As the international disaster of ethanol begins taking its toll on the planet -- and, maybe more important, as press outlet after press outlet finally begins recognizing it -- will media remember that Vice President Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate requiring this oxygenate be added to gasoline?
After all, regardless of recent reports blaming ethanol for world hunger problems, rising food costs, and increased greenhouse gases, it seems highly unlikely green media will want to tie any of these problems to Nobel Laureate Gore.
Yet, as inconveniently reported by States News Service on August 3, 1994 (no link available, emphasis added throughout):
In a move that enraged midwestern senators, Louisiana Democratic Sen. Bennett Johnston tried Wednesday to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from mandating the use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline. The Senate narrowly killed the measure, voting to table it by a margin of 51 to 50. With the vote tied, Vice President Al Gore had to come in and cast the deciding vote. [...]
"This is really a gigantic flim flam to the American public," Johnston said. [...]
Under the Clean Air Act, the nation's nine smoggiest cities must begin reducing auto emissions by using a cleaner-burning fuel known as reformulated gasoline in January. Reformulated gasoline contains more oxygen than regular fuel.
Until the EPA announced its decision last month, oil refiners had a choice of boosting oxygen in reformulated gasoline with either ethanol or MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), a petroleum derivative. MTBE is made from natural gas. The nation's major oil companies have natural gas facilities, many of which are overseas. [...]
During the four-hour debate, opponents of the ethanol mandate said the measure contains hidden costs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the policy would cost the government $249 million during the next five years. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has predicted the ethanol rule would drain $545 million from the national highway trust fund each year.
"It's highway robbery," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. "It's nothing less."
Besides Gore, take a look at who else was DEAD wrong on this issue:
[Democratic Illinois Sen. Paul] Simon added that the ethanol mandate would not increase costs for consumers."The price of corn flakes isn't going to go up by one penny," he said. "Don't think you're helping consumers by voting for the amendment by my friend from Louisiana."
I beg to differ, Senator. As my colleague Paul Detrick reported on April 4 (emphasis added):
You're going to need a few extra bucks to pay for those corn flakes every morning.
CNN's senior business correspondent Ali Velshi let viewers in on an underreported fact about rising commodities prices: the government mandate for ethanol production is making corn and other agricultural products more expensive-making inflation a top priority for Americans.
"Several years ago, we made some decisions about how corn is going to be used to make ethanol, which is added to our gasoline," said Velshi on "American Morning" April 4. "A number of people think that that was meant to reduce our dependency on crude oil. What is does is it takes what is fundamentally a food source and makes it into a gasoline source. That's caused corn to go up."
He went on to explain that in the recent food commodities surge, which includes products like wheat, soybeans and rice, corn has gone up to $6 a bushel-making everything from animal feed to cereal more expensive.
Nice call, Sen. Simon!
For those interested, here's how the New York Times reported the news (emphasis added):
With a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Al Gore, the Senate upheld today an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring that ethanol and other renewable fuels get a share of the gasoline additives market.
The Senate voted 51-50 to table an amendment that would have denied financing to the agency to carry out a rule guaranteeing renewable fuels a 15 percent share of the lucrative fuel oxygenate market in 1995. That share rises to 30 percent in following years.
Under the Clean Air Act, oxygenates, which make fuel burn more cleanly, are to be added to gasoline in the nation's smoggiest areas.
Tabling the amendment, offered by Democratic Senators Bennett J. Johnston of Louisiana and Bill Bradley of New Jersey, in effect kills it and clears the way for E.P.A. to carry out its program.
All, in the end, thanks to Nobel Laureate Al Gore.
Of course, as the ethanol crisis widens, I'm sure media will be reminding the electorate of this pivotal vote fourteen years ago...not!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ouch! That's going to leave
April 22, 2008 - 18:10 ET by SumricaOuch! That's going to leave a mark!
I can hope, can't I?
It will
April 22, 2008 - 19:04 ET by 10ksnookerAll we need now is the video. The children understand nothing that isn't packaged for youtube.
It'll leave a mark all right
April 22, 2008 - 20:54 ET by Scout FinchAbout the size of a large, hairy carbon footprint!
footprint
April 23, 2008 - 05:18 ET by DontabThat footprint is going to be larger then anyone thinks, mtbe has been found to be polluting ground water! ( drinking water)
Ethanol and cannibalism
April 22, 2008 - 18:15 ET by Gary HallWhere's dat tee-shirt?
hee hee.
I repeat. Before it is all said and done, for all of this ethanol fritter, the MSM will blame none other than President Bush for rising food prices, the shortage of food supplies, the starving children and the civil wars and cannibalism (Hat Tip to Ted Turner for that one) to follow.
Wow...I never knew about Al
April 22, 2008 - 18:17 ET by bigtimerWow...I never knew about Al Gore regarding this...interesting to say the very least....
He is still costing us...
Look at the dems that opposed this too...and another thing MTBE worked out well too did it not.
Congress should abolish the EPA as far as I am concerned and keep their grubby no-brains for common sense out of our lives, let the free market and enterprises work.
The msm of course is silent about this, but only politicians like Inhofe say anything anymore on some segment on television...which is rare.
Anybody gonna' call Gore the thievin' genius on this?
I'm not holding my breath.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
I know a company that just
April 22, 2008 - 18:18 ET by ApacheI know a company that just got $30 million from the government for ethanol research. But they also see ethanol as a negative because they also provide products for food production and their cost has gone up. Sure they will take the money and do the best they can with it but the only way ethanol will be a real alternative is if they find magic enzymes. It still would put out more of the evil CO2 plant food than oil but the green hype has greatly diverged from green reality. 30 million dollars so politicians can tell the ignorant tree huggers what they did for them and then they can feel warm and fuzzy about themselves. They just flip past the starving third world children on TV.
I hope the company
April 22, 2008 - 18:29 ET by sarcasmoIsn't Archer Daniels Midland, because they financed this madness in the first place, IMO, by buying-up a wide variety of politicians. (And good catch, Noel. It would also be nice to see a list of the exact 50 & 51 names & how they voted, if that's known for this bill.)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Not that one
April 22, 2008 - 20:00 ET by ApacheNo it is a smaller company than that. I'm not even sure they asked for the money or how it came about. I'm sure if they got 30 million than a company like ADM got a lot more. The only reason I mention it is that some of these companies are being placed in odd and conflicting situations as a result of this 'green' hype. Although I’m sure they will need to go with the money.
The world food crisis is
April 22, 2008 - 18:28 ET by jpm100The world food crisis is driven be bad weather and high fuel prices reducing expected crop yields outside America.
Having some US farmland committed to ethanol production does interfere with our ability to fill the gap.
If those lands had been growing food for human consumption and crops around the world met expectations, we'd have a surplus that would end up rotting on our hands.
So I have to ask, do you really want to go on record committing US farmland to the responsibility of feeding the world? Do you really want to set the precedent?
Because there are other farmland uses that are either are not at all for food production or are inefficient at food production that we will be expected to stop next. Tobacco and Spirits are two uses of farmland that could be used to grow food instead. Corn/Feed for Beef is an inefficient use of Corn. We may consider them necessary. The international choir of whiners won't.
Set the precedent of saying we take on the burden of feed the world first with our farmland and we will become the soup kitchen for the world (well, a bigger soup kitchen).
I know a lot of people think ethanol as an alternative is an evil conspiracy against those poor oil companies forced into inflated gas and oil prices beyond their will, but in a rush to criticize ethanol be careful of what you are signing us up for.
Corn/Feed for Beef is an
April 22, 2008 - 18:43 ET by MidAmericaCorn/Feed for Beef is an inefficient use of Corn.
You evidentely haven't raised any beef. Corn is an excellent way of producing a high quality, nutricious food. A cow takes a diet of grains and grasses and converts them into complete proteins necessary for a human diet.
