According to the Des Moines Register, the state of Iowa is seriously considering a proposal that would require all Iowa service stations to sell only gasoline blended with ethanol.

While this seem like a good idea for impoverished farmers, it amounts to little more than a welfare plan that is of no benefit to you or me.

The new rule, which is supported by Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge, Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin and Governor Tom Vilsack, illustrates just how incompetent our leaders truly are. Instead of looking at scientific fact and understanding the implications of this ethanol proposal, they are giving into a consortium of special interests whose wants come at the expense of everyone else.

The petition passed around by the Iowa Farm Bureau and Iowa Corn Growers Association states that ethanol will “improve our economy, particularly the farm and rural economy, and it will improve the quality of gasoline for Iowa motorists and improve the environment for our citizens.

It will also reduce our dependence on foreign energy (Des Moines Register, Sept. 12, 1999).”

Ron Parker, a spokesman for the governor, said the move would make Iowa a leader in terms of ethanol use and would create more demand for corn, thus helping farmers.

While that statement is true because more demand for corn will pad the pockets of Iowa farmers, the mandate is nothing more than state-directed farm production.

Perhaps we should adopt the old “five-year” plan of the late Soviet Union while we’re at it?

It is easy to understand the plight of regional farmers whose exports dropped the second the Asian financial crisis reduced demand overseas.

But trying to rectify the problem and secure votes from the farming community by mandating ethanol use is not a legitimate or honest way to do it.

First, this new proposal will limit your choice at the pumps by making all fuel blended with ethanol.

You may think this is okay because your actions are in the name of the state, but it is akin to banning Pepsi in Georgia just because Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta.

In both examples, the principles of a free market are undermined solely for that state’s personal greed.

Currently, only 40 percent of fuel sold in the state is blended with ethanol.

That means the clear majority of Iowans willingly choose non-ethanol fuels.

Since ethanol is only added to mid-grade gasoline, the difference is split between people who pay extra for premium and those who purchase the lowest grade.

Those who prefer to decide what gas they put in their cars will have their freedom of choice yanked out from under them in the worst possible way, and I question the legality of such a move.

Aside from reducing the availability of options for Iowa drivers and those traveling through this state, the claims made in the petition should be read carefully and understood.

First, they say that mandatory use of ethanol will improve our economy, particularly the farm and rural economies. This is true because we will be guaranteeing a subsidy for farmers, essentially setting up a new form of welfare.

Instead of allowing farmers to produce a product at a price determined by the economy that maximizes utility, we will be institutionalizing a lifestyle that cannot compete in today’s global economy. Maybe the state can mandate that every company have a political scientist on staff so I can be guaranteed a job for myself when I graduate.

The claim that ethanol will improve the quality of gasoline for our motorists is highly dubious, if not an outright lie.

That ethanol does not possess the same chemical properties as regular gasoline seems lost on everyone without a degree in chemistry. Ethanol reduces the energy released during the combustion process, producing more heat and vapor than normal gasoline.

This is not a huge problem in the winter, but in the summer it produces overheating and vapor lock.

The only way to avoid this problem is to use a non-ethanol fuel, which would be impossible if the new mandate is passed.

The biggest lie of the bunch, that this would reduce our dependence on foreign energy, is true only because you would be diluting the percentage of gasoline in every batch by at least ten percent.

This type of creative accounting may have its place in the calculating the national budget but is of little use to Iowans. To achieve the same amount of energy released you will still need to burn the same amount of gasoline.

The ethanol will just be filler, like breadsticks at an expensive restaurant. By this reasoning we should stretch our fuel supplies even more by adding water or lighter fluid.

The cleaner environment claim is true, which is what you would expect from burning ten percent less gasoline.

It is also what you would expect when you factor in all the cars no longer running, the victims of vapor lock and overheating.

While this may seem like a good thing in the short run, a long term view means that with fewer cars on the road the demand for ethanol will be reduced. Which means we will have to dream up a new subsidy for farmers.

The fact is that this new ethanol proposal is just a gimmick concocted by greedy farmers to alleviate economic problems caused by their own shortsightedness.

Their gain will come at the expense of everyone else, and all of the perceived benefits are fictitious.

---

Aaron Woell is a senior in political science from Bolingbrook, Ill. Ethanol is a tool of Satan!