Comments on: Presidential Pols Cave to Iowa’s Ethanol Aspirations

By: David Holzman

David Holzman — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:13:22 +0000

McCain gets a lot of points for standing against the political wind of Iowa. I am disappointed in Fred Thompson and disappointed in the dems, especially Edwards, though I am not at all surprised at Hillary.

re nshock’s question: yes, all energy sources are subsidized, but some (fossil and nuclear) much, much, much more than others (solar, wind, marine). (for info on the latter, see my article in Environmental Health Perspectives when the December issue comes out–probably in a few days. go to ehponline.org.)

Too add a little perspective to the subsidy issue, externalities can be thought of as subsidies, because they are costs which everyone picks up. The externalities of fossil fuels and nuclear, and corn-based ethanol as well as many other biofuels) are far higher than those of solar, wind, and marine.

By: shaker

shaker — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:04:04 +0000

I wonder if ADM’s “Feed the World” apology ads will change to “Fuel the USA”.
And I thought Fred Thompson was a “different” kind of politician… oh well.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:23:06 +0000

I wish the government subsidized my own product. In fact I’m sure I deserve it. It’s all about national security (in a very roundabout way). Where’s MY lobbyist??

By: nschock

nschock — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:20:08 +0000

Just curious: could you name one energy source in the U.S. that is not subsidized? It’s amazing how much conversation is devoted to ethanol subsidies. What about nuclear? Coal? Wind? Solar? Oil? Are those okay?

By: akatsuki

akatsuki — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:14:23 +0000

So a red state is for the welfare state except when it is against it? Why don’t they just take up begging, it, at least, is honest.