I love beef and I don't
April 22, 2008 - 19:04 ET by jpm100I love beef and I don't want anyone to stop making it. Its nutritious as an end-product on a pound for pound basis.
But I'm not in denial about the fact in terms of land use, you can generate more energy & protein by producing crops directly for human consumption than putting through a cow first.
At least that's what the world welfare folks will say.
That may be true in a
April 22, 2008 - 19:31 ET by MidAmericaThat may be true in a perfect world. But there are many factors that affect the nutrition and availability of grains. A person must balance a variety of grains, grasses, nuts and berries to get complete nutrition. Poor people do not have the education or resources to do that. It's better to let an animal convert marginally nutritious foodstuffs into complete proteins.
But I eat grains too, a fresh ear of corn roasted on the barbeque goes great with a fine piece of beef.
The Market can decide what foods we eat
April 23, 2008 - 10:49 ET by PopularTechIf people want beef and milk then they will pay for it and farmers will raise cows. That is called freedom.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
And we should keep it that
April 23, 2008 - 18:55 ET by jpm100And we should keep it that way and not let the world dictate our crop usage.
Why does doing away with
April 22, 2008 - 20:42 ET by ckc1227Why does doing away with the crazy ethanol mandate mean we have to instead force farmers to dedicate farmland to feeding the world?
ckc
April 22, 2008 - 20:47 ET by Cool ArrowFarmers are going to grow something (and in this case what they are growing has no economically real demand). Subsidizing their efforts to grow something as inefficient as fuel is a misuse of production inputs.
♣ a seal
Consider.... there's
April 22, 2008 - 21:28 ET by MidAmericaConsider.... there's tractors, combines and other implements with huge factories with thousands of employees making those tools, there's pesticides and herbicides produced in factories with delivery systems for those products, the grain is stored and mechanically dried to bring down the moisture so it doesn't spoil, it is trucked (usually a semi) to other locations. The seed corn itself goes through all this but also is taken to a seed processor that sorts/grades/bags and then trucks seed to all it's distribution locations where the farmer either has it delivered to his farm or he drives to get it himself. There are farm hands and mechanics and plant specialists/advisors and bankers. Thousands and thousands of people are employed to manufacture and service everything the farm economy needs. After all this the corn is converted at an ethanol plant that requires a great deal of energy (hint: it ain't ethanol) and a large amount of water.
Because world starvation is
April 23, 2008 - 19:16 ET by jpm100Because world starvation is being blamed, incorrectly, on ethanol as a gas alternative.
Admittedly, if we stay with corn, this might get to a point where it might actually be true one day. But not today.
Ethanol subsidies directly cause food shortages
April 23, 2008 - 10:43 ET by PopularTechBy subsidizing ethanol it makes it more profitable for farmers to grow corn for fuel instead of other crops and it makes any and all food products and industry that relies on corn more expensive. This is the reality socialist central planners don't understand. In a free market the farm land is used for what is the most profitable which right now should be food crops but thanks to subsidies corn for fuel becomes more profitable.
If ethanol becomes cost effective vs gasoline in the market then farm land will automatically be "committed" to fuel production but that has not happened.
Farmers grow what they can sell and adjust to what the market needs. It costs them money to grow something they cannot sell so your whole theory makes no sense.
Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy (Science Daily)
Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
- Ethanol reduces fuel economy by 30% compared to gasoline (Source)
- Ethanol cannot be transported in existing pipelines (Source)
- Ethanol would supply only 12% of U.S. motoring fuel even if every acre of corn were used (Source)
- Ethanol fires are harder to put out (Source)
Ethanol Fuel From Corn Faulted As "Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning" In Analysis By Cornell Scientist (Science Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The increased use of
April 23, 2008 - 19:10 ET by jpm100The increased use of ethanol in fuel is primarily as a mandated additive to regular gasoline and not as a fuel alternative (E85).
And yes subsidizing corn-based ethanol doesn't make much sense. Still doesn't change the fact we are not at fault because we didn't predict the future and use our resources to bail the world out of a crisis which was caused by weather & fuel prices.
As for the other anti-ethanol talking points, such as fuel economy down by 30% its really about 15% (when you give the engine controller a chance to adapt which takes 1 or 2 tanks) and thats because we're running ethanol in an engine built for gasoline that happens to also be able to run ethanol. An engine build around ethanol closes the efficiency gap. In the mean time I need a 15% bigger tank. Big whoop.
Most of the problems listed in your talking points is about corn/sugar derived ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is looking more possible everyday and most of those problems you listed go away.
Ethanol is a Myth
April 23, 2008 - 22:40 ET by PopularTechIn the current market Ethanol is a Myth.
E85 is 85% Ethanol! Gasoline is the additive.
We are at fault for directly limiting the supply of food crops by sunsidizing ethanol so farmers find it more profitable to crow corn for fuel than crops for food.
Ethanol has 30% less energy content than Gasoline and Consumer Reports found a 27% drop. Yes you can design high compression engines to take advantage of the higher compression ratio that Ethanol allows but it still gets worse MPG than Gasoline. In conventional engines computers cannot make up for the physical limitations of the engine design.
Ethanol - The Ethanol Myth (Consumer Reports)
Cellulose Ethanol does not exist in any remote practical form. And I do not have "talking points" I have scientific studies...
Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy (Science Daily)
Ethanol Vehicles Pose Significant Risk To Health, New Study Finds (Science Daily)
Fuel Ethanol Cannot Alleviate U.S. Dependence On Petroleum (Science Daily)
Rush To Produce Corn-based Ethanol Will Worsen 'Dead Zone' In Gulf Of Mexico, Study Says (Science Daily)
Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One (Science Daily)
Ethanol Fuel From Corn Faulted As "Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning" In Analysis By Cornell Scientist (Science Daily)
Cattle Fed Byproducts Of Ethanol Production Harbor Dangerous E. Coli Bacteria (Science Daily)
Ethanol, Corn To Weigh Heavily On Future Of Livestock Industry (Science Daily)
Increase In Ethanol Production From Corn Could Significantly Harm Water Quality (Science Daily)
Bioenergy Could Do More Harm Than Good (Science Daily)
Biofuel Blending Is Often Inaccurate, Study Shows (Science Daily)
Biofuel Crops That Require Destroying Native Ecosystems Worsens Global Warming (Science Daily)
Biofuels: An Advisable Strategy? (Science Daily)
Carbon Mitigation by Biofuels or by Saving and Restoring Forests? (Science)
Economists Find Current Biofuel Potential In Oregon May Be Costly And Limited (Science Daily)
Some Biofuels Are Worse Environmentally Than Fossil Fuels, Analysis Shows (Science Daily)
Some Biofuels Risk Biodiversity And Could End Up Harming Environment (Science Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The government mandated the
April 24, 2008 - 05:50 ET by jpm100The government mandated the use of Ethanol an as the MTBE replacement
http://www.epa.gov/m...
http://www.eia.doe.g...
http://www.seco.cpa....
Out of around 200,000 gas station, 600 pump E85. Increased consumption in consumer vehicles as E85 is a drop in the bucket. As a 10% additive, thats 200,000 gas stations selling 20,000 stations worth of ethanol. Additive use of ethanol dramatically outclasses E85.
"Worse MPG than gasoline" - Who gives a crap? Its Mile Per Dollar (MP$). And with $4 likely this year and $5 next year (maybe sooner), even corn-based ethanol starts looking good. Cellulosic is expected to be profitable without subsidies already at $3.
So I need a bigger tank, big whoop.
I really don't see the need to provide the Oil & Gasoline industry with technological protectionism. But apparently some do.
Worse MPG than gasoline" -
April 24, 2008 - 09:06 ET by dscottWorse MPG than gasoline" - Who gives a crap? Its Mile Per Dollar (MP$).
