I think it's only natural when you contemplate a new energy source that you would try to quantify how it is better. If the "news" of corn-based ethanol production being inefficient is just coming out now, or rather, if it has taken until now for anyone to notice it despite scientists shouting it from rooftops for at least half a decade, then it is because no one was really interested in its efficiency from the beginning.

Even supposing that this issue was never raised prior to the farmers buying any new corn-related equipment for this purpose, while I wouldn't expect the farmers themselves to complain that rising corn prices have translated to lower output of other crops and lower availability of animal feed, thus raising the prices of their products across the board, you would think that somewhere in the course of growing and fermenting the corn, planning and producing the E85 engines, and going to the pump to find a higher price for a fuel that has less energy, someone would have noticed that ethanol was a bad idea from its origins.

The fact that after all the years we've spent going as far into this forest as we have, that this idea is still being pushed in Washington, leads me to conclude that Washington still believes it is getting what it wants from ethanol. No, do not think it has been an accident; corn-based ethanol was never intended to be anything more than the hugest political pander of our generation to the farmers in the "Heartland," particularly in Iowa, the first state in the Presidential Primary process.