Brazil subsidizes ethanol production? Out-freaking-standing! Blow away our tariffs
and let Brazilian taxpayers lower the cost of ethanol to US consumers? I want some of that.
Couldn't we grow sugar cane in LA and FL?
I agree that it's stupid to burn our food.
I also think it's stupid that we haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades.
We do grow sugar cane in FL. It is not economically viable without VERY restrictive limits on sugar imports. Here's the deal:
1. Restriction on the amount of sugar imported into the US to support Everglades sugar growers
2. Sugar growers drain portions of the 'glades for their fields and pump water in & out to suit their needs
3. Runoff drags fertilizers & such into the glades, spurring the growth of crap-vegetation that cokes out other plants & animals
4. The result of 3 & 4 is a reduction in size of the glades and some parts that remain end up fouled
Al Gore proposed multi-billion dollar efforts to fix the glades. What a maroon. What he needed to do was lift the restrictions on imported sugar and the sugar growers would go outta business and their operations would sink back into the glades with disuse.
Which leads me to the next bit...
Corn is JUST A START.
Corn is not a start, it is a subsidy-pit. Ethanol as a fuel from corn sugar or cane sugar
grown in the USA is a good screwing to the US taxpayer & consumer. If it is a start, I insist that I first be kissed and that the corn-
growers use "protection" and a tub of (non-petroleum!) K-Y before I get corn-
holed.
If ethanol from cellulose is such a wonderful thing, wait until
that is on-line. Then get together with the hemp-heads and grow wacky tobaccy to burn in pipes and IC engines. Then, everyone will be happy.
---------
This year I went down to south Texas, again. I though I had teleported to Latin-American Iowa, since the highways were all bordered with corn, rather than the usual cotton fields. Yep, marginal lands being put into production to milk the taxpayer--er--I mean, "Decrease our dependance on foreign oil."