THE BLOOM IS OFF ethanol’s rose. It wasn’t so long ago that corn-based ethanol was good for the environment. Ethanol would lead to greater U.S. energy independence. And American farmers would make money on the deal.

Fast-forward to this week and a U.S. House hearing on how ethanol factors into rising food costs. Many lawmakers are sounding more cautionary tones.

Ethanol still has proponents. They question the link between ethanol and food prices. In a period of rising gasoline prices, they doubt the wisdom of cutting ethanol production.

Fair enough. However, careful observers have long noted that ethanol wouldn’t be a cure-all. For starters, the fuel would reduce but hardly eliminate America’s demand for foreign oil. They pointed out that ethanol production itself uses considerable energy. Plus, the agriculture-friendly ethanol ideal hinges on whether farmers are growing corn or using it for livestock feed.

Ethanol supporters urge patience. Ethanol sources besides corn are in the works, they promise.

Again, fair enough. Still, the whole food or fuel debate tends to leave out a key component: Demand.

Alternative fuel is an issue because Americans – to say nothing of developing nations – guzzle fuel like swine at a trough. Reckless consumption is almost a status symbol. Why use less when more is available, if only temporarily?

Author Wendell Berry is one who warns that scientific advances in alternative fuel production sidestep the root problem. Put another way, humans cannot expect to overtax available resources without consequence.

If we’re serious about the environment, sustainability, energy use, etc., hard choices have to be made. We may have to opt for public transportation, carpooling, limiting trips. Living within our means, in other words.

Or we can simply avoid this problem of our own making. Perhaps we’ll wait for a scientific breakthrough that will allow us to continue with business as usual. We may be waiting a long time.

CNHI News Service