternative fuel infrastructure such as vehicles, fueling stations, and distribution. As other sources of ethanol become cost competitive, being brought on by small companies, they’ll find that there’s actually a market for their ethanol. Without the corn ethanol subsidies, there wouldn’t be a potential market, and the private investment for research would evaporate overnight.
<
p>That “corn policy entrenches doing fuel the wrong way” is a confession that Congress can’t do their job well, not a complaint against corn per se. Personally, I think that ethanol will be a substantial part of transportation fuel over the next 20 years, and that the only way we’ll get to non-corn ethanol is to start with corn ethanol. In that sense, a corn ethanol subsidy in principal is a good idea. The details? Idaknow. Are there currently better alternatives available? Not at the scale of corn ethanol. Some ag-waste is used, and some other byproduct, but that doesn’t scale large enough.
<
p>So, if we want to get away from petrol based gasoline, we’ve got to do lots of things including mass transit, green electricity, smart growth, telecommute infrastructure, etc. Public policy decisions like subsidies/taxes on fuel efficiencies, housing, and 1000s of other things impact the outcome as well. If you want a substitute for motor fuel, ethanol is the best alternative right now, and corn-based the only one that scales at this time. We can either not subsidize corn ethanol and have no infrastructure [and hence no market] for non-corn ethanol and let the private investment dry up and hope that a professor somewhere has a breakthrough, or we can subsidize corn-based ethanol now, stimulate the market and investors, hope for technological breakthroughs, and then have the fortitude to change farm subsidies when that time comes.
<
p>I think the latter is the wise choice, along with all those other things I listed at the beginning of the previous paragraph.