Maybe money is burning a hole in your pockets, but not for most of the country. E10, this 10% additive gives 1.5% less mpg. http://domesticfuel.com/2005/09/19/ethanol-fuel-economy-study/
The problem is the price of E10 is equal to straight gasoline, which means you are paying more per mile with E10 than straight gasoline. A stealth econut tax increase on the consumer, this on top of the subsidy and the mandates which drive up the price of ethanol for the consumer due to artifical demand via legislation.
compares E85 to E10: E85, which is 85 percent ethanol, emits less smog-causing pollutants than gasoline, but provides fewer miles per gallon, costs more, http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/tests-of-ethanol-vs.-gasoline/1006_ethanol_test_1.htm
If Cellulose alcohol were available it would be used by now, it isn't so this is a moot point, future promises don't make the engine run today if there is no product in the tank. This is just another hollow promise like the Hydrogen economy, where is it?
Btw - a bigger tank (30% bigger to achieve the same distance)means more weight which gives even less mpg because you have to expend energy to move the extra weight. Why do you think everyone gripes about increasing the CAFE standards on mileage? It's because car manufacturers have to "lighten" the car to achieve the greater mpg and thus allows less metal between you and car smashing into you. So to meet the CAFE standard with an E85 fueled vehicle the weight of the fully loaded now larger tank must be subtracted from the structural integrity of the vehicle.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Thank you Mrs Majority Leader
April 24, 2008 - 09:24 ET by Agnostic"Democrats have a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price-gouging; rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies; and increasing production of alternative fuels," - Nancy Pelosi prior to 2006 elections
The cost of crude oil is up approx. 70% since the start of their eco-friendly (in their opinion) congress in 2007 and alternative fuel $$$ is threatening the poor around the world.
Please, everyone, Thank Majority Leader Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats and RINOs for keeping their campaign promises.
BTW, if we had a MSM of any journalistic integrity this type of story would at least be mentioned.
Remember when bologna was poor man's meat, not hot dogs!
April 24, 2008 - 09:31 ET by PawpawNThis is so much like when, as a kid bologna was cheap and called the poor man's meat and hot dogs were for the elite-then that switched. Now rice has been sooo inexpensive and every poor person had in diet. Wow, what's next, RAMEN NOODLES!
Ramen Noodles?
April 24, 2008 - 09:36 ET by AgnosticIf the government goes after Ramen Noodles they will have every college campus in riots that would make the 60's look tame in camparison. Ramen Noodles was the staple in my diet in the Navy for 6 years and then in college. Luckily, now that I'm back in college, my wife cooks when I have class but I still have a package from time to time.
E10 is regular gasoline as
April 24, 2008 - 18:06 ET by jpm100E10 is regular gasoline as we know it today. The other gasoline uses MTBE in place of ethanol as an additive. Legislation passed by various localities (states & cities) essentially put MTBE out of the picture and E10 is what is most commonly used.
E85 is the alternative fuel. If you don't know the difference. I wouldn't be putting it your car.
He is well aware of the difference
April 24, 2008 - 19:34 ET by PopularTechAnd so far all you have to offer is emotional illogical positions. YOU are free to go buy E85 now and waste your money. I choose to use the most cost effective fuel for my car = gasoline.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Ethanol Propaganda
April 24, 2008 - 19:30 ET by PopularTechGovernment Mandating Ethanol as an MTBE replacement is part of the problem and should be recinded. That has nothing to do with E85 being 85% Ethanol.
Once you remove the Subsidies and adjust for the BTU rating (MPG) Gasoline needs to get over $6 a gallon before Ethanol even begins to look cost effective. But price factors such as the lack of pipelines that can supply ethanol cost effective to the whole country would raise the cost even higher. The point is the market should decide what fuels we use not idealistic socialist central planners.
