Pete C. wrote:
> George wrote:
>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/bu...l?ref=business
>>>
>>> It just ain't right.
>>> --
>>>
>>> modom
>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>> I do agree that the totally clueless and unplanned grinding up of food
>> to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going wasn't such a great idea:
>
> Ethanol has nothing to do with keeping SUVs going, it's all about yet
> another example of a poorly thought out plan pushed by a loud mouthed
> environmentalist minority that once again causes more harm than good.

Don't think so. The politicians were responding to the "pain" of their
constituents as fuel prices started to rise and it cost serious money to
fill up fluffed up trucks. So they seized on on the idea of ethanol as
"cheap fuel" with the help of the corn lobby. Only being as clueless as
they are they didn't consider that you actually have to plan on growing
more for the future not just cluelessly start grinding up the corn that
was grown for food and feed and handing out billions in subsidies..


>
> Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
> resulting massive pollution, banning Freon based on junk science and the
> resulting switch to refrigerants that are toxic, less efficient and far
> worse "greenhouse" gasses, as well as the huge impact of replacing
> otherwise perfectly serviceable equipment.

Agree, those were drive by the concerns you noted.



>
> Plenty more examples too, but those who point out all these
> environmentalist caused disasters and point to the need to fully study
> any possible drastic changes and validate the often junk science
> supporting them get attacked as "deniers", or apologists for big
> business or some such.
>
> If our schools weren't failing hopelessly, perhaps these so called
> environmentalists would have the critical thinking and scientific skills
> to realize the error of so much of what they push.