George W. Bush's agreement with Brazil to spur ethanol production is an overdue initiative from a president who has done far too little to curb America's oil addiction. But the deal will never reach its potential as long as the United States maintains a high barrier to ethanol imports.

Bush is expected to sign the agreement this week while visiting his Brazilian counterpart, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva. Brazil's production of ethanol from sugar cane, a substitute for gasoline, has helped it achieve energy independence — still only a distant dream for the United States, which imports more than half of its oil.

But imports of Brazilian ethanol into the United States are officially discouraged with a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff. That penalty also deters investment that could expand Brazil's capacity to produce the fuel.

Currently, almost all U.S. ethanol is made from corn — a more expensive and less energy-efficient feedstock. The cost of producing ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil is 40 percent to 50 percent less than making it from corn in the United States, according to the Congressional Research Service. And scientific studies have shown corn ethanol yields only slightly more energy than it takes to produce. Sugar-cane ethanol, by contrast, yields eight times as much energy.

The U.S.-Brazil deal calls for the two countries to cooperate on research and common standards for ethanol, and help other countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean build their capacities to produce the fuel from sugar cane. U.S. trade pacts with those countries could allow them to avoid the tariff on imported ethanol. For now, however, their capacities together are only a small fraction of Brazil's.

This year Bush proposed increasing a federal mandate for the use of ethanol and other biofuels in the United States from 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012 to 35 billion gallons by 2017. Many energy analysts doubt the country can make that big of a jump. Even if it can, why rely on a costlier, less-energy-efficient fuel?

Clearing the way for more ethanol imports could reduce U.S. oil dependence faster and more cheaply for consumers. Meanwhile, research could continue on producing ethanol in the United States from other sources, such as wood chips and switch grass.

Yet members of Congress in both parties, including Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, have vowed to fight for the ethanol tariff. Supporters of the tariff on Capitol Hill typically portray themselves as defending U.S. corn farmers. But the ethanol industry also includes corporate giants such as Archer Daniels Midland. Even without the tariff, the industry collects billions of dollars in government subsidies.

Bush has called before for eliminating the tariff, but has not pushed Congress to go along. Too bad. This is a fight worth picking.

— The Orlando Sentinel

n n nWhile he gets most of his attention as one of the chief critics of the war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin is plunging into a domestic issue of enormous impact for Americans: abusive practices by credit card companies.Dissatisfied with the industry's response to the disturbing findings of a Government Accountability Office investigation of credit card practices that he ordered last year, Michigan Democrat Levin held a hearing in Washington this week on credit card fees, interest rates and grace periods, with an eye on federal legislation if credit card issuers don't stop taking unfair advantage of consumers.True, no one forces you to use plastic instead of cash, but the industry sure does a better job of encouraging it than of explaining the costs. Abusive credit card practices have contributed mightily to consumer debt, especially as credit card use has exploded in recent years.Consumers now use 700 million cards annually to buy nearly $2 trillion in goods and services. The average household carries more than $5,000 in credit card debt with few consumers understanding all the interest and fees they are subject to by not paying off each month's balance.The hearings should prod credit card companies to better explain the cost of using plastic, but Congress ultimately might have to ban certain practices to really protect consumers.