Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal

"[S]upport for corn ethanol seems to be ebbing in Congress. As political news goes, this is of the miracle variety, but apparently the market distortions caused by ethanol mandates are finally having an impact... Let's review: the House energy bill taxes oil to subsidize ethanol, drawing Senate opposition, while the Senate bill forces U.S. consumers to buy more ethanol, drawing House opposition. Seems to us that the two chambers could simply agree that expanding on the already enormous subsidies for ethanol is a costly mistake and go home to enjoy Thanksgiving dinner, but we don't pretend to fully understand the ways of Congress. What we do understand is that opposition to corn-based ethanol from environmentalists has Speaker Nancy Pelosi seeking a rewrite of the Senate's mandate. As the speaker attempts to fashion a stripped-down bill that can move in both houses, the House's tax-and-subsidy scheme for ethanol also doesn't appear to be part of the package. And with good reason. Last month, the National Academy of Sciences reported on the impact of ethanol production on water supplies. A University of Iowa professor chaired the report committee, so Big Corn might have hoped for a home-court advantage. But NAS reported that, 'in some areas of the country, water resources are already significantly stressed... Increased biofuels production will likely add pressure to the water management challenges the nation already faces as biofuels drive changing agricultural practices, increased corn production, and growth in the number of biorefineries.' When ethanol is criticized by scientists at Iowa's two largest state universities, you have to wonder who is for it."