I don't know if I can convey this in words very well but am going to give it a try. This is something I have been thinking on for some time.

The anti-ethanol crowd says we should not be using food crops for fuel. Ignore all the proper and correct arguments against that idea for a short time and just go with the assumption they are right.

But even if they are right are they really right? (now you see where I am having trouble explaining this).

Let's go back to when ethanol came on line big time. At the time there was an excess of corn. Ethanol created demand. Farmers rose to the occasion and now we produce not only enough corn for all the food needs but create enough more corn for ethanol too.

But the argument goes if we were not using ethanol corn would be lots cheaper so meat prices would be lots cheaper. That is the logic the food vs fuel opponents use. But would meat be lots cheaper? Would corn farmers produce all the current production at great loss? Or would production drop to meet needs, just as it increased to meet needs when ethanol demand came on line?

There are lots of nuances to this debate. It could be argued that if we did not increase production initially to meet ethanol needs then our production costs might not be as high as they are today. Potentially lower input prices and land prices. We can't know any of that with any certainty.

Stay with me, I am getting to a point.

For the people worrying about using corn for ethanol instead of for food production they should be embracing ethanol. Ethanol is the reason we have learned to produce the enormous crop we produce today. They should think of it as an enhancement to supply management. At any point in the future should the need arise we could easily stop producing ethanol and divert that excess corn to food production. All it takes is the correct market signals. So the people that are worried about lack of enough food production should see ethanol as simply a temporary program to keep crop production at a capacity to where we should always have enough corn to supply any food (meat) needs at the drop of a hat. If there is a need for more food the production is already there. The market will divert it to food if and when the demand is there.

Clear as mud? They should be thanking ethanol for food security by enticing us to produce more than we need for current food needs.

I know. The argument sucks. But it makes as much sense as the idiotic food vs fuel debate. You don't see the opponents wearing polyester suits and shirts because cotton farmers are "starving children" or raising food prices because they are raising evil cotton instead of some food crop. Both crops are an industrial commodity. I'm just trying to fight fire with fire with an argument that might make sense to someone deranged.

John