"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:01:25 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Our good friends at the EPA (let me spell that out: Environmental
_Protection_
Agency) are scheduled to protect us by the end of September, a few weeks
from
now. They're going to protect us by making a decision on whether or not to
propose an increase of from 10% to 15% for ethanol in our gasoline.

I have a better suggestion. If the EPA really wants to protect us, they
should
ban the use of ethanol fuels as they are currently produced. I haven't
heard of,
seen or read anything in the last several years that tells me this
movement is
in any way actually protecting the environment.

The only thing as near as I can tell, that's being protected with this
movement
are a few big time corn farmers that produce the raw material for making
the
ethanol.

Science can do way better than this and use other plants to produce
ethanol if
they must. Why not use the corn to feed some of the starving millions
around the
globe? That'll keep farmer John busy.

Please people, we're running out of time here. Read the link above and
then call
or write your congress person and tell them you really want this whole
idea
squashed. Its not helping us, and the EPA to date has shown no real grasp
of the
science and economics involved in this matter. I'm afraid they'll just
sign off
on the 15% requirement. There's a whole lot more than how well your engine
runs
at stake here.
=============
Indeed there is.

There appears to be two immediate problems: (1) Internally
[to the government] in that this is being driven by
fanatical ideologues, and it is no more possible to reason
with these people than with the witch hunters in Salem or
the communists in the Ukraine under Stalin. (2) Externally
this is being driven by corporations headed by avaricious
psychopaths in deep denial of the damage they are causing to
the economy/culture and environment, believing they are
doing "god's work," all looking for their "piece of the
action" and their share of the "profits."

It appears to be much simpler than that, George. The point is to keep corn
prices high so we don't get into a deeper subsidy trap with "family
farmers." That would be political disaster. It's easier to make it all a
hidden tax that we pay in higher food prices.

The Republicans would trot out Farmer Brown at every political rally and
tell everyone how Democrats forced him to sell the family farm to a Chinese
soy sauce corporation. He'd leave the Lincoln in the barn on those days, of
course.

Then there would be the charges of hypocrisy about Dems calling for
alternative energy while stopping the expansion of "clean, safe, green,
home-grown" cornholeum, or whatever it is.

What's good for Cargill is....good for ADM. And so on.

--
Ed Huntress