For Now, Gasoline Is Our Only Cheap Fuel (Cato Institute)
"Unfortunately, there is nothing on the horizon that comes close to gasoline as far as cost and performance is concerned. Consider the fact that taxes in Europe put gasoline prices at $5 to $8 per gallon. If alternatives to gasoline had economic merit, they would surely have arisen in Europe."
Please stop talking about non-existent cellulose ethanol and what is "expected", I deal with reality.
Forcing Ethanol to compete in the free market has nothing to do with irrational oil and gas "protectionism". Your irrational disdain for oil companies overwhelms any logic.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Hey... c'mon, algore
April 22, 2008 - 18:30 ET by MidAmericaHey... c'mon, algore always said global warming was a killer and the poorest countries would be the hardest hit. He's right on that account.
We are going to pay for this ethanol madness thrice..... once- for the cost of ethanol, twice- the rising cost of food, three times- we will be called on to provide more food aid to starving people around the world
very astute observation, mid
April 22, 2008 - 18:34 ET by SickofLibsvery astute observation, mid
Yes, and we will be criticized...
April 22, 2008 - 19:44 ET by ThalpyYes, and we will be criticized for not giving enough, soon enough.
Algore Refuses to Answer Questions
April 22, 2008 - 18:59 ET by geoff.galeSince we all know that Algore won't answer questions, won't debate AGW, hell, lately he won't even allow the press into his "talks", who's going to bust this story loose? I think we all know the answer to that.
"All that is necessary for the trimuph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Manbearpig Alert
April 22, 2008 - 19:20 ET by dboGreat digging Christmas.
Btw, just saw Al Gore on Oprah (trust me..not a show I usually watch). Twice he refered to CO2 as pollution. Oprah implied that the recently announced $300million advertising campaign was all Al Gore money. How pathetic.
AL WHORE...
April 22, 2008 - 22:24 ET by danybhoySo Al Whore is still trying to tell us that CO2 is pollution? I say to him & others who are pushing this, you first. If you really believe in this cause for the reasons you say you do, you would kill yourselves. Really, think about it, just by breathing, you are causing pollution. When we exhale, we turn out CO2, so if one really cared about reducing CO2, they would off themselves. The wackjob radical islamists are willing to kill themselves, when are the "global warming" cultists gonna step up & not just say it, but do it.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
CO2 is pollution?
April 23, 2008 - 10:53 ET by PopularTechSomeone should ask Al how something that is a natural part of the atmosphere, part of human respiration and is present in our blood is "pollution"?
"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality."
- Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology MIT
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Your car's Catalytic Converter removes about 95% of these pollutants by converting them to Water and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Air Pollution is already regulated in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended: 1977, 1990)
I fear there are far to many people who still think carbon dioxide is pollution.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
→ Gourmet Popcorn
April 22, 2008 - 19:35 ET by Cool ArrowDems must love watching the food riots in Haiti, Bangladesh, and Egypt. I'm sure they kept back enough gourmet popcorn for the event.
But at least they can feeeel good about all the good they do for mother Gaia.
Lovely Prius Alphonse. So glad you joined the movement.
♣ a seal
Global War on Errors
April 22, 2008 - 21:26 ET by jrandallYou know, I dont see alot of difference anymore between the Islamo-terrorists, who blow up innocent, unsuspecting men, women, and children...along with themselves, to promote theyre political points of views, and philosophies....and these global warming alarmist, who allow innocent, unsuspecting men, women and children, to die of starvation, and famine, to promote theyre political philosophies, and points of view (ethonol, man is bad...etc), except that the alarmist "bombers" in this case live, to do it all over again!
Randy
My car is setup to use E85
April 22, 2008 - 21:39 ET by SpockMy minivan is E85 compatable. Basically, as I understand it, thats 15% ethenol. Most pumps around here only offer 10% ethenol now.
I once tried a tank of E85 in my van. OUCH! Although the vehicle ran and performed normally, my gas milage fell through the floor! My full size truck also does not like the 10% mix as it will loose 1-2 MPG running it. (17 MPG drops to 15 or 16 on 10% ethenol) Needless to say, I actively seek out gas stations that still offer straight fuel whenever possible.
