It happens on a daily basis in Ames. It’s a symbol of Washington pork barrel spending. It claims to be environmentally friendly, yet does relatively little to change the fundamental problem our country faces.

What I’m talking about is the daily fueling of our automobiles with home-grown gasoline, proudly made in Iowa.

To say that ethanol is a cleaner fuel is debatable, since Cornell University Professor David Pimentel claims that the production and processing of ethanol uses more energy than it produces.

In ethanol’s defense, the American Coalition for Ethanol reports using ethanol blends is the equivalent of removing 853,000 automobiles from the road. This number seems significant until you look at the fact there are approximately 180 million passenger vehicles in the United States.

In comparison, hybrid vehicles can reduce emissions as much as half simply by doubling fuel efficiency. It’s comparable to 90 million vehicles removed from the streets, rather than a meager 853,000. Hybrid vehicles, unlike battery operated vehicles use, a mixed gasoline/battery fuel system, meaning you don’t have to plug it in.

However, it should be noted that full electric cars would be primarily water-powered vehicles in Canada, since hydroelectric power is Canada’s primary source of energy. Perhaps the ethanol subsidies would be put to better use by providing more incentives for purchasing and developing hybrid automobiles or focus on a long- term solution by moving toward a hydrogen economy.

The U.S. government already provides a $4,000 tax deduction for an electric car and allows a $2,000 deduction for hybrid vehicles. Seriously, who wouldn’t want to save that kind of money on a brand new vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon?

Money back and fewer stops at the gas pump mean a huge impact on environmental emissions, our dependency on foreign sources of oil and the wallets of the American people.

If the government spent the ethanol subsidies on hybrid vehicles, it could replace 700,000 vehicles each year. Over three years, hybrid vehicles would accomplish more than ethanol — which has taken 30 years of government incentives to achieve — has ever achieved.

If you’ve accomplished reading through so many numbers, you’re probably wondering what the point is. Well, there is a far more bigger problem that is peeking its head into the ethanol debate. Cargill announced this summer that it was considering importing ethanol produced from cheaper Brazilian sugar.

By exploiting a tax loophole allowing for Caribbean nations to export ethanol products to the United States without the 54-cent duty on imported ethanol, Cargill can begin what we know as outsourcing the American ethanol industry.

In the end, ethanol subsidies cost the federal government billions of dollars with little real effect on the problems the subsidy originally wanted to solve. Ethanol is not a long-term answer to America’s energy policy.

When petroleum goes, so will ethanol. This is just one spending problem our politicians in Washington can’t seem to keep under wraps.

Though $1.4 billion barely puts a dent in the estimated $422 billion budget deficit, ethanol is only one of the countless spending items the government lets pass.

The liberal in me would point out that the party in power claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Maybe we shouldn’t care about the deficit, but eventually the interest on America’s loans will become so great that we are forced to cut back on all kinds of government spending, including defense and Medicare, to pay for today’s deficits.

When that day comes in 15 years, our generation will be the ones asking if ethanol was really worth it.