Lean, green and not mean

WHEN John McCain laid out his plans for reducing America's dependence on oil to an audience in California on June 23rd, the candidate's keenest listeners were 6,000 miles away in São Paulo. Mr McCain argued that the tariff on imported ethanol of 54 cents per gallon should be scrapped. Others in the Senate (though not Barack Obama) are pushing for it to be reduced. Either way, the case against the tariff has been strengthened by high oil prices and by the June floods that damaged the mid-western corn (maize) crop. That sent corn prices soaring and made subsidising corn to produce ethanol look like an even worse idea than it did before, given the greener, cheaper ethanol that the United States could buy from Brazil instead.

America's thirst for ethanol is set to grow in line with targets in last year's Energy Independence and Security Act. Brazil would like to sell more to Europe and Japan too. Yet just when it seems poised to reduce the world's dependence on oil, its largely sugar-based ethanol industry stands accused of being less wonderful than it looks. Campaign groups lump it together with biofuels elsewhere, which they blame for raising food prices. Some environmentalists claim that Brazilian farmers have torn up forest to plant cane. Some media reports allege ill-treatment of farm workers. More prosaically, some American officials question how much ethanol Brazil can supply.