I do think it's good news that Tom Vilsack has expressed opposition to the tariff on Brazilian sugar cane. Corn ethanol is inefficient and only survives through subsidy. Cellulosic ethanol isn't ready. But if you want to make ethanol a bridge fuel, allowing Brazilian imports is the way to go. Wikipedia explains:
Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is far more efficient than the U.S. corn-based industry. Sugar cane ethanol has an energy balance 7 times greater than ethanol produced from corn. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol. U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Despite this cost differential in production, the U.S. does not import more Brazilian ethanol because of U.S. trade barriers corresponding to a tariff of 54-cent per gallon – a levy designed to offset the 51-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.
Corn ethanol, by contrast, is Agribusiness's get-rich-quick scheme masquerading as an energy policy.
