"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has quietly
ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special import tariff on
Brazilian ethanol. The ethanol subsidy paid fuel blenders 45 cents per
gallon to make E10, gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. The tariff added 54
cents to the cost of importing a gallon of ethanol from Brazil. The ethanol
subsidy currently costs US taxpayers about $6 billion per year. Over the
past 30 years, the program has cost $45 billion. By taking no action on the
subsidy before adjourning for the end of the year, Congress effectively
killed the program."

Read mo
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12...d-ethanol-end/

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has quietly
ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special import tariff on
Brazilian ethanol. The ethanol subsidy paid fuel blenders 45 cents per
gallon to make E10, gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. The tariff added 54
cents to the cost of importing a gallon of ethanol from Brazil. The ethanol
subsidy currently costs US taxpayers about $6 billion per year. Over the
past 30 years, the program has cost $45 billion. By taking no action on the
subsidy before adjourning for the end of the year, Congress effectively
killed the program."

Read mo
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12...d-ethanol-end/

On Dec 28, 7:08*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.


Think of the children! The starving children, all around
the world that have less food to eat because the diversion of
crops to ethanol has caused food prices to skyrocket. Funny,
I thought the environmental libs were the ones looking out
for everyone....






"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...
"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has quietly
ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special import tariff on
Brazilian ethanol. The ethanol subsidy paid fuel blenders 45 cents per
gallon to make E10, gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. The tariff added 54
cents to the cost of importing a gallon of ethanol from Brazil. The ethanol
subsidy currently costs US taxpayers about $6 billion per year. Over the
past 30 years, the program has cost $45 billion. By taking no action on the
subsidy before adjourning for the end of the year, Congress effectively
killed the program."

Read mohttp://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12...mestic-ethanol...

On Dec 28, 7:08*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of money
to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has
quietly ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special
import tariff on Brazilian ethanol.



You'll notice the ethanol mandate itself remains untouched. Blenders are
still required by law to include a certain percentage of ethanol in the
total fuel they sell.

Continued mandate + no subsidy = more expensive gas.



--
Tegger

On 12/28/2011 9:56 AM, Tegger wrote:
wrote in
m:

"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has
quietly ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special
import tariff on Brazilian ethanol.



You'll notice the ethanol mandate itself remains untouched. Blenders are
still required by law to include a certain percentage of ethanol in the
total fuel they sell.

Continued mandate + no subsidy = more expensive gas.



Exactly!
And now our numbnutz government is getting ready to force E15 on us.

Most of us have seen the African starvation beg-a-thons where they take the
expensive cameras, and go take films of the starving stick figure children
in Africa. I've heard that the various tribes in Africa have been using
starvation as a genocide tool, for the last few thousand years. The evil
black dudes on Jeeps with AK-47 asre doing their best to starve the other
tribe. Bunch of blonde haird co-eds show up with thier boxes of food, and
bottles of water to just do some good. Clueless, they don't realize that
they will have to kill off the Jeep guys first, because the Jeep guys want
the stick figure kids to just finish dying, already. And now, the price of
food goes up! Zounds! It's going to be more expensive for the blonde haired
fair skinned Co-Eds to buy the boxes of food to take. So the Jeep and gun
guys can take the food away from them. And they can come home with a good
sun burn, and tell how they fed the stick figures.

We should send the American libs to Africa, to teach the Jeep and gun guys
to "just get along".

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

Think of the children! The starving children, all around
the world that have less food to eat because the diversion of
crops to ethanol has caused food prices to skyrocket. Funny,
I thought the environmental libs were the ones looking out
for everyone....

Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable? Are they
needed at all?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Frank" wrote in message
...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of money
to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.

That only makes the cost more visible (not coming from our income taxes
instead). And makes the cost felt by those who use the product.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Tegger" wrote in message
...

You'll notice the ethanol mandate itself remains untouched. Blenders are
still required by law to include a certain percentage of ethanol in the
total fuel they sell.

Continued mandate + no subsidy = more expensive gas.



--
Tegger

If it's not working.... do it harder!

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Bernt Berger" wrote in message
...

And now our numbnutz government is getting ready to force E15 on us.

On Dec 28, 7:08*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.

"Takes food out of the food chain."

I don't see any grocery store shelves going empty. Have you? There's
plenty of beef, pork, chicken, fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, flour,
dry goods, canned goods...

Sure the price of food has gone up a little, but food prices were way
low in this country to begin with. It's about time we paid a little
more for our food.

