As any Midwest farmer could tell you, “knee high by the Fourth of July” was the handy measurement for a healthy corn crop. But for backers of corn-based ethanol, those stalks could grow to the moon by Mother’s Day and it still wouldn’t be enough. Face it, corn-based ethanol is a failure, both environmentally and financially. The evidence is clear, whether policymakers want to believe it or not.

Don’t take my word for it. According to a recent study led by biologist Robert Jackson, a professor of Global Environmental change at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, using corn to produce fuel is an “inefficient and expensive greenhouse gas migration policy.”

Proponents of ethanol made from corn say that it produces from 13 to 20 percent fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline. And it does. However, the Duke study, which was published in the March edition of the research journal Ecological Applications, looked deeper into land-use issues that arise from corn production and concluded that stepped-up corn ethanol production will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions—as well as soil erosion and water pollution. Simply put, the report concludes that an increase in emissions on the farm will cancel out any benefit from emission decreases at the tailpipe.

Ethanol’s financial problems run even deeper. According to May Wu, a fuel and vehicle system analyst working for Argonne National Laboratory, which studies ethanol for the U.S. Department of Energy, the fuel’s money problems are two-fold. “Between the low-cost gasoline and the recession, very few people want to buy ethanol or invest in its production,” says Wu. “The situation is not good — 23 plants have closed this year alone.”

Now the kings of corn are pushing Washington to force automakers to redesign cars to handle even more ethanol. They’d love every car to burn E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. The problem is that it will kill your mileage by up to 34 percent, according to Wu.

Read: 
Biodiesel Becoming Mainstream

To those who stand to profit from corn-based ethanol production, more ethanol means billions more in tax giveaways, courtesy of a 51 cent federal subsidy on every gallon of automotive moonshine they can produce. (Ethanol is simply high-proof ethyl alcohol for your car.) The corn pushers have gorged on more than $50 billion in subsidies since 1995, more than the price of the ongoing auto bailout.

Enough is enough. It’s time to chop these federal freeloaders off at the knees. President Barack Obama, in a recent speech to Congress, talked about cutting agriculture subsidies to big growers who don’t need them. Yet he also promised to double the amount of renewable fuels produced over the next three years.

But here’s the thing: Those goals are diametrically opposed, unless our leaders admit the folly of brewing ethanol from corn. And since the government remains fixated on increasing biofuel production, let’s at least hold them to the terms of the deal: The idea was that cellulosic ethanol — the kind made from waste such as corn stubble, switchgrass, wood chips or municipal garbage, which is the best choice because land-use issues do not factor into the equation — would help replace ethanol from corn, a precious, pricey, energy-intensive food crop.

Discuss: 
Would you buy a car that runs on ethanol?

That hasn’t happened. While cellulosic ethanol has made steady strides, the technology remains in laboratory limbo. And the Duke report noted that a cost-effective technology to convert cellulosics to ethanol may be years away. Startups have ramped up small demonstration plants that produce a trickle of cellulosic fuel, using patented strains of bacteria and enzymes to break carbon-rich feedstock into usable fuel. But these companies aren’t even close to meeting a federal mandate for large-scale production. Nor have these companies proved they can create the fuel at a price that’s competitive with gasoline.