Corn. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons.

The measure, which required only 60 votes to pass, enjoyed bipartisan support, with 33 Republicans and 38 Democrats voting in favor of it.

According to Bloomberg: "'We need to look at ways that we can bring the budget deficit down,” said Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat who said poultry producers in the eastern part of his state are facing higher prices for corn because of ethanol production. “Repealing unnecessary subsidies should clearly be at the top of our list.'”

But is the elimination of ethanol subsidies a victory or a defeat for clean energy?

While many thought of ethanol as a clean alternative to petroleum, it’s possible that ethanol was never a viable solution to U.S. energy problems.

According to a 2007 article in Scientific American: “…A study published this week in the journal Environmental Science and Technology suggests that replacing our current gas-guzzlers with vehicles that burn ethanol would actually increase pollution and damage human health.”

In addition to potentially causing more pollution, ethanol does not possess the potential to truly supplant fuel oil.

USA Today reported in 2006: “Ethanol is far from a cure-all for the nation's energy problems. It's not as environmentally friendly as some supporters claim and would supply only 12% of U.S. motoring fuel — even if every acre of corn were used.”

Yet another argument against the production of ethanol is that it is a waste of land that should be used for food production.

“Not enough arable land remains to feed a projected 9.5 billion people by 2050,” according to an article by Dickson Despommier for Scientific American.

So, the elimination of ethanol subsidies may, in fact, be a victory for clean energy.

Since the Senate is eliminating costly, and possibly useless, subsidies, it may also be time for the Senate to phase out subsidies for corn.  It's food for thought.