The Issue of Ethanol

[jdobbin]

Sorry, I didn't notice that. But it's still silly.

Native grasslands preserve diversity? Plowing untouched prairie and planting corn releases carbon dioxide? Is there any untouched prairie?

I reckon corn absorbs more CO2 than grassland, but what do I know.

In should also mention and other articles indicate it as well that farmer have been taking unproductive land out of circulation and letting it become wetlands. There are several environmental benefits from that including carbon capture.

In many places, farm land has returned to prairie grass or as in the States, forest has been allowed to grow over it.

Growing more corn on land that has only become economical through bio-fuels is poor management and has several environmental side effects. It is the production of corn annually with it use of fertilizer and the machines used as well as the actual production of the ethanol that produces more carbon than it saves. Transport is a huge factor too.

If farmers are tempted to go into debt because of rising land values or commodity prices, then I can only say: makes sense to me. Oil prices are rising and oil companies are investing heavily in exploration and development. If what you sell rises in price, it makes sense to invest and try and produce more.

The quote also points to the real reason for rising food prices (and it's not ethanol): more people in China and India are better off and they can afford to buy more and better food. Sounds like a good deal to me. We send them good food and they send us better computer chips. We all win. It's almost surprising that no one thought of this before.

China is a big cause of food prices rising but in terms of wheat and corn in North America, price rises are attributed to ethanol.

[blueblood]

In should also mention and other articles indicate it as well that farmer have been taking unproductive land out of circulation and letting it become wetlands. There are several environmental benefits from that including carbon capture.

In many places, farm land has returned to prairie grass or as in the States, forest has been allowed to grow over it.

Growing more corn on land that has only become economical through bio-fuels is poor management and has several environmental side effects. It is the production of corn annually with it use of fertilizer and the machines used as well as the actual production of the ethanol that produces more carbon than it saves. Transport is a huge factor too.

China is a big cause of food prices rising but in terms of wheat and corn in North America, price rises are attributed to ethanol.

How many jobs are provided because of ethanol? Lots.

For the first time ever John Deere has sold out of combine harvesters until December 2009.

The cattle industry is at the "low part" of the cattle cycle. Canada could not hit the high part due to BSE.

The prairie provinces have much stronger economies and everyone is getting richer due to high oil and high grain prices. My cattle herd is bare bones right now and I haven't bought feeders since spring 03.

Farmers all over the world are going to benefit from this and perhaps the other countries will be able to remove their ag subsidies.

Running our ag industry into the ground because people in central canada and the cities want cheap food is assinine.

Call it a subsidy if you want, but there are some who bitch about Alberta giving out subsidies to oil companies. How well is Alberta doing?

[jbg]

How many jobs are provided because of ethanol? Lots.

The Bush Haters should make some noise on this issue. Bush has fostered the splintering of the gasoline business, allegedly in the name of the "environment" but I'm afraid to help his cronies at Archer-Daniel-Midland. While I support Bush generally I do not support this type of venality or corruption.

[jdobbin]

How many jobs are provided because of ethanol? Lots.

For the first time ever John Deere has sold out of combine harvesters until December 2009.

The cattle industry is at the "low part" of the cattle cycle. Canada could not hit the high part due to BSE.

The prairie provinces have much stronger economies and everyone is getting richer due to high oil and high grain prices. My cattle herd is bare bones right now and I haven't bought feeders since spring 03.

Farmers all over the world are going to benefit from this and perhaps the other countries will be able to remove their ag subsidies.

Running our ag industry into the ground because people in central canada and the cities want cheap food is assinine.

Call it a subsidy if you want, but there are some who bitch about Alberta giving out subsidies to oil companies. How well is Alberta doing?

Ethanol is now doing more harm to the environment and high corn and grain prices are putting pressure on consumers everywhere. Growing food for fuel is a policy that will be difficult to support if it leads to food shortages and environmental damage. At the moment, we are seeing quickly rising food prices. It will get worse.

Remove ag subsidies by giving huge subsidies for ethanol? My head is spinning.