In some countries the cost of food is 90%+ of the household income.
Here in the USA it's something like 10-15%. We spend the rest of our
money on toys and "bling" we don't really need.

On Dec 28, 11:35*am, wrote:
On Dec 28, 7:08*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.

"Takes food out of the food chain."

I don't see any grocery store shelves going empty. Have you? There's
plenty of beef, pork, chicken, fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, flour,
dry goods, canned goods...

Sure the price of food has gone up a little,

A little? Look at a box of corn flakes, potato chips, or
beef lately?


but food prices were way
low in this country to begin with. It's about time we paid a little
more for our food.

If you want to pay more, just shop at the most
expensive store you can find. Leave the rest of
us alone with your crazy ideas. How about the
unemployed that are just scraping by? Why
should they or anyone pay more for food?




In some countries the cost of food is 90%+ of the household income.

We call those countries third world hell holes.



Here in the USA it's something like 10-15%. We spend the rest of our
money on toys and "bling" we don't really need.


Right, spoken like a true loon.

On 12/27/2011 7:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has quietly
ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special import tariff on
Brazilian ethanol. The ethanol subsidy paid fuel blenders 45 cents per
gallon to make E10, gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. The tariff added 54
cents to the cost of importing a gallon of ethanol from Brazil. The ethanol
subsidy currently costs US taxpayers about $6 billion per year. Over the
past 30 years, the program has cost $45 billion. By taking no action on the
subsidy before adjourning for the end of the year, Congress effectively
killed the program."

Read mo
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12...d-ethanol-end/



Switchgrass is a plentiful biomass to use for ethanol production and I
don't know why it hasn't received the push it needs to be the new source
for ethanol.

http://www.farmland.org/programs/env...FYEmtAodEnarWA

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cxpry9u

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum

TDD

On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable? Are they
needed at all?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message
...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of money
to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.



Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the oxygenate
requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at whim of
EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA says
thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.

Frank wrote in
:

On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable? Are
they needed at all?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of
money to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.



Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the
oxygenate requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at whim
of EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA
says thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.

Whatever you say, the air in New York City is now MUCH, MUCH better than
it was in 1976.

To answer you more directly, death certificates usually state the direct
cause of death, not the underlying (series of) causes.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable? Are
they needed at all?

There is only one correct answer. Yes.

Do a little research on what things were like before they were passed. You are
obviously too clueless to remember.

Hey, just cause your grocery store has food, doesn't mean that the food
chain is unaffected.

I suppose you would also say "I had dinner last night, so there is no
starvation in Africa." Same general concept.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...
On Dec 28, 7:08 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy
than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.

"Takes food out of the food chain."

I don't see any grocery store shelves going empty. Have you? There's
plenty of beef, pork, chicken, fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, flour,
dry goods, canned goods...

Sure the price of food has gone up a little, but food prices were way
low in this country to begin with. It's about time we paid a little
more for our food.

In some countries the cost of food is 90%+ of the household income.
Here in the USA it's something like 10-15%. We spend the rest of our
money on toys and "bling" we don't really need.

You have common sense, which is no longer common. I had high hopes for GWB,
but was disappointed. I remember hearing that Mitt Romney was pushing
socialized medicine when he was in Mass. Mormon or not, I don't have high
hopes for him being conservative.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Frank" wrote in message
...

Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the oxygenate
requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at whim of
EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA says
thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.

On 12/28/2011 12:46 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable? Are
they needed at all?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of
money to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.



Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the
oxygenate requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at whim
of EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA
says thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.

Whatever you say, the air in New York City is now MUCH, MUCH better than
it was in 1976.

To answer you more directly, death certificates usually state the direct
cause of death, not the underlying (series of) causes.

Of course. I understood that 90% of auto exhaust pollution was
eliminated when first legislated. To keep clamping is not worth the gains.

On 12/28/2011 1:51 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
You have common sense, which is no longer common. I had high hopes for GWB,
but was disappointed. I remember hearing that Mitt Romney was pushing
socialized medicine when he was in Mass. Mormon or not, I don't have high
hopes for him being conservative.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

While having voted for Romney in the last primary, I have your concerns.
I do like what Ann Coulter who supports him said, that while he may be a
flip flopper, he's flopping in the Conservative direction.

Let's not forget, that Reagan was once a Democrat.

For that matter, so was I.

Comes with learning and maturity.

I heard years ago (and agree with): If a man is not a liberal by the age 20,
he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by age 40, he has no brain.

I've been through the process, and agree with that quote. I used to believe
that welfare helped people. I used to believe that gun laws reduced crime. I
used to belive that increasing taxes reduces the federal or local debt.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Frank" wrote in message
...

While having voted for Romney in the last primary, I have your concerns.
I do like what Ann Coulter who supports him said, that while he may be a
flip flopper, he's flopping in the Conservative direction.

Let's not forget, that Reagan was once a Democrat.

For that matter, so was I.

Comes with learning and maturity.

Frank wrote in
:

On 12/28/2011 12:46 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable?
Are they needed at all?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

om ...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a
mistake. This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of
money to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.



Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the
oxygenate requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at
whim of EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA
says thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.

Whatever you say, the air in New York City is now MUCH, MUCH better
than it was in 1976.

To answer you more directly, death certificates usually state the
direct cause of death, not the underlying (series of) causes.

Of course. I understood that 90% of auto exhaust pollution was
eliminated when first legislated. To keep clamping is not worth the
gains.

Even just considering the last few years, the cleanup of buses in terms
of diesel exhaust has been remarkable. But there are still old or
dysregulated trucks running around ... And there still is a lot of coal
burning going on that BADLY needs cleaning up.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

I heard years ago (and agree with): If a man is not a liberal by the
age 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by age 40, he has
no brain.

I've been through the process, and agree with that quote. I used to
believe that welfare helped people. I used to believe that gun laws
reduced crime. I used to belive that increasing taxes reduces the
federal or local debt.

All those things are still valid (IMO!!!), but some governments are not
properly dealing with the funds available.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:45:18 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Most of us have seen the African starvation beg-a-thons where they take the
expensive cameras, and go take films of the starving stick figure children
in Africa. I've heard that the various tribes in Africa have been using
starvation as a genocide tool, for the last few thousand years. The evil
black dudes on Jeeps with AK-47 asre doing their best to starve the other
tribe. Bunch of blonde haird co-eds show up with thier boxes of food, and
bottles of water to just do some good. Clueless, they don't realize that
they will have to kill off the Jeep guys first, because the Jeep guys want
the stick figure kids to just finish dying, already. And now, the price of
food goes up! Zounds! It's going to be more expensive for the blonde haired
fair skinned Co-Eds to buy the boxes of food to take. So the Jeep and gun
guys can take the food away from them. And they can come home with a good
sun burn, and tell how they fed the stick figures.

We should send the American libs to Africa, to teach the Jeep and gun guys
to "just get along".

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

What you say is true in some areas of Africa - but even in countries
with "stable governments", starvation and food shortages - and extreme
poverty, are REALITIES.

I've been there. Even in GOOD times, the average west african spends
about 10 times as much of their resources on food compared to the
average American - and that is for barely adequate food. In east and
central africa it is no better, and in many cases worse.

You don't have warlords in jeeps terrorizing the people in Zambia,
Botswana, Malawi,Swaziland, Tanzania, Rwanda, and many other countries
in east/central Africa - nor in Burkina Faso or Ghana in West Africa -
or even in the Republic of South Africa, yet the vast majority of
people in these countries can barely afford to feed and clothe
themselves, even before the grain prices went through the roof over
the last several years.
.

wrote in message
...

Think of the children! The starving children, all around
the world that have less food to eat because the diversion of
crops to ethanol has caused food prices to skyrocket. Funny,
I thought the environmental libs were the ones looking out
for everyone....

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:11:23 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2011 7:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has quietly
ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special import tariff on
Brazilian ethanol. The ethanol subsidy paid fuel blenders 45 cents per
gallon to make E10, gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. The tariff added 54
cents to the cost of importing a gallon of ethanol from Brazil. The ethanol
subsidy currently costs US taxpayers about $6 billion per year. Over the
past 30 years, the program has cost $45 billion. By taking no action on the
subsidy before adjourning for the end of the year, Congress effectively
killed the program."

Read mo
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12...d-ethanol-end/



Switchgrass is a plentiful biomass to use for ethanol production and I
don't know why it hasn't received the push it needs to be the new source
for ethanol.

http://www.farmland.org/programs/env...FYEmtAodEnarWA

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cxpry9u

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum

TDD
The problem is nobody has "perfected" the process of converting
cellulose to ethanol., while converting corn sugar to ethanol is an
age-old, proven, and "american" tradition. (it's Moonshine)

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:33:57 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable? Are they
needed at all?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message
...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of money
to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.



Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the oxygenate
requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at whim of
EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA says
thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.
Not GUT it, but put a bridle on it and make it usefull. Regulations
are required. Action is needed - but it needs to be EFFECTIVE action,
and the regulations need to be reasonable and well thought out.

Sounds like you're also figuring that using grain for fuel has driven the
price of food grain up. Thus making it even more impossible for Africans to
feed themselves.

Manadated corn to ethanol, resulting in Africans starving. Pretty much what
I was getting at.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

What you say is true in some areas of Africa - but even in countries
with "stable governments", starvation and food shortages - and extreme
poverty, are REALITIES.

I've been there. Even in GOOD times, the average west african spends
about 10 times as much of their resources on food compared to the
average American - and that is for barely adequate food. In east and
central africa it is no better, and in many cases worse.

You don't have warlords in jeeps terrorizing the people in Zambia,
Botswana, Malawi,Swaziland, Tanzania, Rwanda, and many other countries
in east/central Africa - nor in Burkina Faso or Ghana in West Africa -
or even in the Republic of South Africa, yet the vast majority of
people in these countries can barely afford to feed and clothe
themselves, even before the grain prices went through the roof over
the last several years.

Han wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

I heard years ago (and agree with): If a man is not a liberal by the
age 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by age 40, he
has no brain.

I've been through the process, and agree with that quote. I used to
believe that welfare helped people. I used to believe that gun laws
reduced crime. I used to belive that increasing taxes reduces the
federal or local debt.

All those things are still valid (IMO!!!), but some governments are not
properly dealing with the funds available.

The word "opnion" is defined as a strongly held belief not based on facts.

Actually none are valid. Here are the facts.

Current welfare programs are equivalent to giving a man a fish. The biggest
reduction in welfare of recent times came from Hurricane Katrina where the
fifth generation of welfare recipients were re-located to places like Salt
Lake City or Billings, Montana. The common refrain from such evacuees was
"You mean all I gots to do is stand here and make Slurpees? And I gets PAID
for it? Damn, man, dat's cool."

By every measure, the liberalization of gun laws has reduced crime, or at
least there is a strong relationship between gun ownership and crime
reduction. Today, 49 states permit concealed carry (Illinois is the
outlier). Crime continues to drop. Except in Chicago.

Virtually every right thinker holds - and can prove - that we do not have an
insufficient taxing problem, we have an overly-abundant spending problem.

wrote:

"Takes food out of the food chain."

I don't see any grocery store shelves going empty. Have you? There's
plenty of beef, pork, chicken, fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, flour,
dry goods, canned goods...

You are correct. There is no shortage of food, just a shortage of cheap
food.


Sure the price of food has gone up a little, but food prices were way
low in this country to begin with. It's about time we paid a little
more for our food.

People should pay their "fair share" for food, just like millionaires should
contribute their "fair share" in taxes?


In some countries the cost of food is 90%+ of the household income.
Here in the USA it's something like 10-15%. We spend the rest of our
money on toys and "bling" we don't really need.

"Need" is never the criteria in America. WANT is, and should be, the only
determining factor.

Tegger wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has
quietly ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special
import tariff on Brazilian ethanol.



You'll notice the ethanol mandate itself remains untouched. Blenders
are still required by law to include a certain percentage of ethanol
in the total fuel they sell.

Continued mandate + no subsidy = more expensive gas.

Don't think so. Ethanol from Brazil, as the article pointed out, is WAY
cheaper than domestic ethanol. On the order of $1.00 per gallon cheaper.

Besides, if more corn is redirected to food, thousands of Mexicans will quit
trying to sneak into the U.S. to get cheaper tortillas. Corn is REALLY
expensive in Mexico (they export it to the U.S.).

On 12/28/2011 3:27 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:11:23 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2011 7:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has quietly
ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special import tariff on
Brazilian ethanol. The ethanol subsidy paid fuel blenders 45 cents per
gallon to make E10, gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. The tariff added 54
cents to the cost of importing a gallon of ethanol from Brazil. The ethanol
subsidy currently costs US taxpayers about $6 billion per year. Over the
past 30 years, the program has cost $45 billion. By taking no action on the
subsidy before adjourning for the end of the year, Congress effectively
killed the program."