Ethenol does not cost me less per gallon to buy.
Ethenol does not give me good miles per gallon.
Ethenol costs me more per mile to use.
Ethenol costs me more at the grocery store.
Ethenol is PC-BS!
Did I mention that I hate ethenol?
A brilliant
April 22, 2008 - 21:49 ET by Clear thinkerA brilliant idea...
Anyone want to make millions???
Let's design a car that only runs on liberals!
"Abstain from McCain"
It's the other way around
April 23, 2008 - 07:44 ET by CobraMan"Basically, as I understand it, thats 15% ethenol."
It's the other way around. E85 is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Or, to look at it another way, it's 85 percent food, 15 percent fuel.
FYI: ALL ethanol produced for fuel here in America must be rendered undrinkable (that’s called dispirited alcohol) by adding poisonous substances to the ethanol before shipping, as per federal law. Usually, this is accomplished by adding; you guessed it, gasoline (15 percent) to the ethanol. So, that E85 comes straight from the ethanol producer as is.
Bingo! and you just
April 23, 2008 - 08:05 ET by dscottBingo! and you just fingered why the price of gas is going through the roof, Ethanol!
The price of Ethanol is subsidized, guess who pays for that at the pump? Us suckers. End the subsidy and the price will fall some 51 cents a gallon. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215135701.htm
The use of Ethanol reduces the mpg of vehicles and hence we must buy MORE gasoline. Guess who gets to pay for this? Us suckers.
It takes fuel to make Ethanol, so once again less fuel is available for retail consumption. Guess who gets to pay for this? Us suckers.
The refineries must double their refining process, once to make the gasoline from oil and then REFORMULATE it for the specific Ethanol content to be mixed for the specific region to be sold for the specific time of year. In the face of constrained refinery capacity, thanks to econuts and Dems, the price of gasoline goes up exponently when supply is artificially limited via the numerous blends and time periods. On top of that, the incompetent boobs in Congress just told the oil companies they demand even more ethanol in the coming years. Guess who gets to pay for this? Us suckers. End the ethanol mandate and the price of gasoline will drop drastically.
btw - E85 is 85% ethanol, that's why your mpg went in the crapper when you used it. Normal cars can only burn up to E10 (10% ethanol), anything more and it won't run properly, your rubber gas lines and o rings in the carb. (old non fuel injected cars) will rot.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Yeah
April 22, 2008 - 21:57 ET by jrandallWe could call it "Solyent Green"
Hey.... look at what
April 22, 2008 - 22:08 ET by MidAmericaHey.... look at what were doing to our distant cousins every time we fill up.
Just a glimpse into the country of ethanolania.
A 2007 post on Food and
April 23, 2008 - 02:25 ET by stratmanA 2007 post on Food and Fuel America, a website that promotes ethanol use amoungst other issues, discusses how AlBore Saved The Ethanol. There is one reply/comment but it should not be missed! It is a beauty of a response to the ethanol issue/debacle.
Then there are these AlBore quotes on ethanol (and other issues) from here (about halfway down the page):
I'd say Al's been consistently ducking questions for a while now on his various statements and interests.
Hey Al, your Administration set in motion the chain reaction of increasing food costs, transportation costs and even increased CO2 "pollution" from the production of ethanol as a fuel additive. You also prodded for the use of MTBE in fuel which saw a fairly rapid outcry as a ground water pollutant and has drastically decreased in use from when you were the VP.
Nice call ManBearPig.
Let's not let Albert forget that his personal crusade (jihad?) for ethanol has negatively affected the world. The recent reports of riots and unrest due to food shortages and the higher costs in general to people for many different types of foods is but one part of the Gore Vision. As Time Magazine reported in March 2008, places like Brazil are deforesting the rain forest (selling wood to China, for instance) and planting biofuel crops instead of trees in order to cash in on the Global Warming idiocy. Super liberal Richard Branson as an investor in biofuels is driving the economic and environmental stupidity as is the omnipresent Ayatolah George Soros. (Why anyone would assist Soros, who turned in fellow Jews to the Nazis, to become wealthy/wealthier is beyond me. I understand his instinct for survival, and he may not have deserved execution after the war ended, but I don't understand how others can facillitate rewarding him ever since.)