Edited April 22, 2008 by jdobbin

[Zachary Young]

"How many jobs are provided because of ethanol? Lots."

How many jobs are lost because of it? More than are gained. That is the nature of jobs created by the government - they always come at the expense of more jobs.

"Call it a subsidy if you want, but there are some who bitch about Alberta giving out subsidies to oil companies. How well is Alberta doing?"

That's a bit of a misleading statement. Alberta is doing well because they have had more economic freedom than the rest of Canada. Wealth always comes with economic freedom. The subsidies are not the reason why Alberta is rich.

[jdobbin]

That's a bit of a misleading statement. Alberta is doing well because they have had more economic freedom than the rest of Canada. Wealth always comes with economic freedom. The subsidies are not the reason why Alberta is rich.

Then they shouldn't need them anymore.

[blueblood]

Ethanol is now doing more harm to the environment and high corn and grain prices are putting pressure on consumers everywhere. Growing food for fuel is a policy that will be difficult to support if it leads to food shortages and environmental damage. At the moment, we are seeing quickly rising food prices. It will get worse.

Remove ag subsidies by giving huge subsidies for ethanol? My head is spinning.

I wouldn't say ethanol is doing more harm to the environment. Any issue of the western producer explains both sides of that argument.

Everything costs a pile of money in Canada. The federal government is not ridiculous in this approach. They only suggested small percentages to make sure the country won't starve. Shell Canada has invested in a new technology to make gasoline out of straw and wood which should come online in five plus years, which will be another benefit, plus it would be able to be piped and not trucked.

If consumers are so concerned about it, it might be time to rip up the backyard and grow food or get hydroponics or buy shares in Ag companies. Argentina tried a cheap food policy which implied steep export duties, and that is turning into a disaster. Rural Canada is doing well now, there is a lot more opportunity than there was 5 years ago when agriculture was in the tank. Everytime that another plant goes up, jobs are created. The ethanol program works the exact same way as a land set aside program, but more people benefit other than the farmer. If the people want cheap food in this day and age, then put grain farming under supply management then.

The ag policy under wayne easter and the liberals was completely ridiculous and useless. Now the farmers have money, jobs are created, and in spite of all that food is still not priced out of this world.

[jdobbin]

I wouldn't say ethanol is doing more harm to the environment. Any issue of the western producer explains both sides of that argument.

Evidence is quickly mounting that food for fuel does more harm that it appears to do good. Taking marginal land to grow corn and grain for ethanol releases more CO2 than it reduces.

Everything costs a pile of money in Canada. The federal government is not ridiculous in this approach. They only suggested small percentages to make sure the country won't starve. Shell Canada has invested in a new technology to make gasoline out of straw and wood which should come online in five plus years, which will be another benefit, plus it would be able to be piped and not trucked.

In the mean time, farmers continue to grow food for fuel using taxpayers money and causing food inflation.

If consumers are so concerned about it, it might be time to rip up the backyard and grow food or get hydroponics or buy shares in Ag companies. Argentina tried a cheap food policy which implied steep export duties, and that is turning into a disaster. Rural Canada is doing well now, there is a lot more opportunity than there was 5 years ago when agriculture was in the tank. Everytime that another plant goes up, jobs are created. The ethanol program works the exact same way as a land set aside program, but more people benefit other than the farmer. If the people want cheap food in this day and age, then put grain farming under supply management then.

The ag policy under wayne easter and the liberals was completely ridiculous and useless. Now the farmers have money, jobs are created, and in spite of all that food is still not priced out of this world.

The reason food inflation has not hit Canada as hard is the rise in Canadian currency and better than average competition at the retail level. That won't last and hasn't as flour and other goods have shot up.

All the farmers who are doing well by this are hurting others with food inflation due to taxpayer support. The amount of jobs created is countered by the number of jobs lost due to higher prices.

Ethanol is not the answer to Canada's energy needs nor is it a suitable solution for the environment. It is only a matter of time before the lobby to end this subsidy grows to a loud chorus. Farmers can't say they are doing well if they need massive subsidies from government for ethanol.

