Biofuels do more harm than good, UN warns

[smstonypoint]

Biofuels do more harm than good, UN warns - Telegraph

The EPA reduced the ethanol mandate for 2014 to 15.21 billion gallons, down from 16.55 gallons in 2013:EPA reduces 2014 ethanol mandate.


Steve





















;

 

[Gunny]

Interesting, thanks for posting. I wonder how long it will take the greenies to start disavowing this report.

I read a long time ago that producing ethanol required more energy than it contained.

 

[dave1949]

It's not the greenies, it's the senators and representatives from the corn belt that keep ethanol alive. The EPA doesn't order congress to subsidize ethanol, you got it bass ackwards. Greenies gave up on grain ethanol a long time ago as something that would never make enough sense.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Interesting, thanks for posting. I wonder how long it will take the greenies to start disavowing this report.

I read a long time ago that producing ethanol required more energy than it contained

.

I also read that it ethanol could be produced from petroleum much cheaper than from corn. Besides. Ethanol is for drinking, not burning in a Dodge Dart.

 

[Travelover]

.......Besides. Ethanol is for drinking, not burning in a Dodge Dart.

Heck, corn is for eating. Why turn perfectly good food into fuel?

 

[RickB]

$4 corn will keep the ethanol boondoggle going for a while. Without the demand for corn to be used for ethanol production, grain prices would be well below production costs right now. I read on another forum where E85 was selling for $2.29 in the midwest. Doesn't help me here where 10% blend is running near $4.

 

[oosik]

You know, it gets harder every year to understand exactly how our senators & representatives are actually helping us. I, for one, think we need new ones. And I don't think this biofuel issue is fooling anybody.

 

[dave1949]

You know, it gets harder every year to understand exactly how our senators & representatives are actually helping us. I, for one, think we need new ones. And I don't think this biofuel issue is fooling anybody.

I don't think it's fooling anybody either. The sad part is, they don't even care about fooling anyone these days. Get out the pitchforks.

 

[Travelover]

I don't think it's fooling anybody either. The sad part is, they don't even care about fooling anyone these days. Get out the pitchforks.

When you can decide who is the candidate in a solidly one party district, you don't even need the voters to decide the election, it is a done deal at the nomination.

 

[dave1949]

When you can decide who is the candidate in a solidly one party district, you don't even need the voters to decide the election, it is a done deal at the nomination.

That's true. One of my pet peeves; political parties have taken control of districting. There is zero constitutional basis for that. There are no political parties in the constitution, so how do they get the power to control districts?

A few states have it, but I would love to see citizen committees drawn from the jury pool or something that convenes as needed to adjust districts. They would actually follow the Maine constitution if presided over by the state supreme court. I know that sounds like overkill, but the reality is the Maine supreme court ends up adjudicating the nonsense the parties come up with every time anyways.

 

[RickB]

Candidate selection is immaterial. Fact is, the majority of voters are perfectly content to elect "leaders" that continually reward the electorate by giving them back an increasingly large share of the public treasury. If you think that will materially change without revolution or the complete meltdown of our financial structure, you are dreaming. We are witnesses to the decline and end of our democratic experiment. How long it takes to get to the end has yet to be determined. But it surely, absolutely is coming.

 

[Travelover]

Candidate selection is immaterial. Fact is, the majority of voters are perfectly content to elect "leaders" that continually reward the electorate by giving them back an increasingly large share of the public treasury. .......

Without getting too political, I'd point out that who has been getting richer tends to be the ones who finance the candidates directly or through PACS.