The United States has been advocating a transition away from natural gases and fuel to alternative energy sources. One of the prime candidates the government and automobile companies have turned to is ethanol.

However, ethanol is extremely inefficient, strains the global food supply and is actually more detrimental to the environment than fossil fuels. Ethanol is not the solution to our international energy crisis.

Chevrolet has been advertising its new "ethanol-powered cars," and according to its Web site: "E85 ethanol fuel is a cleaner — burning mostly renewable fuel source made from mostly U.S. — grown biomaterial, such as corn or other grain products. It helps reduce greenhouse gases and can enhance the nation's economy and energy independence."

What Chevrolet and other automakers have overlooked is that the transition to corn from fossil fuels is not an economic or environmental decision but a political one.

The conversion process for making corn into ethanol is costly.

University of Minnesota researchers have found that the energy produced by this distilling process only yields a 25 percent gain, and most of that gain can be found in leftover corn used for animal feed. That means the energy and input for creating ethanol creates a gain that is only marginal for the amount of effort put in.

The environmental aspect is also not pretty. Most of the energy we use to convert the ethanol is fossil fuel, and the burning of ethanol itself produces carbon dioxide. So, when drivers use ethanol, they're really releasing carbon dioxide twice.

It's a misconception that ethanol does not produce or will reduce the carbon dioxide material that fossil fuels do.

The Web site of an ethanol distilling company, Midwest Ethanol Company, states that: "From the ethanol manufacturing process MEP will produce approximately 24,553,571.43 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a by product."

Economically, the outlook for corn ethanol also does not appear positive.

It's corrosive and soaks up water and impurities, so it cannot be transported through a pipeline like gasoline. Instead, corn ethanol must be distributed slowly through the use of freight or trucks.

This distribution arrangement would be more costly, bottleneck easily and is largely more inefficient.

Furthermore, the demand for corn for the purposes of ethanol is disrupting the global farming and food balance.

The United States has slashed the amount of food aid they give because more of the corn that it has is being poured into ethanol. The higher demand has caused prices to rise as land in the United States is being transformed from soy land into cornfields.

Entire food markets are being affected by the transition. Prices of soy are increasing, as well as Australian wheat and fresh vegetables.

"We fear the steady rise of food prices will hit those on the front lines of hunger the hardest," said Josette Sheeran, the executive director of the United Nation's World Food Program.

So if ethanol is not more efficient, does not protect the environment better, is not economically more profitable and is creating a food shortage across the developing world, why is anyone advocating it?

The U.S., Canadian and European Union governments have long subsidized agriculture. The subsidization of agriculture is the primary point of contention during the World Trade Organization's current Doha Development round.

With the subsidization of food, where governments basically purchase the surplus food their farmers create to raise prices for farmers, the governments have found themselves mired in excessive quantities of food.

Corn ethanol becomes a great way to be energy-sufficient and reduce the surplus food — even if its net worth is far less than the investment needed.

And worst of all, the government appears to be on the verge of committing even greater sums of money to the production of ethanol and the subsidization of agriculture.

Farmers have prematurely jumped the gun on ethanol, switching rapidly to corn planting before an appropriate ethanol consuming market has been created. Many of the agriculturally-heavy states like Iowa have already invested an enormous amount of their future in the success of ethanol.

Iowa holds the first presidential caucus of the year. Presidential candidates will have to respond to the collapsing ethanol boom by supporting the industry with more money and subsidies.

Once the government begins backing an industry with so many resources, not only is the effort inefficient, but the funds become a trap and limitation for the support it can lend to other energy sectors.

The world is at a critical crossroad. Fossil fuels, which have faithfully powered the international world throughout the 20th and 21st century, are diminishing. Concerns over global warming are heightened. The time has come to transition to a new energy source. Hopefully, corn ethanol is not the answer we turn to.

[Reach columnist Sandley Chou at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]