"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ic3hf.352983$084.248638@attbi_s22...
I thought the idea behind ethanol was not to make more fuel, but to be a
replacement for MTBE to reduce pollution. I seem to remember reading
that
it wasn't very effective in that regard, as compared to "normal" gas, but
was done as "pork" to the corn producing states.

To sum up the general political mood, I think the feeling is that it's
better to pay farmers to grow corn for ethanol than it is to pay them for
growing nothing.

It's stupid, but no one can apparently figure out how to wean the farmers
off the government teat without creating a catastrophe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


The subsidies should be cut off cold turkey. It is stupid to support
archaic industries or habits. The number of people employed in agriculture
has declined 90% already which is what produced our modern economy. Why is
there so much risistance to letting it go down another 20% which is the only
way to make the remaining farmers profitable?

On Ethanol, Brazil produces ethanol and sells it as motor fuel and it isn't
subsidized although cars sold in Brazil are required to be able to run on
pure ethanol or gasoline. They do use sugar cane instead of corn in Brazil,
I'm not sure that this makes a difference. Brazil actually *profitably*
exports ethanol to the US even though the US producers are getting a $0.54
cent subsidy. The subsidies just perpetuate inefficiency.

Mike
MU-2