Obama's Deal With the Devil

[Anonymous]

One of my favorite bloggers posted something that is near and dear to my heart. As someone who is concerned about the environment, I'm sad to see that under Obama's watch, Ethanol production is going to be kicked up by 50%. Right now gas can be mixed with 10% ethanol, but now they are allowing 15%. Considering how much gas we consume, this is an enormous increase. Replacing food crops with fuel crops is a really bad idea, locally and globally. THis is a step in the wrong direction and is a move meant to protect big business. Demand for corn is down with people now realizing that HFCS is detrimental to your health and that livestock and fish fed a diet of corn are also unhealthy. People want healthier more natural products. Coupled with the downturn in demand for oil the corn lobby is into high gear and clearly winning. See this link, it is a quick read, he is normally blogs about food:

http://theslowcook.blogspot.com/2009/03/ehanol-obamas-pact-with-devil.html


Oh well, at least I know I can move my investments into big agra, they will be well protected, but I guess that is what we get when we elect someone from Illinois with strong support from big agra. This is yet another case where the lips are moving, but the left hand is doing something else. He's a magic man!

[Anonymous]

Seriously, do you really think that someone who is interested in ethanol must be under the thumb of "big agra"? I can see how you might not like ethanol. But why bother bashing the first president since Nixon to attempt anything substantial for the environment, just because of one facet of policy? Would you rather have Bush, friend of the Saudi royal family and firmly in the pocket of the oil companies?

I get the point about ethanol and its impact on carbon emissions. But I really think it's nonsense to paint Obama to be a tool of the agriculture industry. Maybe you are in the pocket of "Big Wind" because you are a blowhard.

[Anonymous]

It's a terrible policy, I agree. But he's from Illinois. It's not that surprising. Or as Jeff once wrote in reply to a post I made -- and he was right -- two words: Iowa caucus.

Anyone who understands farm policy understands what a bad idea this is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, do you really think that someone who is interested in ethanol must be under the thumb of "big agra"? I can see how you might not like ethanol. But why bother bashing the first president since Nixon to attempt anything substantial for the environment, just because of one facet of policy? Would you rather have Bush, friend of the Saudi royal family and firmly in the pocket of the oil companies?

I get the point about ethanol and its impact on carbon emissions. But I really think it's nonsense to paint Obama to be a tool of the agriculture industry. Maybe you are in the pocket of "Big Wind" because you are a blowhard.

Oh I don't know, maybe because it contributes heavily to world hunger already and increasing it by a minimum of 50% just exacerbates the problem. Not to mention that it rapes the soil and takes more energy to produce than it creates. It is a step backwards and does more harm than good. There is no benefit other than to big agra-NOTHING. Now why would Obama do that? Paybacks.

Obama is a token environmentalist and your post contained nothing intelligent and added nothing to the dialogue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, do you really think that someone who is interested in ethanol must be under the thumb of "big agra"? I can see how you might not like ethanol. But why bother bashing the first president since Nixon to attempt anything substantial for the environment, just because of one facet of policy? Would you rather have Bush, friend of the Saudi royal family and firmly in the pocket of the oil companies?

I get the point about ethanol and its impact on carbon emissions. But I really think it's nonsense to paint Obama to be a tool of the agriculture industry. Maybe you are in the pocket of "Big Wind" because you are a blowhard.

Oh I don't know, maybe because it contributes heavily to world hunger already and increasing it by a minimum of 50% just exacerbates the problem. Not to mention that it rapes the soil and takes more energy to produce than it creates. It is a step backwards and does more harm than good. There is no benefit other than to big agra-NOTHING. Now why would Obama do that? Paybacks.

Obama is a token environmentalist and your post contained nothing intelligent and added nothing to the dialogue.

Again, I see that you disagree with ethanol. I get it. I really do. But this whole thing about him being in the pocket of Big Agra is just name calling. So if you want intelligent dialogue, maybe you can spend more time on a critique of the administration's energy policy or perhaps offer your own. Then you will get more than name-calling in return.