[Wild Bill]

I was gonna post a comment on how we're debating how growing ethanol affects farmers and inflates the price of food. Then it struck me how casually we're discussing the situation!

The world is heading for food riots, big time! There is going to be so much political upheaval in the poorer parts of the world that the UN hasn't a hope of handling it.

Watch for the UN to suddenly start talking nicely to Uncle Sam again, hoping he will spend the blood and money to clean up the mess for them that they're too cheap to pay for themselves.

[jdobbin]

The world is heading for food riots, big time! There is going to be so much political upheaval in the poorer parts of the world that the UN hasn't a hope of handling it.

U.S. retailers are now rationing rice and flour due to shortages. Costco is one of the retailers contemplating rationing. There has not been any form of rationing since World War 2.

There are now empty shelves in food banks in the U.S.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/...can-retail.html

The global food crisis is hitting consumers in the USA, with the nation's top retailer announcing that it's rationing rice because of "supply and demand trends," according to Reuters.

“We are limiting the sale of Jasmine, Basmati and Long Grain White Rices to four bags per member visit,” Sam's Club, a division of Wal-Mart, says in a statement cited by Fox Business News. “This is effective immediately in all of our U.S. clubs, where quantity restrictions are allowed by law.”

This follows reports of rationing at Costco.

ABC News reports tonight that flour may join the list. They also mention the shortage in food banks.

[Alta4ever]

In the mean time, farmers continue to grow food for fuel using taxpayers money and causing food inflation.

Boy this is misleading, most farmers have been going under even with the modest subsidies that they have received due to the lefts cheap food policy. Taxpayers money isn't used as farmers aren't crown corporations.

The left is finally reaping what it sowed, when its comes to cheap food policies and AWG fear mongering policies and the wealth redistrabution scrams that went with it.

[jdobbin]

Boy this is misleading, most farmers have been going under even with the modest subsidies that they have received due to the lefts cheap food policy. Taxpayers money isn't used as farmers aren't crown corporations.

They are hardly modest subsidies. Taxpayers money is used to fund ethanol production and laws are made to force retailers to make all of us use the product if we use gas.

The left is finally reaping what it sowed, when its comes to cheap food policies and AWG fear mongering policies and the wealth redistrabution scrams that went with it.

The right wing is going to get itself in a whole lot of trouble if it doesn't start addressing food shortages and ask whether food for fuel is a good idea.

[Alta4ever]

They are hardly modest subsidies. Taxpayers money is used to fund ethanol production and laws are made to force retailers to make all of us use the product if we use gas.

The right wing is going to get itself in a whole lot of trouble if it doesn't start addressing food shortages and ask whether food for fuel is a good idea.

The subsities are not going to the farmer you have said it here yourself.

It was addressed until the left walked in with the AGW scam, think back who pushed for the ethanol solution.

As always the liberals of the world make the mess and the small c conservatives have to clean it up.

[blueblood]

They are hardly modest subsidies. Taxpayers money is used to fund ethanol production and laws are made to force retailers to make all of us use the product if we use gas.

The right wing is going to get itself in a whole lot of trouble if it doesn't start addressing food shortages and ask whether food for fuel is a good idea.

The left wing is going to get itself in trouble if it wants to hinder economic growth as well and forcing is to give our products away.

And what was Canadian grain doing before ethanol? It was sitting in piles until the CWB gave it away to countries. Rural Canada's economy was in the tank. The taxes being collected from the ag boom are paying for the production.

I don't see how this is a problem when people in the world were starving 5 yrs. ago when Europe and the States had a land set aside program (not use farmland) and massive subsidies forcing poorer countries out of business.

With higher grain prices, farmers in countries like India can finally afford proper machinery to farm much more efficiently. They can't even store grain properly.

[jdobbin]

The left wing is going to get itself in trouble if it wants to hinder economic growth as well and forcing is to give our products away.

