When You’ve Lost Grist On Corn Ethanol……

….you’ve lost the backing of one of the Internet’s most hysterical (both meanings of the word) enviroweenie/climate alarmist websites: Government-backed corn ethanol lurches on, paving a road to nowhere

During the Bush II administration, I used to groan that the closest thing we had to a concerted policy response to climate change was the federal government’s slew of goodies for corn-based ethanol. It was a monumentally depressing situation, because propping up corn-derived fuel is expensive and (despite industry hype) doesn’t actually do much, if anything at all, to mitigate climate change — but contributes actively to ecological disasters like the Gulf of Mexico “dead zone.”

Now, two years into the Obama administration, we still have no concerted policy response to climate change, and the corn ethanol program abides, sucking up resources that could be going to actual green technologies. Groan.

I’ve got news for you, Chump: blaming Bush is idiotic, when Obama himself is a huge supporter of corn ethanol. Furthermore, Clinton supported corn ethanol, and, that was about the extent of his caring about globull warming. Remember, he refused to sign Kyoto, because it would destroy the US economy. Given a chance, Clinton might have signed legislation banning Obama, because Obama would destroy the US economy. Anyhow, what is Tom Philpott really mad about?

To me, the insane thing here isn’t the idea of government investment in public infrastructure; we meed much more of that. What galls me is the demand for government investment in ecologically useless public infrastructure — when we actually need to be investing much more in real green transportation systems like high-speed trains, powered by an energy grid shifted as much as possible over to wind and solar energy.

So, it’s not that the Government is spending foolish amounts of money turning food into fuel, along with government requirements to do that, which drives up food prices overall and is, by some reports, actually worse for “climate change” than pure fossil fuel usage. No, it’s that we don’t have friggin’ high speed trains which few will actually take.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “When You’ve Lost Grist On Corn Ethanol……”

  1. Black Sabbath says:

    Here is a good example of why you must NEVER let Liberalism get the upper hand.
    Step 1: Convince fool RINOs like Bush to push ethanol.
    Step 2. Disaster.
    Step 3. Blame fool RINOs like Bush for your failed ideas even though your own President is rabidly pro-ethanol.
    Step 4. Shift focus from the failed ethanol idea to another idea which will certainly fail – high speed rail.
    Step 5. In ten years, with high speed rail failing utterly, find another environmental wacko idea to push while ignoring the high speed rail disaster.

  2. captainfish says:

    NICE BS…. exactly.

    Quote:
    To me, the insane thing here isn’t the idea of government investment in public infrastructure; we meed much more of that.

    Yeah, and that is exactly what leads to the useless government investments. Of course, it depends on who you ask what exactly is a useless gov’t spending. To half this country, almost all gov’t spending is useless, wasteful, and unnecessary.

    What’s the point? Is the government punishing soy fuel research? Are they saying that sugar-beet fuels are unacceptable for American consumption? By feeding the rising corn price and supply deficit through massive taxpayer-funded subsidies, they are dictating which business they like and approve.

    Its wrong and should be illegal. Gov’t money should not go to private companies or to non-research activities.

  3. […] When You’ve Lost Grist On Corn Ethanol…… I’ve got news for you, Chump: blaming Bush is idiotic, when Obama himself is a huge supporter of corn ethanol. Furthermore, Clinton supported corn ethanol, and, that was about the extent of his caring about globull warming. Remember, he refused to sign Kyoto, because it would destroy the US economy. Given a chance, Clinton might have signed legislation banning Obama, because Obama would destroy the US economy. Anyhow, what is Tom Philpott really mad about? To me, the insane thing here isn’t the idea of government investment in public infrastructure; we meed much more of that. What galls me is the demand for government investment in ecologically useless public infrastructure — when we actually need to be investing much more in real green transportation systems like high-speed trains, powered by an energy grid shifted as much as possible over to wind and solar energy. […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 11124 access attempts in the last 7 days.