Daily Herald editorial

Although it was more symbolic than effective, the Senate’s vote last week to phase out federal subsidies for ethanol production signaled a tremendous change in attitudes toward biofuels. Unfortunately, the symbolism was directed more at budget issues than at the core need for a coherent national energy policy.

Ethanol has long enjoyed nearly sacred status in Washington, continually gaining support — tax breaks, blending requirements, research grants and more — over the years. That senators from both parties voted to phase out help for ethanol was meant to be a sign that they are serious about trimming federal spending, and that more cuts may be ahead. (The vote won’t have a direct impact because the House is unlikely to pass a companion bill.)

What the vote didn’t appear to be was a much-needed step toward a coherent, rational federal energy policy.

Ethanol’s claim has long been that it is a cleaner fuel which reduces demand for foreign oil. In recent years, the fuel’s cost and questions about the wisdom of using foodstuffs for fuel have tarnished ethanol’s image most everywhere except the heart of corn-growing country. But if the Senate proposes to stop propping up ethanol, it offers no viable road forward on how America will wean itself off petroleum, whether foreign or domestic.

If the government indeed will stop supporting alternatives to petroleum, whether ethanol, wind, solar or others, what will it do to move off the gasoline standard? Fossil fuel supplies are inevitably decreasing, they are demonstrably bad for the atmosphere and people’s health. Yet there’s no clear plan for resolving that looming crisis.

Although it will be the hardest decision Congress faces over the next decade, it is high time for a national energy plan — one that addresses the role of ethanol and other fuels.