On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:47:23 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
"ATP*" quickly quoth:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:18:54 -0600, Louis Ohland
wrote:

Double whammy. More corn for ethanol, less corn for food stocks.

That assume an inelastic supply, which isn't the case for, for instance,
corn in Wisconsin. I've got about 15 acres of tillable soil that I am
specifically not growing corn on, because being paid to not do so pays
better than doing so. If that equation changes, I'd consider putting it
back into farmland.

If the price of corn goes high enough, the millions of acres in
land-bank, will be taken out. That's exactly the sort of thing that
land-bank is for.

Resulting in more harm to the environment, the taxpayer, and increasing
greenhouse gases.

I like the extra octane of ethanol, but the 10% worse gas mileage sure
doesn't make it seem worthwhile--ecologically or economically. My new
truck runs just fine on regular, with or without the oxidizer.

--

SALMON -- The Other Pink Meat