Re: False hope for biofuels starving millions.

George wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>>
>> The 'Green' component is what got the ball rolling what with the
>> promise of less greenhouse gas emissions and what not.
>>
> All I remember is the various genius politicians who proclaimed "I
> have a plan to lower our dependency on foreign oil..."

Which came out of the fawning and sniveling toward special interest 
environmentalists who do not want new oil sources developed domestically. 
The anti-petroleum crowd was at the forefront of hollering for alternative 
fuels development.

> and then they picked out pockets and gave huge grants for construction and 
> operating subsidies of ethanol plants

It's all part of the 'Farm Subsidy' pork bill.

> Of course it was a stupid idea in a lot of ways including there is a
> net loss of energy making the stuff and nobody was bright enough to
> realize that lots of raw materials are needed and it would take a lot
> of time to increase production.

But, but..... it's for the children.

> So at least for the short term we need to go everyplace we possibly can 
> and buy their food so we can grind it up to make ethanol to keep the SUVs 
> going.

It ain't about SUVs, it's about oil, period. SUVs, hybrids, Toyotas, VWs, 
Hummers, it makes no difference. Anti-petroleum zealots hate oil and 
politicians bow-down to special interests. And don't forget the bio-diesel 
contribution as well.

>So from what I have read and seen the article is factual.

Even if the only vehicles that existed were 0.25 liter put-put mopeds, the 
anti-oil folks would still insist on 'alternative fuels'.

-- 
Dave  www.davebbq.com

What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan