The National Journal reports that the push to expand corn based ethanol production has led corn growers to convert wetlands into corn fields in order to expand revenue.
I'm sure farmers can handle the predictable opposition from environmentalists, but since 70% of the nation's duck's are hatched in these wetlands, I'm not sure they'd like to take on hunters. Fewer ducks, fewer ducks to hunt.
Might the environmentalists want to cross lobby Duck's Unlimited?
I'm no expert on the subject--which doesn't mean I'm not qualified to start a Wikipedia page on it--but there's quite the debate on whether corn based ethanol is worth the trouble.
Con:
- CU scientist terms corn-based ethanol 'subsidized food burning'
- Corn-based ethanol not cheap, not green
- Corn-based ethanol: the biggest greenwash ever?
Pro:
- Corn-Based Ethanol Does Indeed Achieve Energy Benefits
- Industry Argues That Ethanol Delivers
Whatever the science tells us, the political science holds that once a subsidy is created, an issue network will develop to preserve and expand it. One way to expand a benefit is to redefine it so that it becomes the solution to an emerging problem. The problem is energy independence--or the lack of it. The solution is more corn.
Among the beneficiaries are the members of Congress who can hold onto their jobs because they can rightly point to the focused benefits they can bring to their districts.
So what of the hunters who might object to not having ducks to shoot? They will only be influential if they are either constituents of the members responsible for the additional corn production or can somehow mobilize sympathetic constituents against them. Tough to do if the constituents are counting incoming cash from these projects.
It's a classic negative externality. Costs are passed on to people not involved in the actual transaction.
I predict conflict down the line.
