Originally Posted by PhillySRT
Holy partisan bias. Let's not forget to thank Bush for his
support of corn ethanol. Environmentalists have never been a fan of this type of ethanol, especially Gore. They favored corn ethanol as a bridge technology to cellulosic ethanol made from switch grass.
Your point is correct, though, ethanol from corn is just a horrendous idea as a widespread energy source. Biofuels are nothing more than a distraction anyway. Electricity is the way to go. Wind, Solar, and Nuclear power are more realistic in terms of overall implementation feasibility.
How about this idea? Let's drill for oil on our own ground as a bridge to alternative technologies which, it is clearly apparant, are not as yet ready.
You will note that under my sig, I did scold Bush for this. An edit done moments later in an succeeding posting. Nothing partisan about it, I have laid blame on both parties. In many of my posts. To get re-elected they listened to the farm lobby which is not made up from farmers but Agri businesses like Monsanto, Con Agra, ADM ectera. They want to grow corn.
We made corn into fuel, raised the price of base food stuffs as much as 75% around the world (as reported by the UN World Food Bank) causing riots amoung the poor and starving in many countries.
Burning food in our cars is simply immoral. It does nothing to prevent climate change or help the environment. It didn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil, not a drop. And it costs Taxpayers a bundle. But it is now mandated in many states and despite evidence suggesting, no screaming, to at least take a second look, the program is expanding.
But most important, it is contributing to food shortages around the world.
And we wonder why they hate us.
BTW, if environmentalists weren't pro ethanol before, where did that Carbon cycle BS come from. They changed their tune when the predictions of a few sane anti ethanol folks proved to be correct.
roadster with a stick