Comments on: Alternative Fuel Subsidies Cause Sober Germans, Starving Mexicans, More Pollution

By: Gop3.com: The Triumvirate » Blog Archive » Liveblogging the Republican Party of Wisconsin’s 2007 State Convention

Sat, 12 May 2007 16:29:09 +0000

[...] 11:24 AM Brandon: He just stated that he has been asked to join the Committee on Environmental Impact and Global Warming or as Republican’s call it, the “Hot Air Committee”. For more information on all the hot air from the left on environmental alarm-ism, check out this post. [...]

By: SPET3R

SPET3R — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:21:41 +0000

That wasn’t the first bill either… I think there was another one that specifically later (in 2005??) which addressed Ethanol, Methanol and the production of BIOdiesal.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:15:43 +0000

First thing, I’m sorry about the biodiesel comment, it was directed at the other comments, not your article.

Second, occasionally it is necessary to subsidize “inferior” technologies.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/A.....farm.bill/

By: SPET3R

SPET3R — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:13:33 +0000

Someone is scan reading and picked up "biodiesel" since its the last word of my post. BIOdeisel will become very important when it comes to the growing of corn... since manure and other bi-products of agriculture can be used to produce it. When Ethanol is brought up, it'll always result in a huge debate and its not along party lines. There is an issue happening in Sparta and in Ridgeville right now with an Ethanol plant... Pollution is the concern there and the construction of these plants raise controversies.

By: Brandon Henak

Brandon Henak — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:47:05 +0000

I never said anything about biodiesel… I was referencing ethanol in the Stanford study quotation. This article was meant to address the whole range of negative externalities that are resulting from alternative fuel subsidies, not debate the pros and cons of any given technology. In fact, if a given technology is superior, it should succeed in the market without government subsidies.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:24:42 +0000

I do not claim to know a lot about politics, but what I do study is science. As an environmentalist who does support ethanol I can say that of course ethanol releases pollution when burned. Environmentalists never claimed that it didnâ€™t. What they do claim is that ethanol, unlike gasoline, is carbon neutral. This means that whatever greenhouse gasses it emits are taken in during the growth of the plant and therefore total emissions are zero.

One more thing, biodiesel is very different compared to ethanol so please don’t use this Stanford article to criticize it.

By: Dave Okoniewski

Dave Okoniewski — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:29:00 +0000

You’re an idiot if you think liberals and environmentalists support ethanol. The problem is politicians of both parties who put there own constituents first before the good of the rest of the nation and the world. Oh, and I don’t know what media you watch (too much Fox News I suspect),, but I have seen numerous reports of the pollution and health problems of ethanol.