The right wing doesn't care about the issues of food for fuel problems and environmental degradation.

And what was Canadian grain doing before ethanol? It was sitting in piles until the CWB gave it away to countries. Rural Canada's economy was in the tank. The taxes being collected from the ag boom are paying for the production.

I don't see how this is a problem when people in the world were starving 5 yrs. ago when Europe and the States had a land set aside program (not use farmland) and massive subsidies forcing poorer countries out of business.

With higher grain prices, farmers in countries like India can finally afford proper machinery to farm much more efficiently. They can't even store grain properly.

If a lot of starts going to fill gas tanks, we are going to see more issues of food crisis. If marginal land is used for grains, we are going to see more loss of marsh, grasslands and forest. It is already happening.

Farmers can't expect to keep getting ethanol subsidies when flour prices keep shooting through the roof and have people wonder if it is going to have to be rationed because is all going to fuel.

[jdobbin]

The subsities are not going to the farmer you have said it here yourself.

It was addressed until the left walked in with the AGW scam, think back who pushed for the ethanol solution.

As always the liberals of the world make the mess and the small c conservatives have to clean it up.

As you point out, the right wing doesn't believe in global warming and the last election platform in regards to the environment could have been written on a matchbook. It was that insignificant.

The subsidies shouldn't go to ethanol period. It is a poor use of taxpayer money. Right wingers should be concerned about reducing spending. Here is where they could make a difference and actually do something about the environment. You don't even need to think about global warming. Think about marshland being plowed under. It is the marshes that act as a filter that protect our waters from dying out.

Small c conservatives are spending money like it is going out of the style. It makes Liberal spending under Martin seem small.

[Alta4ever]

As you point out, the right wing doesn't believe in global warming and the last election platform in regards to the environment could have been written on a matchbook. It was that insignificant.

The subsidies shouldn't go to ethanol period. It is a poor use of taxpayer money. Right wingers should be concerned about reducing spending. Here is where they could make a difference and actually do something about the environment. You don't even need to think about global warming. Think about marshland being plowed under. It is the marshes that act as a filter that protect our waters from dying out.

Small c conservatives are spending money like it is going out of the style. It makes Liberal spending under Martin seem small.

So you admit you were wrong about farmers growing crops on the tax payers dime?

Do you deny that it was the left wing environmental activists that pushed for more bio fuel production?

Now you are advocating less farm land, but that will decrease production which will in turn mean less food production, which will increase the price of food stuffs which you are also against.

I see you also think that only conservatives should be concerned with saving. Your post implies that you think that conservatives should work hard to put money away so the liberals of the can take it when they need it. Nice

Edited April 24, 2008 by Alta4ever

[jdobbin]

So you admit you were wrong about farmers growing crops on the tax payers dime?

Where did I say that farmers get the subsidy directly? I said ethanol is subsidized and the farmer are the ones that are the main recipients of that subsidy.

Do you deny that it was the left wing environmental activists that pushed for more bio fuel production?

I have said all political parties are guilty of pushing the food for fuel. The Tories are upped the ante though with increased subsidies and now we are seeing shortages of flour. It is possible that we will see more of these shortages world-wide. Are you denying that bio-fuels have nothing to do with shortages?

Now you are advocating less farm land, but that will decrease production which will in turn mean less food production, which will increase the price of food stuffs which you are also against.

I have said that marginal land that has other uses like protecting our water should not be be used for fuel. Are Tories committed to killing our lakes?

I see you also think that only conservatives should be concerned with saving. Your post implies that you think that conservatives should work hard to put money away so the liberals of the can take it when they need it. Nice

Flaherty is spending like a drunken sailor. His spending easily passes Martin's year by year spending. That's a fact that can't be disputed.

[blueblood]

The right wing doesn't care about the issues of food for fuel problems and environmental degradation.

If a lot of starts going to fill gas tanks, we are going to see more issues of food crisis. If marginal land is used for grains, we are going to see more loss of marsh, grasslands and forest. It is already happening.

