Obama’s ambiguity on corn-based ethanol has evoked apprehension in the scientific world. If he wants to remain consistent with his liberal agenda and goals of positive change, he will have to yield to the scientists in his cabinet—thereby removing himself and politically-tied Cabinet members from the energy-resolution process. But when Obama appointed former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack—with his partiality towards corn ethanol—as the new Secretary of Agriculture, it highlighted a potential for extremely worrisome energy policy.

Scientists have long concluded that corn-ethanol does not work. Over a decade of studies have revealed the greenhouse emissions released by corn ethanol are similar to those of gasoline, with the most generous approximations estimating only a 30 percent decrease in greenhouse gases. The growth and production of the corn requires transportation, fertilizer, herbicide, and insecticide, as well as the operation of tractors and other farming equipment—all which requires fossil fuel. The conversion of corn into ethanol through industrial fermentation, chemical processing, and distillation then uses additional amounts of fossil fuels. But most noticeably on the world screen: corn ethanol raises the price of food.

Neither Obama, nor his newly-appointed Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, have stood up to this dangerous and unsustainable policy. In 2005, Obama explained to an Indianapolis crowd during the primaries why he had backed the subsidies: “Look, I've been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois ... is a major corn producer.” But he has stealthily switched his stated position a number of times, explaining to non-Midwestern crowds that ethanol would is a transitional option and that he prefers more efficient biofuels such as switch grass.

Vilsack, however, has been more in solid support of corn ethanol. This was especially true during his reign as governor of Iowa—a state which leads the nation in production of corn, soybeans, and hogs. Now as Secretary of Agriculture, Vilsack indicated he will continue his support of ethanol mandates and subsidization, proclaiming during the Press Conference after his appointment that his focus lay on “improving profitability for farmers and ranchers and expanding opportunities in the rural communities in which they live.”
In the Press Conference after the Vilsack appointment, Obama ominously boasted: “Tom understands that the solution to our energy crisis will be found not in oil fields abroad but in our farm fields here at home.” The president is politically obliged, answering to a Congress steered heavily by the ‘corn caucus,’ and the Secretary of Agriculture is constrained by those he principally represents—agricultural workers. National pragmatism in the realm of energy policy is not within these positions’ line of incentive, either as an electorally-accountable first-term president, or as a Secretary of Agriculture; it is only by luck if Obama and Vilsack make such choices. Therefore, in the grand-scheme of energy politics, these men are theoretically less credible on decisions of efficiency and environmental salvaging.

Therefore, in the energy discussion, scientist experts should not only chime in—but take control. Obama’s scientist appointments such as John Holdren to the director of Science and Technology and Jane Lubchenco to director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Policy signify Obama’s desire to shift to a scientific, expert-based administration—for which Obama should be rightfully lauded. But now he must let these appointees apply their expertise and move the new administration away from political and interest-based pressures: forces which have been holding Washington and America back from progress and achievement.
The most promising scientific appointment, Stephen Chu to Secretary of Energy, best brings hope for a movement away from corn ethanol toward a progressive energy agenda. Given his Nobel-prize winning background in science, it is not surprising that Chu has been an avidly outspoken opponent of corn-based ethanol. Chu’s arguments against corn ethanol are fact-based and rational, such as his 2005 statement about its inefficiency. He continued that corn ethanol is “a good idea for corn farmers, because they get subsidized, but it's not a good deal for the world.” This practical large-scale perspective is exactly what is needed in a residential Cabinet member.

Chu has even promised to bring the cellulosic dream closer to a reality—orchestrating the $500 million research program with BP PLC (formerly British Petroleum). Cellulosic biofuels would use the whole plant and thus increase the yield and reduce the carbon footprint significantly. Chu has spear-headed a solution, rather than simply wishing this discovery along while letting unsustainable corn-ethanol take over the energy sector. Hopefully, as not only Secretary of Energy, but also an internationally respected Nobel Prize Laureate, Chu will be entrusted with the most important energy decisions of the Obama Administration.