Thomas Smicklas

Economists Blast Ethanol, the 'Nicorette Gum of America's Oil Addiction'

Ethanol is a perfect example of harmful unintended consequences by the Gore minions and narrow special interests, primarily the environmental left. The responses to your post of the blindly naive pro-ethanol crowd will likely mirror some of those at my post criticizing ethanol months ago when it was not fashionable to state the obvious. These poor souls need some oil, coal and nuclear companies in their narrow portfolios. We need to read their words in posts carefully, so as not to fall victim to bumper-sticker intellect.

The Case Against Ethanol

It appears that many points made against ethanol are based upon facts and personal observation, while many points made for ethanol are based on imposing one's lifestyle on another and "big government is best" ideas. In any event, it is good that both sides are heard.

The Case Against Ethanol

There is no paradox. Ethanol dependence starves the poor. Our Democratic Congress (and Republican Governors in Florida and California) prevent drilling for oil off almost all the coasts and inland (while China and Venezuala drill off our shore at the bequest of Cuba). We have coal supplies for an estimated six hundred years within U.S. boundaries with carbon dioxide recapture capabilities on the horizon and natural gas, solid and liquid in quantities out the ying yang. Nuclear power? Politically incorrect. We can mitigate $$ to the dictators in many ways.

So there is little need for ethanol. No need to raise world grain prices, no need to tax working people for a fashionable energy agenda and no need to wring our hands over our poor grandchildren dealing with the issue.

They should do a much better job of it than we will, learning from our environmental lobby mistakes.