Clark used to speak compellingly about the dangers of global warming, but in his role as Growth Energy spokesperson, he hasn't spend much time on the environmental case for ethanol. He can't, really, because he also works for a Canadian-based petroleum company that is exploring shale gas in the United States--an energy- and water-intensive process that involves extracting gas from rock--and operates two massive oil fields in Albania. (The former Supreme Allied Commander's contacts in Eastern Europe have proven useful, a company representative told me.) What's more, Rodman & Renshaw's energy portfolio is composed exclusively of oil and gas--the company hasn't been able to attract capital for renewable projects. And he also consults for an oil refinery in Kansas that produces nitrogen fertilizer and operates a crude oil trucking business.
Instead, Clark lingers on impassioned odes to the American farmer, and the evils of OPEC--his major talking point is how ethanol enhances U.S. energy security, reducing its need to import oil from abroad. (Although it should be noted that, if all of America's corn were distilled into fuel, we'd only displace a sixth of our gas consumption; better technology and conservation policies could do that with far less distortion of the market.) In service of Growth Energy, Clark has opposed some environmental measures, like California's proposed new low-carbon fuel standard, which takes a dim view of ethanol's carbon-reducing credential. All this makes it hard going, trying to mop the mud off ethanol's public face these days: Environmental groups are pretty much united against further subsidizing the corn industry, and insist that more research is needed before even allowing more ethanol into gas tanks.
When it comes down to it, though, Growth Energy isn't really banking on Clark's public charm offensive to save its product. The group hired a team of professionals, experienced Washington hands with ties to important Democratic figures, to do the arm-twisting and staff-nagging. And they have--perhaps to a fault. Until recently, environmental groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists tolerated ethanol as a compromise fuel because it might create jobs and reduce oil imports. Now, such groups slam ethanol as a boondoggle pushed by corn companies--Jeff Broin's POET foremost among them--that hold the keys to reelection for many a farm-state politician. "Growth Energy has struck a very aggressive political approach on Capitol Hill and, I think, has only polarized the debate rather than helped it," says Nathanael Greene of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Clark, meanwhile, is trying to convince people that ethanol just got a bad rap. "I've always been someone who looks at the facts and looks at the directions, and I take hard positions that are sometimes unpopular," he says. "I did it successfully in the military… I did it when I ran for office. I was the first one to call for Rumsfeld's resignation and say that it was a mistake to have gone into Iraq. And, when you see things that are right, you act on it."
Lydia Depillis is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.
*Correction: The original sentence implied that Clark's remark caused him to have no role at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. In fact, no causal connection has been demonstrated.
.jpg)
Print