Al Gore, Nobel Laureate, Former Vice President, Wealthy Businessman, Spokesperson for Anthropogenic Global Warming, and Architect of Famine, Rain Forest Deforestation and Economic Malfeasence.
Well done Al, well done.
RRAM Tough!
What Democratic Sen. Paul Simon said at the time
April 23, 2008 - 10:57 ET by Matthew VadumPress Release from office of Illinois Sen. Paul Simon (Democrat), August 4, 1994 (from Nexis):
ETHANOL VICTORY
Reaction of Sen. Paul Simon to Senate Ethanol Victory editor's note:
Vice President Al Gore broke a 50-50 tie on Wednesday night, August 3, on an amendment that would have stopped the Environmental Protection Agency's rule on ethanol, By voting to table the amendment, the 51-50'win will allow the rule to go forward. Simon worked with a coalition of Senators to gamer support for ethanol .
"The vote is a victory for Illinois, for America's farmers, and for the nation as a whole, "The fight involved big oil versus farmers, and either group can be wrong. So ultimately what is important is what benefits the nation. It is clear that ethanol, and the Senate vote, is right for the country, ft means less dependence on foreign oil, taxpayers will benefit from reduced farm subsidies, and it helps the environment. "The national interest won out -- barely against the power of the big oil companies."
[punctuation and spelling are as found in the Nexis hit]
-Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch, two monthly newsletters published by Capital Research Center
And just in case Al Gore's admirers...
April 23, 2008 - 11:23 ET by Matthew VadumAnd just in case Al Gore's admirers wish to challenge Noel's account of the events, here is a link to the Senate page displaying information about the vote.
The Aug. 3, 1994 was to table Amendment 2446 offered by Sen. Johnson Bennett (D-La.) to the VA-HUD appropriations bill (H.R. 4624) in the 103rd Congress.
—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch, two monthly newsletters published by Capital Research Center
Matt
April 23, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Noel SheppardMatt,
Great stuff. Obviously, you meant Bennett Johnston.
Interesting if you look at how the vote went, though bipartisan, a majority of Republicans voted to block ethanol, 26-19. By contrast, Dems (including Gore) went 32-24. ns
typo correction
April 23, 2008 - 11:26 ET by Matthew VadumThe Aug. 3, 1994 vote was on an amendment offered by Sen. Johnston Bennett (D-La.).
—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch, two monthly newsletters published by Capital Research Center
Matt you can reedit posts so long as no one replied to them
April 23, 2008 - 11:30 ET by PopularTechMatt you can reedit posts so long as no one replied to them. Click on the red edit button on the bottom right of the post.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopularTech
April 23, 2008 - 14:23 ET by Matthew VadumPopularTech: I don't see a red "edit" button. I see a red "reply" button. Anyway, the NB site won't let me do it.
Ugh. You and Noel are correct that I had the first and family names of the senator reversed. It might have something to do with the fact that both of the fellow's names could be used as surnames. I guess I need a nap.
Thanks for letting me know.
—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch, two monthly newsletters published by Capital Research Center
Ah!
April 23, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Matthew VadumNow I see the red 'edit' button. Sneaky.
—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch, two monthly newsletters published by Capital Research Center
Purchased futures?
April 23, 2008 - 17:46 ET by celatorGore never does anything unless he is the principle beneficiary. So I wonder if some enterprising MSM journalist might want to investigate whether, in the wake of his insane pursuit of ethanol--burning our food for energy--and consequential price increase, Gore has been purchasing Futures in wheat, corn and rice? My guess is he and his little friends have been doing exactly that.