The Kansas City star printed a point-counterpoint yesterday that tries to answer this question: "Is increased use of corn-based ethanol a good idea?" Well, guess what? The pro response does now contain a convincing argument for corn ethanol. They don't even try.
On the "Yes" side (from the The Hutchinson (Kan.) News), the column is simply in favor of ethanol in general (all cars should be E85-capable, there should be more consumer awareness of ethanol). OK, but what about corn? We all know that cellulosic ethanol holds a lot of promise, but this point-counterpoint is specifically about corn ethanol. When Kansas can't come up with any good talking points for the farmer's great yellow hope, then perhaps it's seriously time to kick the fuel down the road in favor of better alternatives.

On the "No" front (from the Raleigh (N.C.) News and Observer), the argument is one we're quite familiar with: the expansion of Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone," possibly due to ethanol use. This is not the only good argument against corn-based ethanol, but at least it answers the question at hand. We can certify that corn ethanol loses the Kansas round. I wonder how the debate will pan out in, say, Alaska?

[Source: Kansas City Star]

Help us improve our comments.
Share This Photo X