Wednesday, November 10, 2010

When liberals run stuff - The EPA

Before you read this you might ask yourself. How can the EPA influence food prices?

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the American Petroleum Institute and other groups filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s decision to allow more corn-based ethanol in gasoline.

Lobbying organizations representing companies that include Tyson Foods Inc. and Coca-Cola Co. are part of the lawsuit filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The groups, including the American Meat Institute and the Snack Food Association, said the EPA lacked the authority to make the decision and will result in higher food costs.

The EPA’s decision “will increase the amount of corn being diverted to our gas tanks and away from meat and poultry production,” J. Patrick Boyle, the Meat Institute’s chief executive officer, said in an-mailed statement. The AMI includes Tyson, Smithfield Foods Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. among its members.

I guess it's a "progressive" thing to turn food into fuel. Ask yourself this question, who does this hurt more. Rich people who can absorb higher food prices or poor people who will spend more of their disposable income on food?



Anonymous said...

The ethanol thing makes no sense. It's supposed to reduce co2 emissions. But burning alcohol and burning gasoline both emit about the same amount of co2 per energy unit. The co2 benefit is not at burn time but at grow time, when the corn stalks are sucking co2 out of the atmosphere. So why does it have to be corn that sucks co2 out of the air? Why not take a faster growing plant that fixes co2 into cellulose faster and does not need fertilizer or advanced farming, like kudzu. Take all the millions of tons of kudzu already growing in the south, harvest it, and just bury it to fix the carbon under ground. Then burn regular fossil fuels. It would have a higher net effect as growing/burning corn but not expend valuable food farming resources.

Anonymous said...

My point above was not to propose the above idea as a serious one. It's actually pretty stupid. But scientifically speaking, it makes more sense than corn ethanol. Which proves that corn ethanol is really, really stupid. Where are the genius global warming scientists around the world and why are they not progesting this stupidity? They don't stop it because ethanol is a product of politics not of science or markets and our scientists have become political creatures, funded by left leaning causes.

This is precisely why is have absolutely no trust in any global warming science whatsoever. A high school chemistry student could prove that ethanol is not carbon neutral. But Harvard University can't? Hmmm. Something is fishy here.