Farmers can't expect to keep getting ethanol subsidies when flour prices keep shooting through the roof and have people wonder if it is going to have to be rationed because is all going to fuel.

and the left wing doesn't care about the economy and efficiency.

With cellulose ethanol coming in, expect to see piles of forests on crown land turned into tree farms as junk wood will just be thrown into the chipper. There is lots of people in the logging industry who would like this to happen and save their business.

There is nothing stopping people from growing their own food. Pop up hydroponics in the basement and grow veggies then. I butcher my own steers and save a fortune on meat every year. Farmers in Argentina rioted, went on strike, looted stores because their government is ripping them off; the people of Argentina are worse off now than paying their farmers.

In Canada we have the perfect balance for biofuels, not too much but enough to tie up the excess overproduction. Nobody in Canada is going to starve or have their food rationed. Not that it matters anyways because Canada will be so awash in money that it still won't be a problem.

Perhaps with agfriculture now more profitable, there will be funds to research higher yielding crops, research desaliniztion plants to provide seawater for irrigation instead of ground water. Just remember though that food does trump biofuel production, a lot of plants have been called off due to high prices. Biofuels were meant to keep a few barrels of oil in the ground for longer, not replace oil, and to make the agriculture industry profitable so that farmers can afford to grow massive crops which end up getting sold for food a lot of the time. We can't give our stuff away, we have bills to pay. The world has been in a food crisis since the second world war.

Personally I grow #1 CWRS wheat, it does not go into biofuel. What the ethanol industry has done to benefit me is that I get paid more. When I get paid more, I get better machinery, better fertilizer, better spray which results in a larger and better crop the next time around, which means I feed more people. Before biofuel under the Liberals, I had to run old junk and nickel and dime around which meant that I couldn't grow as good a crop as I could have, which means I feed less people. The crops used for biofuel are "junk" as far as my standards go now there's a market for them and that drags everything up.

[Alta4ever]

Where did I say that farmers get the subsidy directly? I said ethanol is subsidized and the farmer are the ones that are the main recipients of that subsidy.

"QUOTE(jdobbin @ Apr 23 2008, 01:56 PM)

In the mean time, farmers continue to grow food for fuel using taxpayers money and causing food inflation."

I have said all political parties are guilty of pushing the food for fuel. The Tories are upped the ante though with increased subsidies and now we are seeing shortages of flour. It is possible that we will see more of these shortages world-wide. Are you denying that bio-fuels have nothing to do with shortages?

Where did the push come from it sure didn't come from the parties themselves as they all have been reactionary to the Al Gores of the world but these who have pushed the hardest are eco socialists, up until they acually looked at the science. Haper gave the country what the people they wanted.

I have said that marginal land that has other uses like protecting our water should not be be used for fuel. Are Tories committed to killing our lakes?

Flaherty is spending like a drunken sailor. His spending easily passes Martin's year by year spending. That's a fact that can't be disputed.

So how did you get from swamp land to lakes? I have never seen a lake drained to make farm land. IN fact last year most of the swamps around here that had been attempted to be drained fill back up with water, I guess mother nature really had the last say.

How much of the added spending went to a badly neglected military, that was sent by a liberal government to fight a war that it was at that time ill equiped to fight?

Maybe we should ask PM and JC where all the funds from the EI ledger book disappeared to.

[jdobbin]

"QUOTE(jdobbin @ Apr 23 2008, 01:56 PM)

In the mean time, farmers continue to grow food for fuel using taxpayers money and causing food inflation."

And you took that mean direct subsidies. The ethanol industry is subsidized and the main suppliers are farmers. Are you denying that farmers are growing food for fuel? Do you think it is a good idea that is in need of no limits even when food shortages occur?

Where did the push come from it sure didn't come from the parties themselves as they all have been reactionary to the Al Gores of the world but these who have pushed the hardest are eco socialists, up until they acually looked at the science. Haper gave the country what the people they wanted.

Environmentalists haven't been pushing food for fuel. They have been pushing for bio-waste. In fact, many environmentalists are now adamantly against the grains and corn for fuel industry saying it produces more carbon that it reduces.

