Cross of Corn

The subject of King Corn's destructive iron grip on the United States can drive people a bit up the wall. Paul Krugman, for example, relates a rare bit of editorial interference from The New York Times:

However, I was told that I couldn’t use the lede I originally wrote for my column following the 2007 State of the Union address, in which Bush made ethanol the centerpiece of his energy strategy: “Before the State of the Union address, there had been hints and hopes that President Bush would offer a serious plan to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Instead, however, he took refuge in alcohol.”

Similarly, when I was in Chuck Schumer's office we were putting together some anti-ethanol talking points for Schumer to use in a committee hearing or on the senate floor or something and I wanted to include something about how "you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of corn" but that was deemed (correctly) to be over the top. Still, this is what happens when an uncontroversially correct policy argument, widely agreed to by experts from all ideological points of view, runs headlong into a deadly mix of special interest politics and America's idiosyncratic corn-boosting political institutions.

Photo by Flickr user edcrowle used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I remain convinced that we should move the Massachuetts primary up in the schedule, if only to see billions of dollars in subsidies for the development of a cranberry powered car

Posted by Jack | February 22, 2008 10:20 AM

Seriously? King Corn's power is the reason the Times won't let Krugman imply that Bush is a drunk?

Posted by right | February 22, 2008 10:22 AM

"you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of corn"

I'll have what he's smoking.

Posted by goethean | February 22, 2008 10:24 AM

Yep. I work at a university in Illinois, and the power of Corn really does constrain the kind of discussions we can have. As a member of the chattering classes I know that corn-based ethanol is not a real solution to our problems. But locally, that insight is pretty much unspeakable.

This is why I think cellulosic ethanol is such a good idea. Even if, environmentally, it's not all that much better, it has the huge political advantage of offering a way to wean our agricultural politics away from Corn.

Posted by Ted | February 22, 2008 10:27 AM

"Keep your head, work hard, bribe the right people, and the chumps will tumble."

It's the American Dream.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 22, 2008 10:33 AM

Terrific solution to high energy prices- burn food in our cars so we raise food prices instead.

Posted by Helter | February 22, 2008 10:37 AM

Neither of those seem like examples of King Corn censorship. The first seems obviously to be an objection to joking about Bush's alcoholism. The second is about how few readers will get the allusion, and how they might view it as somehow religiously offensive. Corn is irrelevant.

Posted by KCinDC | February 22, 2008 10:41 AM

"you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of corn"

I love it. I can see shumi's reluctance given his ethnic background but a Catholic Senator in good standing should pick up that line and run with it.

A cross of corn. It's a keeper.

Posted by Northern Observer | February 22, 2008 10:42 AM

The whole ethanol thing sucks, and all, and it'd be nice if there were some high-prestige, high-profile, high-quality evaluation of the budget to highlight this kind of garbage. But it's really not the worst thing in the world. It's pretty minuscule, in the grand scheme of things. Harping on this is kind of like being obsessed with earmarks, isn't it?

Also, Krugman's line was squashed because it's pretty insensitive to a former alcoholic. The sinister tentacles of King Corn had nothing to do with it.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 22, 2008 10:43 AM

The Williams Jennings Bryan connection is nice too. Not sure if everyone caught that.
Someone was obviously awake during American History 301.

Posted by Northern Observer | February 22, 2008 10:46 AM

Look, if you piss off the corn people you have to answer to He Who Walks Behind the Rows. So, this is all pretty understandable.

Posted by nitpicker | February 22, 2008 10:46 AM

SSSsssilence! We do not sspeak of him in public!

Posted by from Illinois | February 22, 2008 10:52 AM

Bio-based fuels are not environmentally "worse" than fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel: You take carbon from under the ground, oxidize it, put it in the air. Net increase in carbon in the atmosphere.

Biobased diesel or ethanol: You take carbon from plants, put it in the air. Where does that carbon come from? FROM THE AIR. It's a (small) net decrease in carbon dioxide in the air, since it's not 100% combustion.

Now there are all kinds of issues around supply, cost of food increasing, etc. But you can't discount it because of the environmental impact. biobased fuel is CO2 neutral, in the holistic sense.

Posted by Me | February 22, 2008 10:57 AM

America is going from 225 million in 1973 to 300 million today to 438 million in 2050 (US Census est.) due to mass invasion/immigration.

While that continues, the added "capita" of new arriving Pedros, Marias, and Abdullahs then their "reunified relatives" and descendents more than wipes out all per capita energy conservation savings and oil substitutes now on the table in America.

Leaving us more coal, more nukes as the only solution other than stopping the swarming here of the wretched refuse from other countries teeming shores.

Next time someone points out the wonders of switchgrass, mention that will cover the energy needs of 5 million of the 138 million new arriving Juans and Marias between now and 2050.

Energy savings from outlawing incandescent lightbulbs? Enough to allow clan-related chain migration from Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Palestine for 3 months.

Posted by chris ford | February 22, 2008 11:04 AM

Me, thank goodness all that corn springs up from the ground all by itself. High intensity agriculture is called "high intensity" for a reason--agrarian fantasy aside, agriculture takes a shitload of energy and has significant environmental impact

Posted by Jack | February 22, 2008 11:11 AM

"Instead, however, he took refuge in alcohol."

