The debate over whether biofuels are good for the environment used to hinge on the credibility of studies published by David Pimentel, professor of ecology at Cornell University, who concluded that it took much more energy or fossil fuel to grow, transport, and process corn into ethanol than the ethanol could ever hope to replace as transportation fuel. A preponderance of other studies on the issue found the data and methods used by Pimentel to be suspect, and most concluded that biofuels generally, and corn ethanol specifi cally, have a positive net energy balance, and their use as a replacement for gasoline leads to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The recent sharp drop in commodity prices has increased producer interest in the new farm bill program called ACRE (Average Crop Revenue Election). If the prices currently indicated by the futures markets for the 2009 crop actually materialize, then corn, soybean, and wheat farmers have a good chance of receiving substantial ACRE payments. Farmers have until August 14 to enroll in ACRE so there is still time for farmers to determine if ACRE is better for them than traditional farm programs.

Consideration and subsequent passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by the U.S. House of Representatives focused attention on whether agriculture would be helped or hurt by the policy’s objective of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Even though Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, sought and obtained changes to the legislation that were favorable to agriculture, many farm groups came out in opposition to the bill. One example is the American Farm Bureau Federation, which estimated that U.S. net farm income would decrease by at least $5 billion per year by 2020. Other farm groups supported the legislation, including the National Wheat Growers Association, which found that the Peterson changes helped shape a policy that will “…ensure that agriculture has a place in any climate change legislation and that producers are able to reap potential benefi ts rather than just accept coming costs.”