So how did you get from swamp land to lakes? I have never seen a lake drained to make farm land. IN fact last year most of the swamps around here that had been attempted to be drained fill back up with water, I guess mother nature really had the last say.

Much of the city of Winnipeg is former marsh. Mother nature tries to take it back but like rural areas, we have water diversion projects all over to keep it dry.

Marsh is an important filter before drainage into lakes. If you think marsh is not being plowed under then you need to become more aware. Many farmer gave marginal land that was former marsh to Ducks Unlimited where it was reclaimed as marsh by that organization.

In other parts of North America, marginal land has been returned to forest or grasslands. Growing food for fuel means marginal land, some not used for a 100 years, are being put back into production. Is it reducing food shortages? No. It is often to feed the fuel industry.

How much of the added spending went to a badly neglected military, that was sent by a liberal government to fight a war that it was at that time ill equiped to fight?

Harper's overspending doesn't include military. That was in their election platform and we have discussed this before. They have shot past their targets on all other spending two budgets in a row.

Maybe we should ask PM and JC where all the funds from the EI ledger book disappeared to.

Into ending the deficit and debt payment.

[jdobbin]

and the left wing doesn't care about the economy and efficiency.

The right wing doesn't care about food shortages. Their answer is for people to grow their own food. I think what the answer will be is to stop subsidizing ethanol.

With cellulose ethanol coming in, expect to see piles of forests on crown land turned into tree farms as junk wood will just be thrown into the chipper. There is lots of people in the logging industry who would like this to happen and save their business.

Certainly that is not what I am advocating. It is obvious industry is hoping the Tories go for this policy.

There is nothing stopping people from growing their own food. Pop up hydroponics in the basement and grow veggies then. I butcher my own steers and save a fortune on meat every year. Farmers in Argentina rioted, went on strike, looted stores because their government is ripping them off; the people of Argentina are worse off now than paying their farmers.

How about we stop subsidizing food for fuel?

In Canada we have the perfect balance for biofuels, not too much but enough to tie up the excess overproduction. Nobody in Canada is going to starve or have their food rationed. Not that it matters anyways because Canada will be so awash in money that it still won't be a problem.

And yet the richest country in the world is rationing flour.

Perhaps with agfriculture now more profitable, there will be funds to research higher yielding crops, research desaliniztion plants to provide seawater for irrigation instead of ground water. Just remember though that food does trump biofuel production, a lot of plants have been called off due to high prices. Biofuels were meant to keep a few barrels of oil in the ground for longer, not replace oil, and to make the agriculture industry profitable so that farmers can afford to grow massive crops which end up getting sold for food a lot of the time. We can't give our stuff away, we have bills to pay. The world has been in a food crisis since the second world war.

And now prices are the commodity prices are the highest in 30 years and we are seeing flour and oils shortages in parts of North America. Not since World War 2 has their been rationing.

Personally I grow #1 CWRS wheat, it does not go into biofuel. What the ethanol industry has done to benefit me is that I get paid more. When I get paid more, I get better machinery, better fertilizer, better spray which results in a larger and better crop the next time around, which means I feed more people. Before biofuel under the Liberals, I had to run old junk and nickel and dime around which meant that I couldn't grow as good a crop as I could have, which means I feed less people. The crops used for biofuel are "junk" as far as my standards go now there's a market for them and that drags everything up.

Is there a limit as far as food for fuel goes? It seems to me that you as a farmer are saying to people "Grow your own food." I think the public's response is no more susbidies for ethanol.

[Alta4ever]

And you took that mean direct subsidies. The ethanol industry is subsidized and the main suppliers are farmers. Are you denying that farmers are growing food for fuel?

Yes I am dening it the feed stock into ethanol plants are low grade grains, ones that do not go to human consumption. But its obvious you know nothing of the farm industry.

There is no such thing as an indirect subsidy so what else is it suppose to mean?

Do you think it is a good idea that is in need of no limits even when food shortages occur?

