"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:40:01 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:32:58 -0400, ATP*
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Sooner we start subsidizing biofuels the better. Let's get the
economies of scale going now, before it's a real crisis.

WRT corn derived ethanol, I think the economies of scale have been
going
for
a while. Archer Daniels Midland is just laughing all the way to the
bank
with the taxpayer's money, with no net gain to the environment,
considering
the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce and distill the corn.

Sorry, did I seem to restrict my suggestion to just ADM and ethanol? My
bad. I meant it to mean "subsidizing biofuels". Oh look. Just like I
said and you quoted.

Subsidizing biofuels that don't help the environment doesn't make sense.
That's my point.

I see. So you respond to my point with a subset of the technology to
refute what I said. Then when I challenge said tactic you reinforce it
by repeating it. Interesting tactic you have there. You might want to
try logic and coherence and see how that would work for you, because
this one, well, not so much.

Now then. Can we start giving money to farmers instead of arabs,
please?

I have to spell it out point by point? You need to refine your broad support
for "subsidizing biofuels" so that it is not just a subsidy to corn
producers at the expense of the environment and the economy. You made no
distinction as to the type of biofuel, therefore, it was your post that was
imprecise and promoted bad policy.