That's the best line I've heard winding up on the NYT spike since Molly Ivins' legendary "gang pluck."

Posted by Doug | February 22, 2008 11:11 AM

"you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of corn"

Maybe it is a little over the top, but more importantly it's just strange. What in the world would a cross of corn look like? A cross of gold at least brings to mind a serious image.

Corn cobs? Corn stalks? Compressed Corn Pops?

Posted by Colatina | February 22, 2008 11:12 AM

Similarly, when I was in Chuck Schumer's office we were putting together some anti-ethanol talking points for Schumer to use

Name-dropper.

Posted by broder | February 22, 2008 11:12 AM

What Krugman proposed to do was despicable. I strongly dislike President Bush's policies, and do not think much of him personally, but he deserves a lot of credit for quitting drinking. Maybe not as much as he gives himself, but still.

That's not editorial interference. That's editing. If Krugman's proud of himself for that line, he should go to hell.

Posted by David B. | February 22, 2008 11:15 AM

I too like the W.J.B. Cross of Gold speech reference, but perhaps there is a closer analogue? You know they once derided Bob Dole as being "Senator Ethanol". Just be wary of them using terms like "liberty corn". That's when you know it is all over.

Posted by freddiemac | February 22, 2008 11:17 AM

Me, thank goodness all that corn springs up from the ground all by itself. High intensity agriculture is called "high intensity" for a reason--agrarian fantasy aside, agriculture takes a shitload of energy and has significant environmental impact - Jack

That's why, as fun as it is to make fun of his "kid who learned a new word/concept" way of talking about it, GW Bush was on to something when he was talking about switchgrass (GW Bush onto something? ... oy, I feel so ... dirty ... just for having written that): if you can get bio-fuel from a weed that just kinda grows, Me's agrian fantasy becomes closer to being true.

Posted by DAS | February 22, 2008 11:22 AM

the fact that Matt was a Schumer staffer explains so very much. Thanks for the insight.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | February 22, 2008 11:25 AM

Elvis -

It's not necessarily the amount of the subsidies for ethanol that's at issue. It's the fact that the financial incentive to grow corn for ethanol has driven up not only the price of corn but also the price of wheat (twice as much as it was last year at this time) and likely other crops. That situation will only get worse the longer we subsidize. On top of that, it's now clear that there's no net greenhouse gas reduction from making ethanol when land conversion is factored in. That leaves "energy independence" as the only real defense for ethanol, which is a laughable one given the actual degree of substitution that's occurring.

Posted by Kurzbein | February 22, 2008 11:28 AM

I think right, and David B. have it backward: Krugman's line about alcoholic drink was not quashed because of corn. His line about corn ethanol was crushed because of alcoholic drink. As well it should have been. Maybe Krugman didn't see it; maybe he did. But if you look at the post Matt is citing, he is openly criticizing ethanol on Times bandwidth, so I don't think that's the interference in question.

Matt's point about "up the wall" was in reference to both his and Krugman's over the top way of talking about the stupid, stupid way we subsidize agriculture. Come on now, folks.

Posted by jhupp | February 22, 2008 11:54 AM

I agree that corn interests have too much power, but I think your 2 examples are poor ones. As someone else already mentioned, Krugman's comment, though witty, is making a reference to Bush' alcohol problem, and thus was probably deemed to be in poor taste. And as you admit, your "cross of corn" is a bit much. I think you could have come up with much more convincing examples.

Posted by beckya57 | February 22, 2008 12:26 PM

Jim Cramer has used cross of ethanol and cross of corn multiple times a week for months now on Mad Money. He's subversively left wing--even marxist--for a guy who's job is to give people financial advice.

Also used on Mad Money--"raise less corn and more hell!" Without Google or Wikipedia--who'd that come from?

Posted by Cliff Mason | February 22, 2008 12:33 PM

Fascinating that Krugman was not allowed to use that lede, but as numerous commentators above have said, it was an unfair personal attack on Bush for drinking, when Bush doesn't drink.

Would Krugman have been allowed to use the word "ethanol" instead of "alcohol?" Probably. Would it have been as effective? Well, it wouldn't have been as insulting, but Krugman's underlying point was absolutely true -- in fact, speculators ran up prices on some alternative fuels and methods before the speech, but gave up those gains after the speech. And the ethanol lede makes that point forcefully, with just a hint of the underlying insult. So it might have clicked.

But it's a minor and debatable misstep on Krugman's part. Bush by contrast blew another good opportunity to lead us into the future. Not because he's a drunk, but because he's an idiot.

Posted by Kit Stolz | February 22, 2008 1:38 PM

Not mentioned so far about the "cross of corn": the iron grip of corn is bad not only because it leads to useless corn biofuel, but because subsidized corn leads to using corn as cattlefeed, which leads to dosing cattle with antibiotics to help them deal with a food they can't really handle. So, corn is used inefficiently, leads to artificially cheap meat, and to a giant scheme for evolving anti-biotic-resistant bacteria. Plus, artificially cheap corn means artificially cheap corn syrup, leading to more obesity and dental problems, and inferior-tasting soda.

