Thursday, May 24, 2007

Ethanol Nonsense is wasting taxpayers money

I can't believe we are going forward with subsidizing Ethanol. The evidence against this as a practical solution is overwhelming. From John Stossel:

The Many Myths of Ethanol
[...] If ethanol's so good, why does it need government subsidies? Shouldn't producers be eager to make it, knowing that thrilled consumers will reward them with profits?

But consumers won't reward them, because without subsidies, ethanol would cost much more than gasoline.

The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. "It takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant," Taylor says.

And because ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline is. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it.

More bad news: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn growing -- which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides.

This makes ethanol the "solution"?

But won't it at least get us unhooked from Middle East oil? Wouldn't that be worth the other costs? Another myth. [...]

Read the whole article for the rest of the myths, and for a possible reason why Ethanol is being pushed anyway. Hint: it has to do with Iowa and elections.

Once again, government is doing something just for the sake of making it look like they are doing something to solve a problem, even though it really isn't. Isn't it time to put an end to this useless and wasteful posturing?

1 comment:

Energy Boomer said...

I agree that Ethanol is not the answer to our need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

It is not worth the extra cost per mile.

Bio-Butanol from waste materials would be a much better choice.

Birney Summers