Read mo
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12...d-ethanol-end/



Switchgrass is a plentiful biomass to use for ethanol production and I
don't know why it hasn't received the push it needs to be the new source
for ethanol.

http://www.farmland.org/programs/env...FYEmtAodEnarWA

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cxpry9u

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum

TDD
The problem is nobody has "perfected" the process of converting
cellulose to ethanol., while converting corn sugar to ethanol is an
age-old, proven, and "american" tradition. (it's Moonshine)


I tend to believe that corn is more valuable as a food source than as a
raw material to produce alcohol. The fact that it has a lot of food
value makes it a lot easier to turn into ethanol. What I think are the
best things about switchgrass is its hardiness and ability to be grown
just about anywhere. I would also assume it is more disease resistant
than corn. A little bioengineering can make it even more valuable.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/ja...-farmers-crop/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/br2d53b

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-st...y-switchgrass/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/bpz7254

TDD

In article ,
wrote:


What you say is true in some areas of Africa - but even in countries
wi

You don't have warlords in jeeps terrorizing the people in
Zambia,
Has some problems related to a string of corrupt governments that
seem to have finally cleared out in the 90s. Has advantage of copper
resources. Like much of Africa will be having major problems with AIDs.

Botswana,
is one of the best, no major problems currently (although very high
levels of AIDs and the leveling off of the diamond mines has some
long-term concerns.

Malawi,
80% of people have access to good drinking water. Still trying to work
out of problems of around 30 years of a strong man that ended in
mid-90s. AIDs problems. Their major problem is a lack of resources to
exploit.

Swaziland,
Africa's last remaining absolute monarch, no jeeps with guns, just
regular Army with guns.


Tanzania,
One party rule with associated corruption until mid-90s. Having
some luck with gold production.


Rwanda,
This has been a basketcase since before independence in the 60s. Hard to
suggest that strong men weren't the problem what with the genocide and
all. They have been doing since the mid 2000s, but still a lot to
overcome.

in east/central Africa - nor in Burkina Faso
Government by coup for most of history. The main problem here, isn't so
much poor manage of resources as complete lack thereof. Exacerbated by
the political situarion.

or Ghana
Again government by coup for much of its history. Even with stability
of government, it was one party rule until early 90s. As with a lot of
Africa, has had an inability to properly manage gold, oil, bauxite and
other resources.

in West Africa -
or even in the Republic of South Africa,
This is largely related to the overhang of apartheid and political
infighting in the immediate post-a area.

y

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

wrote:
What you say is true in some areas of Africa - but even in countries
with "stable governments", starvation and food shortages - and extreme
poverty, are REALITIES.

I've been there. Even in GOOD times, the average west african spends
about 10 times as much of their resources on food compared to the
average American - and that is for barely adequate food. In east and
central africa it is no better, and in many cases worse.

You don't have warlords in jeeps terrorizing the people in Zambia,
Botswana, Malawi,Swaziland, Tanzania, Rwanda, and many other countries
in east/central Africa - nor in Burkina Faso or Ghana in West Africa -
or even in the Republic of South Africa, yet the vast majority of
people in these countries can barely afford to feed and clothe
themselves, even before the grain prices went through the roof over
the last several years.

What you say is amazingly true. But the countries involved don't have a food
problem, they have a government problem.

There has never been a famine in a democracy (before anyone jumps, there
HAVE been food shortages in, for example, India, but not a full-blown
famine).

On 12/28/2011 3:38 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 12/28/2011 12:46 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable?
Are they needed at all?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

om ...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a
mistake. This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of
money to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.



Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the
oxygenate requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at
whim of EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA
says thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.

Whatever you say, the air in New York City is now MUCH, MUCH better
than it was in 1976.

To answer you more directly, death certificates usually state the
direct cause of death, not the underlying (series of) causes.

Of course. I understood that 90% of auto exhaust pollution was
eliminated when first legislated. To keep clamping is not worth the
gains.

Even just considering the last few years, the cleanup of buses in terms
of diesel exhaust has been remarkable. But there are still old or
dysregulated trucks running around ... And there still is a lot of coal
burning going on that BADLY needs cleaning up.


Getting off track. Important point is that ethanol does nothing to
reduce pollution.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.


********. brazilian ethanol is much more energy efficient to produce, somewhat
on the order of 9 or 10 times less energy input to produce a gallon as compared
to corn (and they grow a ****load of it in Florida) Ethanol from corn is made
from field corn which is almost always used as animal feed. In the process of
making ethanol the DDGS are sold to ranchers at a cost that is less than the
equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is higher in protein than whole corn so the
rancher needs less DDGS than whole corn and they get it at a reduced price. So
how can the cost of food (which means beef) go up?

