From: Spike Jones (spike66@attglobal.net)
Date: Mon Jun 11 2001 - 00:13:39 MDT
> Mike Lorrey wrote: ...from the numbers I've seen, methanol requires a
> subsidy of around 50% just to compete evenly with unsubsidized and
> highly taxed petroleum.
Today's San Jose Merc ran an article that claims ethanol must be
subsidized about 54 cents a gallon to compete with regualr gasoline.
If this is correct {no indication that it is, BTW} then fuel is nearly
as expensive as it can logically get, eh?
Consider that the SJ Merc is one of those newspapers that
blatantly pushes its own political view. I would have thought them
to be pro-ethanol, but they did everything possible to put a
negative spin on this story. For instance, they cite Red Davis
petitioning the Clinkton administration to withdraw the requirement
for ethanol additives, since Taxifornia fuel can meet air regs
without it. The Clinkton people refused to take this action,
for fear it would dump Iowa into the Bush camp in the 2000
election, which the shrub lost by 5000 votes.
Other examples of how the Merc spun this article:
The headline whimpers: Ethanon May Add to Cost of Gas
In the questions-for-the-clueless section is the following:
Q: What are the costs of ethanol?
A: The cost of ethanol is high, requiring government subsidies.
Tax incentives reduce the price 54 cents per gallon, etc.
Q: What problems can it cause?
A: ...Taxifornia Air Resources Board... is conducting an
environmental study of its impact on air, surface water and
ground water.
Crimonies! They dont like oil, they dont like nuclear, they dont
wind power, they dont like alcohol. But this is the one that
made me howl with dirisive laughter:
Q: Is it harmful to humans?
A: Ethanol, an alcohol, is toxic to humans, but the body begins to
dispose of it immediately upon consumption.
I found nothing in the article that explains to Joe SixPack that
this is the exact stuff that is in his Bud-Lite. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:04 MST