Skip to comments.
Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy {Brazil - Ethanol}
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY ^
| 10/27/2006
| INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted on 10/29/2006 9:49:48 PM PST by thackney
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
This is what America needs to do. Please read the article for more information.
1
posted on
10/29/2006 9:49:49 PM PST
by
thackney
To: thackney
This from the guy [Clinton] who did everything he could to bribe oil contracts with President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev? LOL!
2
posted on
10/29/2006 9:55:20 PM PST
by
endthematrix
("If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons.")
To: thackney
Has this pervert ever been to Sao Paolo? Anyone who has been there will tell you that the air is nearly unbreathable. If this is what Clinton and the Prop. 87 clowns are proposing, it will set California's pollution control efforts back to the 1970s.
And, oh yes, we don't have a pipeline distribution system for ethanol It has to be carried by diesel burning trains or trucked to the refineries to be blended with gasoline. This means the further you are from the ethanol producing regions, the less you gain from burning it. By the time you haul the ethanol from the Midwest, where presumably there would be gigantic mash pots and stills, to California where our boutique oil refineries are, you've probably burned almost as much fuel as you produced in the first place. And to anyone in the Midwest who still thinks this is a good idea; ever been down wind of granddad's old mash pot? Multiply that smell by about 100,000 times.
3
posted on
10/29/2006 10:06:45 PM PST
by
InABunkerUnderSF
(Everything I need to know about Palestinian nationalism I learned on June 5, 1968.)
To: thackney
Somebody get this to Bill O'Reilly who has been crowing about Brazil like they invented a cure for cancer.
But lets just pretend, for the sake of sheer stupidity, that Brazil DID stop using oil and went totally onto ethanol produced from sugar. Does anybody in America believe that if we suddenly increased our sugar production by about 4000% in order to produce the amount of ethanol needed to replace just Saudi Arabia alone that the Sierra Club would allow it?
The sugar producers get extorted all the time because the super nitrogen-rich run off from the waste of the sugarcane is considered a toxin byproduct and the sugar companies are fined by the EPA for 'poisoning' the rivers and lakes which are downstream from their productions. It is absolutely true that dumping sugarcane stocks is incredibly unbalancing to the environment and causes a host of changes in the ecosystem which are unexpected and unwanted.
But hey, aren't we willing to kill out a few thousand lakes and rivers in order to get rid of foreign oil? Producing sugar in the level necessary to produce enough ethanol to replace foreign oil would create more environmental damage and the damage would be here in the U.S. instead and not in the arabian peninsula. They could consider corn as the alternative but you end up with somewhat the same problem and we probably don't have enough currently turnable farmland to do this kind of output without stopping all production directed at actual foodstocks.
4
posted on
10/29/2006 10:09:43 PM PST
by
bpjam
(Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida - The Religion of Peace)
To: thackney
They: Algore, et al, say California is too dependent on foreign oil. Well, if the oil companies were allowed to drill on shore and off shore WE WOULD NOT BE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL! They are traitors, all....
5
posted on
10/29/2006 10:12:47 PM PST
by
olinr
To: bpjam
The dirty little secret of enegy independance is high taxes on cars, so people don't have them. Car tax is $10,000.an. They need Arnold!
6
posted on
10/29/2006 10:13:47 PM PST
by
ClaireSolt
(Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
To: bpjam
Somebody get this to Bill O'Reilly who has been crowing about Brazil like they invented a cure for cancer. Won't do any good. The big O is about as dunce and any RAT.
7
posted on
10/29/2006 10:14:18 PM PST
by
Logical me
(Oh, well!!!)
To: InABunkerUnderSF
I've been to Sao Paolo. The air is almost as bad as Mexico City.
8
posted on
10/29/2006 10:19:21 PM PST
by
Cobra64
(Why is the War on Terror being managed by the DEFENSE Department?)
To: thackney
To: bpjam
Somebody get this to Bill O'Reilly who has been crowing about Brazil like they invented a cure for cancer. That jerk wouldn't get it. He has to be one of the dumbest jerks on tv.
10
posted on
10/29/2006 10:20:49 PM PST
by
Cobra64
(Why is the War on Terror being managed by the DEFENSE Department?)
To: budman_2001
They used to have his paperback on the bookshelf at the grocery store. I took it upon myself, as a civic duty, to throw all of them into the shopping cart and take them over to the toilet paper section and stuff them in the back. Everything bogus bill touched turned to $#![...remember the EV1?
11
posted on
10/29/2006 11:23:16 PM PST
by
timer
To: thackney
I knew bubba was lying. His lips were moving.
12
posted on
10/29/2006 11:29:23 PM PST
by
smoketree
(the insanity, the lunacy these days)
To: thackney
LOL, I knew oil was a part of the fix, but I sure didn't realize it was that significant. Clinton is true to form. He lies about Brazil, and lies about the new gas tax being the savior of western civilization. What a maroon....
13
posted on
10/29/2006 11:51:19 PM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
To: InABunkerUnderSF
Has this pervert ever been to Sao Paolo? Anyone who has been there will tell you that the air is nearly unbreathable. If this is what Clinton and the Prop. 87 clowns are proposing, it will set California's pollution control efforts back to the 1970s.Well said, I should toss in that to this day, most Brasilian don't ever expect to ever own a car.
14
posted on
10/30/2006 2:50:33 AM PST
by
Caipirabob
(Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
To: DoughtyOne
Yes and meanwhile his socialist shrew of a wife is running ads in NY (did you know she is running for the senate here?) saying we should use the oil company's "obscene" profits to fund alternative fuel research! Two peas in a(rotten)pod.
15
posted on
10/30/2006 3:04:29 AM PST
by
mc5cents
To: mc5cents
I know the nation could have done a lot better than the two of them. To bad.
16
posted on
10/30/2006 8:20:09 AM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
To: InABunkerUnderSF
No, but he went to Rio to catch up on his bikini shopping. Now we know how he's such an expert on Brazil!
What a whopper-teller he is!
To: timer
Brazil has an extensive alcohol fuel production and distribution network, not to mention huge sugarcane production plantation and cheap farm labor to produce the alcohol. The same would be very difficult to replicate in the US.
19
posted on
10/30/2006 4:54:24 PM PST
by
s_asher
To: Kitten Festival
Yeah, a tree is known by its fruit. The TREES wasted on that loser's paperback would have been put to better use in the toilet paper section...remember your CIVIC DUTY when you see it in the book section...
20
posted on
10/30/2006 5:52:00 PM PST
by
timer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson