Ethanol Scam: Political Boondoggle

Rolling Stone is not the height of American journalism, but I’ll take justification that I’m not crazy wherever I can get it. Kudos to them for use of the word boondoggle. I posted my rant against ethanol on July 20th, beating out Rolling Stone by 4 days. Blatant plagiarism, and I am currently considering my options vis-a-vis legal action. Being highly knowledgeable about the subject, I noticed several liberties taken by the writer. Nothing that was outright dishonest, but perhaps over-simplified. It’s easy to forget how much is hidden under the surface with any complex subject.

Following is a few bits and pieces of the RS article and, I can only imagine, my own commentary. “This is not just hype — it’s dangerous, delusional bullshit.” Certainly my type of journalism.

Political Environmentalism: Bad for the Environment

From the Economist, in regards to the upcoming energy bill:

The Democrats hold at least two suspect truths to be self-evident. Most obviously, they think that politicians should micro-manage energy policy, encouraging some technologies and neglecting others. That ignores most of the lessons of economics, but it is decidedly well grounded compared with the Democrats’ other verity: that slowing global warming and reducing dependence on imported fuels go hand-in-hand. What sense does it make to give preference to American ethanol over the cheaper and more climate-friendly Brazilian sort? (Indeed, if you embrace the goal of “energy security”, bigger imports of Brazilian ethanol might help, by reducing America’s demand for oil from more hostile lands.)