News-Record.com

Schweellllllllllllll.

I'm not the biggest fan of ethanol. But, hey, grow your own corn. I'll be waking up in,oh, 3 and a half hours to go shuck, silk, bag, and freeze a good many pints of the yellow stuff (or the whiter stuff). Silver Queen!

Another thought, what about the other dumb uses of corn? Maybe if we refused to eat or drink stuff with that high-fructose corn syrup, they could use THAT corn for cars.

.

Be careful of that term black hole, I saw on tv last night were that was racist.

I'll not argue with the Larry's disparagement of ethanol but environmentalist aren't to blame for the ethanol projects as they have evolved. It's farm state politics & ADM that are the beneficiaries and have pushed this program beyond all reason. In theory ethanol is great till you do the math & see how little net energy that you get out of it, plus how disruptive it is to the food supply.

In the carbon issue Larry is all wet. Sure it releases carbon into the atmosphere when you burn it but the act of growing corn to make more ethanol reclaims it. Unlike petroleum it is (in theory) a self contained carbon system. In practice you release a significant amount of carbon in the growing, manufacture & transporting of it.

I'm here to back up what you said, Rufus .. twern't no tree huggers that created the ethanol debacle.

google: Renewable Fuels Association
google: National Corn Growers Association

and we forgot Cargill

Here's the funny thing about ignorant rantings such as this one LTE'd by Mr. Emory:

Throw in a couple reality checks, as Rufus did, and there is no pushback from others - or preferably Mr. Emory - so support their silly statements, in this case about "Environmental Wackos" .. yet you can bet there'll be many other unsubstantiated partisan quips.

Here's one of a zillion examples:

http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2008/07/consider_these_points_before_c.shtml#comments

OK Break Over .. back to the yard !!!

The princess and the scorpion. J.D.R.'s tree huggers couldn't come up with the solution, but they demanded the government come up with one. Politicians responded, and lobbyists acted.

And I pushed last time:
http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2008/01/treat_roots_of_global_warming.shtml

I suppose I lack the enthusiasm to repeat it.

Like I always say, environmentalists knew what the politicians were when they first picked them up. Let the blame fall where it may.

Roger

So after January's long posting - which I just re-read (ok skimmed is a better word) - Verelse said: "It seems to me that James and Roger are in agreement on the fundamentals."

I sense your real objection, Roger is mandating changes that are not addressing real issues .. a position I generally accept.

My real objection, is allowing bozos with more money than God determine what issues are being mandated - ADM gets a tarriff placed on sugar imports so their new invention HFCS can enter the market with a price advantage .. so now Corn becomes a hot commodity - plus it's a pretty useful food .. so let's concentrate on that, and while we're at it let's make some Ethanol ... all's OK .. it's under the banner of business .. something those damm hippy environmentalists will never understand.

I've yet to see evidence that the environmentalists’ prime accomplishment was ethanol.

Yeah, like most things we can look at something and realize we're pretty much in accord. I hope that's indicative of America in general.

I think "prime accomplishment" was a good way of putting it since it absolutely wasn't. Worse, it's a continual failure if we keep down this legislated and lobbied road. I've seen it too often, though, to think that it's any different than the new CAFE standards or the cap and trade global warming nonsense. We don't know what we're doing but we let the lawyers lead the way, and if/when it fails we'll blame the _insert_bad_group_here_.

Corn-based ethanol, had it shown itself as a success, would've been cheered with a continual chorus of "Look what we did!" and "We're so smart and forward-thinking!" by the same people who are now saying "Nope, not my idea."

FWIW, I think Emory nailed it with his statement about our collective illiteracy. I don't think rahrah linked the other day because he thought it was that simple, but I guarantee there were people who watched the video of the "water-fueled" car and thought, "Yay, it runs on water."

Roger

See, we agree ... but emory with his subtile slap at "environmentalists’ prime accomplishment .. shows his colors.

... and the car that runs on water? I knew that was crap after 11th grade physics - 40 years ago - something Newton figured out 400 years ago.

Aggressive CAFE standards are a good idea. What was just passed is a joke.

Some day we'll get serious about this problem.

Maybe my grandchildren (when I have them) will see it happen.

We just need to ramp up this technology and the world will be saved!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg-7DJGPmyM