One solution to this country's severe dependence on foreign oil lies with a component of beer and liquor — a molecule responsible for intoxicating college students and contributing to their penchant to skip Friday morning classes. Christened "ethanol" by chemists, this combustible alcohol partially replaces gasoline as an automotive fuel. Employing fermentation techniques similar to those of the liquor industry, American ethanol plants convert corn into fuel, allowing the United States to grow its own fuel. As Gov. Doyle said, according to a press release from the governor's office, ethanol makes America "more dependent on the Midwest and less dependent on the Mideast." Nevertheless, too many politicians exaggerate ethanol's role in weaning the United States from foreign oil. Despite estimates that a mere 16-20 percent of the country's current fuel needs could be satisfied by converting 100 percent of the current corn production into ethanol, many podium pounders advocate ethanol mandate laws that would require automotive fuel to contain 10 percent ethanol. These political figures care little about your rights and satisfaction as a consumer. An ethanol mandate would force you to buy ethanol in order to fulfill your fuel needs, even if gasoline is cheaper than ethanol, your car engine performs better on gasoline than ethanol or you want to avoid polluting the air with NOx emissions from ethanol. Moreover, an ethanol mandate is unnecessary if ethanol is a better fuel than gasoline. Consumers will actively purchase ethanol if it achieves more miles per dollar, extends engine life, and supports American agriculture and renewable energy instead of Saudi princes and big oil. An ethanol mandate especially hurts Wisconsin's animal agriculture by artificially inflating the demand for corn, an important daily staple for livestock. As more and more corn is fermented into ethanol, corn prices increase due to supply and demand. According to a release from Gary Schnitkey, a farm financial specialist at the University of Illinois, "While exhibiting variability, corn prices did not trend up or down between 1973 and 2005 and averaged $2.35 per bushel." Since last summer, corn prices have climbed to $4 per bushel, and many economists are telling farmers to get used to high corn prices. Although other grains, including distillers' grains, may be fed to livestock, there is no substitute equivalent to corn. Due to high prices, cash croppers will grow more corn, but crop acreage and land productivity have upper limits. Additional corn production comes at the cost of other crops, such as soybeans. Soybeans are another important input for animal agriculture. As cash croppers plant corn instead of soybeans, soybean inventories decrease and soybean prices increase. High grain prices result in a combination of decreased profit margins for Wisconsin farmers and increased beef, pork and dairy prices for Wisconsin families. Ethanol mandates sacrifice animal farmers' livelihoods and families' low food costs in the name of renewable fuel. Despite the economic inefficiencies, Wisconsin Democrats and Republicans find an ethanol mandate very appealing. Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, kicked off the new year by announcing a bill that would require 10 percent of motor fuels sold in Wisconsin come from renewable sources like ethanol and biodiesel by 2008. This minimum standard would increase to 15 percent by 2012. In order for a bill to become Wisconsin law, the state's Assembly, Senate and governor must approve it. During the previous session, the Assembly voted 54-38 in favor of AB15, a bill requiring regular unleaded gasoline to contain between 9.2 to 10 percent ethanol. If such a bill were on the Assembly floor today, it would pass handily. However, a bipartisan coalition of state senators narrowly killed the same bill in a 17-15 vote last March. During the November elections, two Republican senators who opposed ethanol mandates were replaced and the Democratic Party seized majority control. The result is a Senate that probably favors ethanol mandates. Our governor is a lush when it comes to ethanol mandates. In August, Gov. Doyle and U.S. Rep. Ron Kind released a joint statement supporting a higher federal renewable fuels standard that called for 7 percent renewable fuel use by 2010 and 20 percent renewable fuel use by 2015. Unfortunately for Wisconsin, politicians can score big political points through supporting ethanol mandates. Democrats can expand their image as crusaders for renewable energy, the environment and the downtrodden, while simultaneously positioning Republicans as in bed with big oil and insensitive to the needs of the lower and middle classes. On the other hand, by denying the tenets of capitalism, Republicans can distance themselves from oil companies and the bourgeoisie. Shrewd politics does not necessarily produce good public policy. Ethanol is an exciting renewable fuel that can meet some of our fuel needs, but it has its limits. By imposing ethanol mandates, public officials ignore the limits of ethanol at the cost of the public's well-being. To act in Wisconsin's best interests, state officials should oppose ethanol mandates while promoting further research into renewable energy. Ryan Scannell ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in Biochemistry and Agricultural Business Management