Vinod Khosla has convinced me that the entire issue of ethanol goes far beyond corn subsidies in Iowa; read his white papers on biofuels to get a provocative, big picture perspective:

http://www.khoslaventures.com/resources.html

that includes a future with genetically-engineered biofuels that are far more energy efficient and that produce far less carbon emissions than does first generation corn ethanol.  Cane ethanol might be considered step two on this path; below is the beginning of an interesting article on the politics of ethanol:

The Ethanol Alliance
April 4, 2007
Alvaro Vargas Llosa


WASHINGTON—Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's visit to Camp David last weekend was meant to seal what is being dubbed as “the ethanol alliance” between the United States and the South American giant. I have no idea whether ethanol will eventually deliver the grandiose promise of a clean environment or the bankruptcy of oil-rich despots. But I do know that there is a huge disconnect between the objectives of the ethanol alliance and current policy.

If the United States wants to boost ethanol consumption and reduce oil-dependency, it needs to make a simple decision—eliminate its 54-cents-a-gallon tariff. Experts tell us that corn-based ethanol, the kind being produced in the United States, is eight times less efficient than Brazil's sugarcane version of the biofuel. Alessandro Teixeira, Brazil's point man for his country's ethanol strategy, insists that “we are the world leader, and if people really want to benefit from our ethanol industry, they have to embrace it in practice, not in theory.” Precisely because corn is much less efficient than sugarcane, the U.S. has been able to replace only about 3 percent of its oil consumption despite a huge government biofuel program.

The second way in which current policy defeats the purpose of the ethanol alliance has to do with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Clearly, the Bush administration wants to entice Central American and Caribbean countries that benefit from Venezuelan oil subsidies to adopt biofuels in order to become independent of Caracas. The idea is to encourage Brazil to export its technology to those countries and help them build distilleries—such as the one recently constructed in Jamaica—for ethanol production. But there is a hitch: Due to various preferential trading arrangements, Caribbean and Central American countries don't face the tariffs that currently hurt Brazilian exports to the U.S. So, while Brazil might take some pride in exporting its technology and eventually getting some cash incentives from Washington to help the Caribbean basin liberate itself from Chavez, Lula's real interest lies in exporting to the American and the European markets, both of which are now protected.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1953

Human beings, including academics, journalists, and political commentators, are incredibly tribal animals. Most individual political perspectives are strongly influenced by the tribalisms of the Left or Right.

I began studying economics as an idealistic Leftist. As I became convinced of the power of economic arguments, I did not lose any of my idealism: I just realized that Leftist strategies for improving the world were simply not very well considered. At the same time, as I became more interested intellectually in economic analysis, I found that most of the perspectives that I studied included a certain "there ain't no free lunch" cynicism. I have found it difficult, in relative isolation, for my thoughts not to be distorted either by the mindless idealism of the Left or by the intelligent cynicism of market advocates. Flow is an attempt to create a community of intellectually sophisticated and intellectually honest idealists that can transcend the magnetic pull of these opposing forces.

Given the fact that "intellectual" was nearly synonmous with "Leftist" for much of the 20th century, it may seem odd or biased from a left-liberal perspective for me to claim that Leftist strategies for improving the world were not very well considered. For those on the other side, the fact of 100 million Marxist murders alone is shocking and horrifying proof that Leftist strategies for improving the world were not very well considered.

Sociobiology provides compelling arguments that a sophisticated capacity for self-deception was genetically useful in the competition for genetic replication. In order to be a realistic idealist, or a realistic visionary, one must take complete cognizance of the depth and pervasiveness of human self-interest and self-deception.

Young people, eager to believe themselves good, and eager to position themselves as morally superior to their elder tribesmen, are thus vulnerable to shallow idealisms. Academics and intellectuals, many of whom spend their lives surrounded primarily by young people, often occupy a social status niche in which they maximize their psychic well-being, at the cost of intellectual integrity, by claiming moral superiority to the rest of society by means of their Leftist politics. There are even sociologists who conduct formal research studies to determine what social and psychic pathologies cause conservative beliefs: surely a healthy, sane, decent human being would share their Leftist political beliefs?

There is pressure from decent, well-intentioned left-liberals to leave the communist murders behind. None of them advocated such murderous regimes and they consider arguments that they were somehow complicit in these murders to be spurious and in poor taste.

Spiritual and emotional maturity has to do with taking responsibility for one's actions. When I was in college in the 1980s, communist enthusiasm among university faculty was common. To a remarkable degree, it still is. Noam Chomsky, the Pol Pot apologist, is still a hero among the Left.

In the eighteenth century, classical liberals developed a sophisticated body of political analysis showing the necessity and the means of limiting political authority. The American founding institutionalized many of these insights. The French Revolution served as horrifying proof of the need for such constraints on power. After the 1790s, anyone who blithely talked about a "dictatorship of the proletariat," as did Marx and his followers, is complicit in murder. Others, who endorse the ideas of such advocates of murder, are also complicit. Che Guevara whole-heartedly endorsed mass murder.

Idealism has been discredited by the 100 million communist murders. In order to create a legitimate idealism, we must purify ourselves by acknowledging wholeheartedly the crimes of idealisms of the past. Until the fellow travellers and communist apologists come clean, the cause of idealism will be discredited as morally corrupt and suspect.

There was a specific intellectual failure: well-educated people, who should have been adequately educated in classical liberal political theory, nonetheless were enthusiastic supporters of those who advocated a "dictatorship of the proletariat." The fact that these nice intellectuals may have envisioned a benign, romantic, idealistic "dictatorship of the proletariat," with lots of comradely poetry and art, is no excuse. Drunk drivers who kill people are often just nice kids out having fun while drinking a few beers in the car. Good intentions do not absolve people of responsibility while driving drunk nor while intoxicated with political ideals.

When an alcoholic becomes committed to serious recovery through AA, one of their first duties is to apologize to every individual who may have been harmed by them while they were drinking. This step of taking responsibility for past actions is rightly considered to be a crucial stage in healing, spiritual growth, and emotional maturity.

In order to create a spiritually clean idealism, it is crucial that the moral contamination of Leftist intellectuals has been fully acknowledged. One cannot build on crumbled foundations.