July 23, 2019

Growing Ethanol Maybe Be Hazardous to Your Health

*Editor’s Note* – Below is a snippet and link to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, senior editor of National Review. Goldberg does a great job of exposing the realities of producing bio-fuels, from food sources, and its net negative effect on creating, not reducing, carbon emissions. This is all great, if you buy into the concept that man-caused carbon emissions are causing the planet to warm up.

What’s not mentioned in this piece, which I think is the bottom line, is what has been the result in the cost of gasoline at the pump through all of this? As a whole, I don’t believe people give a rat’s petootie about which is better for the planet. Yes, they may voice opinions about carbon dioxide and saving the planet, and all that, but the bottom line is how much that gasoline costs. After all, gas prices are directly proportional to the cost of all goods.

We are experiencing relatively low gasoline prices. Why? Is it because of shale production, of which Goldberg says has put the U.S. in a position of having greater oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, or is the price lower because of the admixture of ethanol? Or maybe something else? Maybe none of this matters. Maybe the Government intends to continue to use food to produce ethanol in order to reduce the food supply to better control the masses, including death by starvation.

A new study from the University of Michigan confirms what pretty much everyone knew all along. Researchers found that biofuels actually create more greenhouse gases than simply using petroleum, because plants only absorb a fraction of the carbon dioxide released by burning the fuels in the first place. Moreover, ethanol production and distribution is energyintensive,throwing off evenmore greenhouse gases.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Ethanol takes policy blow from the Environmental Protection Agency

By Editorial Board, Published: November 17 – Washington Post

ONCE TOUTED as a climate-friendly renewable alternative to foreign oil, the corn-based liquid ethanol has been exposed as an environmental and economic mistake. Lured by federal subsidies, Midwestern farmers have devoted millions of acres to corn that might otherwise have been devoted to soil conservation or feed-grain production.

Meanwhile, a “dead zone” fed by fertilizer runoff spreads at the mouth of the Mississippi and production costs throughout the grain-dependent U.S. food industry rise. At the end of 2011, the ethanol industry lost a $6 billion per year tax-credit subsidy. And on Friday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delivered yet another policy defeat for ethanol – which is to say, a victory for common sense.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Communism Growing of Ethanol Destroys Wildlife Habitat the Result of Communism

The Portland [Maine] Press Herald has a pity-party sort of article bemoaning the loss of wildlife habitat due to the increase in those looking to cash in on George Bush’s communal plan of growing food for ethanol to add to our gasoline supplies.

There have been many repercussions due to the increase growing of corn and soy for ethanol, as Bush’s idea is about as dumb as it gets (by design I would suspect) to grow food for fuel. But before hunters and others bemoan the loss of wildlife habitat because farmers are tilling up grasslands, consider why there are these vacant, unused grasslands providing the habitat to begin with.

The U.S. Conservation Reserve Program, which pays landowners not to farm their property, has been a boon to wildlife. Since its creation in 1985, it has boosted populations of ducks, ring-necked pheasants, prairie chickens, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and other wildlife by providing areas where they can feed and reproduce.(emphasis added)

And as can always be expected, some readers will take my comments in the wrong way thinking I do not like habitat for these specific wildlife. Of course that’s not true. For those seeking to look and see beyond the obvious, spoon-fed information, isn’t there wonder in what would be in these grasslands had the U.S. Government NOT established the communistic practices of paying farmers and ranchers to not grow crops or other things?

Government giveth and government taketh away! It’s only a guess as to what might have happened without government intervention…..both times.

It is sad to see, not only the loss of wildlife due to Bush’s ethanol insanity, but the economic losses for local economies due to the loss of hunting opportunities, the result of destroyed habitat. Of course the new corn and soy crops will create a different habitat for different species. Things are always changing. Hopefully, without more government control and interference, the creative local people will figure out a way to take advantage of a newly dealt hand.

But don’t count out government stepping in to ruin everything. It’s what they do best.

Share