Environmentalists haven't been pushing food for fuel. They have been pushing for bio-waste. In fact, many environmentalists are now adamantly against the grains and corn for fuel industry saying it produces more carbon that it reduces.

You said it here, they did once endorse bio fuels, and pushed for their use, noiw that they have changed their minds doesn't reslove the problem they created.

Much of the city of Winnipeg is former marsh. Mother nature tries to take it back but like rural areas, we have water diversion projects all over to keep it dry.

That didn't really work for you in 97 did it? I am very familiar with the Winnoeg and interlake region, I spend many summers with my grandparents there.

Look i don't care how virtuous you think you are by being part of Ducks unlimited, heck I go to their fundraiser auction and take part every year, so what. You are deflecting.

The liberals of the world have created this problem by tring to support and enviromentalist bio fuel policy and a cheap food policy as one directly effects the other. Now that you realize that your avocacy has caused the problem you try to spin the blame to conservatives of the world. Now that bio fuel has been shown for what it is you try to deflect and talk about marsh land but the effect to the cheap food policy is the same only now you have to feed a bio fuel industry as well. (if you cut this off then the liberals would scream bloody murder because the people in the bio fuel industry would loose their jobs)

Now I ask you do you want cheap food or more marsh land, because your going to have to choose.

[jdobbin]

Yes I am dening it the feed stock into ethanol plants are low grade grains, ones that do not go to human consumption. But its obvious you know nothing of the farm industry.

I know it seems to depend on subsidies to the ethanol industry. The problem is farmer turning grain and corn into fuel. Feed grain still makes its way into the human fuel supply.

There is no such thing as an indirect subsidy so what else is it suppose to mean?

Indirect subsidies have been talked a lot by many people including Harper. It was an indirect subsidy to the car industry when they gave rebates to cars meeting fuel efficiency guidelines. The Tories cancelled that program because the program was farce.

Many economists criticized the rail subsidy saying that it was an indirect subsidy for farmers.

It is disingenuous to say there are no such things as indirect subsidies when Tories have talked about them for years.

You said it here, they did once endorse bio fuels, and pushed for their use, noiw that they have changed their minds doesn't reslove the problem they created.

Support was by no means universal and it was for bio-mass waste, not for crops meant for feed grain and the food supply.

In many parts of the world, it is the right wing that is leading the battle against the claims made by ethanol supporters. Not here apparently.

They can blame environmentalists but no one in their right mind supported food for fuel.

That didn't really work for you in 97 did it? I am very familiar with the Winnoeg and interlake region, I spend many summers with my grandparents there.

If you know Winnipeg so well, you'll know the water diversion succeeded in saving the city.

Look i don't care how virtuous you think you are by being part of Ducks unlimited, heck I go to their fundraiser auction and take part every year, so what. You are deflecting.

You support for marshlands seems half hearted.

The liberals of the world have created this problem by tring to support and enviromentalist bio fuel policy and a cheap food policy as one directly effects the other. Now that you realize that your avocacy has caused the problem you try to spin the blame to conservatives of the world. Now that bio fuel has been shown for what it is you try to deflect and talk about marsh land but the effect to the cheap food policy is the same only now you have to feed a bio fuel industry as well. (if you cut this off then the liberals would scream bloody murder because the people in the bio fuel industry would loose their jobs)

Now I ask you do you want cheap food or more marsh land, because your going to have to choose.

I don't want food used for fuel. The right seems to want that though.

Edited April 24, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

I don't want food used for fuel. The right seems to want that though.

Reported by States News Service on August 3, 1994

In a move that enraged midwestern senators, Louisiana Democratic Sen. Bennett Johnston tried Wednesday to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from mandating the use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline. The Senate narrowly killed the measure, voting to table it by a margin of 51 to 50. With the vote tied, Vice President Al Gore had to come in and cast the deciding vote.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ndating-ethanol

It was the environmentalists that put ethenol on the agenda and it is grossly hypocritical to claim that they bear no responsibility for the mess.