On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:11:32 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:07:03 -0500, "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.
>>>
>>
>> ethanol has nothing to do with 'a loudmouthed environmentalist
>> minority. it has to do with pork-barrel politicians bleating about
>> 'reducing dependence on foreign oil' without being willing to increase
>> fleet mileage, etc.
>>
>>>Previous examples have been oxygenate additives to gas i.e. MTBE and the
>>>resulting massive pollution,
>>
>> mbte was introduced to increase gasoline octane by oil refiners.
>> again, nothing to do with environmentalists, who, if anything, have
>> protested its use.
>
>Wasn't it compensation for the loss of lead? Wasn't the loss of lead an
>environmental thang?
>

yes, environmentalists worked to remove lead from gasoline, with good
reason unless you like mental retardation and lead poisoning. that
doesn't mean they were behind the addition of m.b.t.e and the
'resulting massive pollution.'

your pal,
blake

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **