Michael Foster sez:
Just for the record, now that they are all running for
cover and ducking the tough questions, those so-called
enviromentalists and global warming twinkies who
initially promoted biofuels need to be held
accountable. They won't, of course, since they'll be
responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands,
if not millions of the world's most vulnerable people
and of course, the usual excuse will be offered...
"They did it in a good cause."
I don't know why he said it again because I sent him this reply after he
first made this claim on about the 12th of April (I did it accidentally cos
it was intended for the forum but went to his personal email address...)
Copy of email
follows-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Foster wrote this (about using corn for ethanol) a few days ago and
I have just spotted it...
<<To watch how it came about is a lesson in the law of unintended
consequences. Although, they are no doubt running for cover or looking for
plausible deniability, this horror started with misguided and supremely
ignorant environmentalists. It sounds so nice, so sensible, so "renewable".
Hey, we have all this corn let's make some motor fuel from it>>
I'm pretty sure it didn't start anywhere near environmentalists for the
simple reason that any environmentalist worth their salt has always known
that the agri-industrial production of corn uses up large amounts of fossil
fuel in processing to make ethanol but also because of the similarly large
amount of fossil fuel used to create the artificial fertilisers necessary to
grow the stuff. Greenies have been promoting vegetarianism, for a couple of
decades at least, because large parts of the environmentally damaging corn
crop go to fatten up cattle. It just doesn't make sense that any bona fide
environmentalist would have recommended growing corn for fuel! I suppose it
is possible that someone could have been caught on the hop if a reporter
asked them what could be done with the excess corn if everyone gave up
eating meat and replied (without commissioning a full scale and expensive
Life Cycle Analysis) that it could be turned into ethanol, like Brazilian
sugar cane, but it seems unlikely to me - in any event I have never heard it
suggested seriously by anyone. It would have been more likely that someone
suggested growing sunflowers or rape seed organically to create biodiesel
from the plant oils.
Is someone now saying that Greenies were recommending turning corn
into ethanol? If so, could you let me know who because it just might be more
black propaganda like we have had to put up with for years.
end of quoted
email--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm really trying hard to find some way that Michael Foster's belief might
be justified. A fair time ago the European Union was famous for
overproduction of agricultural stuff. They were notorious for their stored
wine "lakes", butter and wheat "mountains" etc. Perhaps, when asked what
could be done with the wheat/corn, someone once said that it could be
fermented to ethanol; maybe they suggested distilling the wine lakes too! In
any event, it was never, ever generally accepted policy. There was, however,
some enthusiasm for ethanol from sugar cane like the Brazilans had been
doing for some time.
If it happens that anyone ends up being <<responsible for the death of
hundreds of thousands, if not millions of the world's most vulnerable
people>> then the guilty parties will be the usual suspects i.e. stupid,
white men (after Michael Moore's book title). Mostly American.