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Hey, just cause your grocery store has food, doesn't mean that the food
chain is unaffected.

I suppose you would also say "I had dinner last night, so there is no
starvation in Africa." Same general concept.

you might say that, but no rational person would

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

"Tegger" wrote in message
...

You'll notice the ethanol mandate itself remains untouched. Blenders are
still required by law to include a certain percentage of ethanol in the
total fuel they sell.

Continued mandate + no subsidy = more expensive gas.



That only makes the cost more visible (not coming from our income taxes
instead). And makes the cost felt by those who use the product.



I guess you could say that's an advance from the previous position.


--
Tegger

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has quietly
ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special import tariff on
Brazilian ethanol. The ethanol subsidy paid fuel blenders 45 cents per
gallon to make E10, gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. The tariff added 54
cents to the cost of importing a gallon of ethanol from Brazil. The ethanol
subsidy currently costs US taxpayers about $6 billion per year. Over the
past 30 years, the program has cost $45 billion. By taking no action on the
subsidy before adjourning for the end of the year, Congress effectively
killed the program."

Read mo
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/12...hanol-tariffs-
on-imported-ethanol-end/

so the question becomes: how many barrels of oil were not need for gasoline
production over the past 30 years and what was the value of the gas they would
have produced?

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Tegger wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

"Lost in the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, Congress has
quietly ended subsidies on ethanol fuel as well as ending a special
import tariff on Brazilian ethanol.



You'll notice the ethanol mandate itself remains untouched. Blenders
are still required by law to include a certain percentage of ethanol
in the total fuel they sell.

Continued mandate + no subsidy = more expensive gas.

Don't think so. Ethanol from Brazil, as the article pointed out, is
WAY cheaper than domestic ethanol. On the order of $1.00 per gallon
cheaper.



But you still need to get it up here, which costs.

There's a catch somewhere in this whole mess. There are way too many farm-
state votes at stake for this to be as simple as it appears on the surface.



--
Tegger

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:32:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


What you say is true in some areas of Africa - but even in countries
wi

You don't have warlords in jeeps terrorizing the people in
Zambia,
Has some problems related to a string of corrupt governments that
seem to have finally cleared out in the 90s. Has advantage of copper
resources. Like much of Africa will be having major problems with AIDs.

String of corrupt governments that ended in the nineties??? Kaunda was
president from the time of independence in 1964 antil 1991. His
leadeship may have been flawed, but as African governments go, the
level of corruption was extremely low

Botswana,
is one of the best, no major problems currently (although very high
levels of AIDs and the leveling off of the diamond mines has some
long-term concerns.

Malawi,
80% of people have access to good drinking water. Still trying to work
out of problems of around 30 years of a strong man that ended in
mid-90s. AIDs problems. Their major problem is a lack of resources to
exploit.

Swaziland,
Africa's last remaining absolute monarch, no jeeps with guns, just
regular Army with guns.


Tanzania,
One party rule with associated corruption until mid-90s. Having
some luck with gold production.


Rwanda,
This has been a basketcase since before independence in the 60s. Hard to
suggest that strong men weren't the problem what with the genocide and
all. They have been doing since the mid 2000s, but still a lot to
overcome.

in east/central Africa - nor in Burkina Faso
Government by coup for most of history. The main problem here, isn't so
much poor manage of resources as complete lack thereof. Exacerbated by
the political situarion.

or Ghana
Again government by coup for much of its history. Even with stability
of government, it was one party rule until early 90s. As with a lot of
Africa, has had an inability to properly manage gold, oil, bauxite and
other resources.

in West Africa -
or even in the Republic of South Africa,
This is largely related to the overhang of apartheid and political
infighting in the immediate post-a area.

y
But still extreme poverty issues across the board - with no war-lords
involved. Extremely high food costs in relation to income - and
unbearably high rates of inflation.

Democracy may be a lofty ideal, but in many cases - in many parts of
Africa, a "strong man" government is the only viable solution..

"Strong Men" that rape the country are an abomination, as are those
who rule by fear and violence - but "STRONG" Men in leadership can
make the difference between Hell on earth and just plain misery.

Kagame's Rwanda is, in many ways, a model for developing African
nations. Yes, there is a LOT of foreigh "Aid" pouring into the country
- but the country is, apparently, making wise use of the majority of
it, and Kigali is, at this point, one of the safest African cities,
with most of the city even safe at night.

Too bad "african development" has come to be suchan oxymoron.