Posted by Ken C. | February 22, 2008 2:03 PM

Ken C. "Plus, artificially cheap corn means artificially cheap corn syrup, leading to... inferior-tasting soda."

As a soft drink afficionado, I've thought that it would be better to drink cane sugar cokes instead of corn syrup cokes. But I've met those who say the opposite. At any rate, drinking coke out of glass rather than plastic probably does more for taste than corn or cane sweetner.

Do you have personal experience with the comparison?

Posted by Colatina | February 22, 2008 2:18 PM

I didn't read the links but if this is about that recent Revelation peddling the idea that production of biofuels churns out more C02 than oil (or whatever) it's a silly argument; some people on the left just don't like biofuels.

At first they said biofuels were a bad idea because food prices would rise neglecting to mention that thousands of American small and family farms continue to go under every year because of crop/commodity deflation.

Now they say that decomposing waste from land clearing and ag burning emits more C02 than oil. I don't doubt it but it's also the case that there are great alternatives to both: mulching. And mulching incentives are likely to increase for farmers as the particulate matter problem - especially - in ag regions and surrounding area continues to worsen.

My old 300sd likes corn oil just fine and so do I.

Posted by Linus | February 22, 2008 8:27 PM

Biofuels, (assuming adequate economies of scale for both cost and environmental technology) are atmospheric carbon neutral, (at worst, every model I've seen sees a net decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere, which equilibrates in 100 years). When the switch is made, all that energy used for ag production? comes from biobased fuel.

You have to consider any change in relative, not absolute terms.

Industrial agriculture has a large environmental impact, yes. Is it larger than oil production/exploration?

Again, you should also factor in all costs. We currently "subsidize" oil production through foreign adventures. Will we bomb the shit out of people to grow trees in the Dakotas?

These are huge, interconnected problems, and they need good cost analysis. We're not getting away from a hydrocarbon based energy system for a very long time.

Of the choices, I prefer cellulosic ethanol, since it'll be the best to, one day at least, use for production of plastics and other polymers.

Posted by Me | February 22, 2008 10:04 PM

That was a pretty funny line Matt - Schumer should have used it. There would have been no downside. It was not over the top. It was funny and pointed and it would have gotten news. Any negative reaction would have come from the type of people you want attacking you.

Posted by Comment | February 22, 2008 10:49 PM

Would Schumer have objected to "Do not press down upon the brow of labor this cob of corn"?

Ahh, well.

Moving away from Schumer, what about this:

Support Next Generation Biofuels

* Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
* Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.

...

* Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.

Odd that Krugman blames only Bush, and missed a chance to bash Obama. Not that I think Hillarity is any better on that subject; let's file it under "Change We Can Believe Won't Happen".

Posted by Tom Maguire | February 23, 2008 8:49 AM

As the son of a farmer, I can tell you that it takes enormous resources to produce a corn crop. Huge amounts of fertilizer, herbicide, diesel fuel, gasoline, engine and machinery lubricants including, motor oil, gear oil, transmission fluid, grease, additives, plastics and tires, all of which require oil to produce.

It also requires a great deal of expensive machinery, including tractors, with their various attachments, combines trucks and storage facilities, all of which require continuous maintenance and repair. And lastly and most importantly corn production requires topsoil, a very limited resource that cannot be replaced once it is entirely depleted.

It makes sense to put these kind of resources into producing food for humans and animals, it does not make sense to expend something on the order of 10 times the energy that is required to get oil out of the earth and process it into fuel, to produce a food product, and then burn that food source in our engines. It's a dead end for energy and resources. High quality food product like corn and the resources needed to produce it should be reserved for consumption by living things. Until we are able to produce ethanol from farm waste it will continue to be a very unwise route to pursue for our energy needs.

I appreciate the fact that ethanol is helping out a lot of farmers in America, my father is one of them, his corn was virtually worthless before the ethanol boom, costing him more to produce than it returned with the old prices of $1.80 a bushel, but I can't ignore the fact that it is a closed highly subsidized artificial market that is reducing our grain surpluses in a way that raises the cost of food for consumers and feed for livestock producers, and is depleting our grain reserves that we may need if there is a food shortage in the near future. It's time to rethink our commitment to ethanol.

Ethanol Demand in U.S. Adds to Food, Fertilizer Costs (Update3)

Increased demand for the grain helped boost food pricesby 4.9 percent last year, the most since 1990, and will reduce global inventories of corn to the lowest in 24 years, government data show. While advocates say ethanol is cleaner than gasoline, a Princeton University study this month said it causes more environmental harm than fossil fuels.

``We are mandating and subsidizing something that is distorting the marketplace,'' said Cal Dooley, a former U.S. congressman from California, who represents companies including Kraft Foods Inc. and General Mills Inc. as president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association in Washington. ``There are no excess commodities, and prices are rising.''

Posted by Aaron B. Brown | February 23, 2008 12:49 PM