I feel sure that stevejust is attempting to be insulting (I'm less sure as to why) but I do not work for BP or Kirkland. I probably know people who work at Kirkland, as it's certainly a law firm that recruited from my class at law school, but certainly no one with whom I've discussed this topic. My opinions are my own, and it's impolite to make snide remarks that insinuate the contrary, particularly as I have been a poster here for so long, and have been open about my background and affiliations.

One interesting aspect of the ethanol debate is that people who are on the 'same side' of most Green issues, like hybrids, global warming, SUVs, conservation, renewable energy, and so forth, still seem to split over ethanol. Perhaps it's a topic where reasonable, educated people can honestly come to different conclusions. So let's not sling mud- the oil companies, sleazy as they are, do not buy everyone off! ... and big agro-business companies can be pretty sleazy, too. When two big industries sit on opposite side of an issue, neither side is going to be as pure as the driven snow, and it's usually nice to know who paid for any research study you see.

So this is what I think. I think that using corn to make ethanol is not a terribly smart way to deal with energy problems. Though the problems with using oil as our main energy source are legion, our dependence on corn (in food as well as in energy) is also terribly problematic, and increasing that dependence would be a mistake.

This opinion is terribly unpopular in a corn state like Illinois, but as I have not come by it recently, I think it is relatively unshaped by the ethanol debate. I think I would have described myself as more 'pro-corn' before 2002, when I read a NY Times op-ed by Michael Pollan, author and Berkeley professor (bio on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pollan) which struck me so forcibly that ever since, I have often read stories on the subject of corn and agricultural subsidies, and I have tried to follow the legislation for and against them over the last several years.

The title of the article was "When a Crop Becomes King" and it is worth reading in its entirety, though I will not copy it all here. A link is at:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...54C0A9649C8B63. One critical portion, relevant to this discussion, is as follows.
If this is anywhere near true, and I tend to suspect it is, then the effect of this information on the ethanol debate could not be bigger. The other assertions in Pollan's work are even more alarming, in some ways. If anyone who thinks that corn-based ethanol is the only possible energy solution has a way to counter his points, I would be interested in hearing about it.