the "unintended consequences syndrome" of liberalism
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21699
Al Gore says that we need government mandates to increase ethanol production. Now we learn that increased ethanol production in the Midwest (19% higher in 2007 than in 2006) has caused an 8500 sq. mile "dead zone" to form in the Gulf of Mexico. Apparently, the nutrients being flushed from the farms in the Midwest watershed are causing algae to grow in the Gulf. The huge algae blooms "....suck oxygen from the water, suffocating any fish, shrimp or mollusks that become trapped in that area. As the algae die, the mass of cells sink to the seafloor, bacteria break down the organic matter consuming most of the oxygen at that level which, in turn, suffocates sea stars, corals, snails and other shellfish," according to the article linked above. Do you think that Brother Gore's Travelin' Salvation Show intended to kill so many fish? Where's PETA when you need them?
Are there other "unintended consequences?" Of course! According to the article, "....it takes 1.597 gallons of diesel and gasoline used in the corn crop growth, harvesting, shipping of corn to ethanol production, and distribution of ethanol to the consumer for every 1 gallon of ethanol that is produced." Also, "It takes 1 acre of corn to produce 300 to 330 gallons of ethanol fuel. (To replace the 200 billion gallons of petroleum products we now consume yearly, we would need to commit 675 million acres of our farmland to its production. That would be 71% of all available farmland in which case we would have to start importing our food products.)"
Do you liberals understand the ramifications of converting to ethanol? We would have to import MORE oil to facilitate ethanol production and transportation, making us more dependent on foreign despots for oil. Also, we wouldn't be able to feed the billions of people worldwide anymore, as we have done in the past. Skyrocketing food prices and worldwide famine would be the result. And that doesn't even take into the account all of the increased pollution that would be caused by ethanol-driven vehicles, which I have documented previously.
So, let me see if I can get my wooden conservative head to grasp the liberal concepts here. We need to switch to ethanol to save the planet, even though such a switch would result in a worldwide holocaust of man and all manner of creatures of the land, sky and sea. Sounds good to me! Where do I sign up to drink the Kool-Aid?
Al Gore says that we need government mandates to increase ethanol production. Now we learn that increased ethanol production in the Midwest (19% higher in 2007 than in 2006) has caused an 8500 sq. mile "dead zone" to form in the Gulf of Mexico. Apparently, the nutrients being flushed from the farms in the Midwest watershed are causing algae to grow in the Gulf. The huge algae blooms "....suck oxygen from the water, suffocating any fish, shrimp or mollusks that become trapped in that area. As the algae die, the mass of cells sink to the seafloor, bacteria break down the organic matter consuming most of the oxygen at that level which, in turn, suffocates sea stars, corals, snails and other shellfish," according to the article linked above. Do you think that Brother Gore's Travelin' Salvation Show intended to kill so many fish? Where's PETA when you need them?
Are there other "unintended consequences?" Of course! According to the article, "....it takes 1.597 gallons of diesel and gasoline used in the corn crop growth, harvesting, shipping of corn to ethanol production, and distribution of ethanol to the consumer for every 1 gallon of ethanol that is produced." Also, "It takes 1 acre of corn to produce 300 to 330 gallons of ethanol fuel. (To replace the 200 billion gallons of petroleum products we now consume yearly, we would need to commit 675 million acres of our farmland to its production. That would be 71% of all available farmland in which case we would have to start importing our food products.)"
Do you liberals understand the ramifications of converting to ethanol? We would have to import MORE oil to facilitate ethanol production and transportation, making us more dependent on foreign despots for oil. Also, we wouldn't be able to feed the billions of people worldwide anymore, as we have done in the past. Skyrocketing food prices and worldwide famine would be the result. And that doesn't even take into the account all of the increased pollution that would be caused by ethanol-driven vehicles, which I have documented previously.
So, let me see if I can get my wooden conservative head to grasp the liberal concepts here. We need to switch to ethanol to save the planet, even though such a switch would result in a worldwide holocaust of man and all manner of creatures of the land, sky and sea. Sounds good to me! Where do I sign up to drink the Kool-Aid?
posted by hondo at 10:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home