Biofuels are not particularly efficient, nor are they particularly clean. The ethanol craze is more the product of farm lobby excitement than political or environmental pragmatism. Unfortunately, the 2006 energy bill frames ethanol as America's ticket to energy independence.  Let's forget that the escalated production of ethanol over the past few years intensified the effects of the global food crisis.

While we should further investigate the potential of sugar ethanol and cellulosic fuels, more commitments must be made to investigate fuel-cell technologies and the possibilities of wind and hydrogen. The bill purports to be comprehensive. However, it prioritizes the least efficient (and most heavily lobbied) type of new fuel. Moreover, the bill is weak.  It does not wield the teeth for auto companies to change their ways or for research institutions to make it their project to move this conversation from commitment to action.  Frustration teems as we read this bill and find broad commitment after broad commitment. Where is the action? A few million are earmarked here and there, but the innovation is absent. When we craft our next so-called omnibus energy package, we must include more concrete measures.  Let's invest in projects, not objectives.

I support the grant programs contained within the bill.  However, the process by which these grants are distributed must be uniform and transparent. It seems as if the strongest lobbyists will find it easiest to attract funding. This must not be the case. Just as the Baucus Health Plan would create a board of experts to determine the protocol for determining “affordable health plans,” so too must experts allot these grant monies to projects that demonstrate foresight and innovative thinking.