Most of us heard about Al Gore's JFK-like 10 year challenge last week for "America to run 'on 100% zero-carbon electricity in 10 years." Bret Stephens wrote about it and Al Gore in his Wall Street Journal piece, Al Gore's Doomsday Clock. He wrote, "though that's just the first step on his road to 'ending our reliance on carbon-based fuels.'  Serious people understand this is absurd. Maybe other people will start drawing the same conclusion about the man proposing it."

Do read the complete article. Bret Stephens presents many interesting statistics on where we have been and where we are going on our carbon-free electrical journey.

In Mr. Gore's prophecy, a transition to carbon-free electricity generation in a decade is "achievable, affordable and transformative." He believes that the goal can be achieved almost entirely through the use of "renewables" alone, meaning solar, geothermal, wind power and biofuels.

Here, however, is an inconvenient fact (my emphasis throughout.) In 1995, the U.S. got about 2.2% of its net electricity generation from "renewable" sources, according to the Energy Information Administration. By 2000, the last full year of the Clinton administration, that percentage had dropped to 2.1%. By contrast, the combined share of coal, petroleum and natural gas rose to 70% from 68% during the same time frame.

Now the share of renewables is up slightly, to about 2.3% as of 2006 (the latest year for which the EIA provides figures). The EIA thinks the use of renewables (minus hydropower) could rise to 201 billion kilowatt hours per year in 2018 from the current 65 billion. But the EIA also projects total net generation in 2018 to be 4.4 trillion kilowatt hours per year. That would put the total share of renewables at just over four percent of our electricity needs.

Interestingly, Mr. Gore does not suggest carbon-free nuclear or hydro power,* which are not affected by cloudy or windless days:

Mr. Gore's case would also be helped if our experience of renewable sources were a positive one. It isn't. In his useful book "Gusher of Lies," Robert Bryce notes that "in July 2006, wind turbines in California produced power at only about 10% of their capacity; in Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills produced electricity at about 17% of their rated capacity." Like wind power, solar power also suffers from the problem of intermittency, which means that it has to be backed up by conventional sources in order to avoid disruptions. This is especially true of hot summers when the wind doesn't blow and cold winters when the sun doesn't shine.

And then there are biofuels, whose recent vogue, the World Bank believes, may have been responsible for up to 75% of the recent rise in world food prices. Save the planet; starve the poor.

Stephens concludes with this question, "A more interesting question is why Mr. Gore remains believable. Perhaps people think that facts ought not to count against a man whose task is to raise our sights..." and then he gives "The True Believer" author Eric Hoffer the last word, "It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible."

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of more environmentally favorable fuels and methods, as long as they make sense and cents! Fair Oaks Farm manure fueled electricity generators would be a good example of this. SC Johnson Co. (Johnson Wax) is also dabbling in methane from garbage fuel. But even these recycling methods are still carbon based.

Maybe some day, as technology improves, wind and solar might be able to more constantly supply the majority of our electricity. But for right now, we aren't there yet--not by a long shot.

Jay Weber spoke about this today in his 9 O'clock hour. 

*You would think hydro power would be favored by the environmentalists. Not true. While visiting the Grand Canyon 2 years ago, we heard of a movement afoot in the area to allow spring gushes. Seems the regular spring flooding of rushing water scoured the riverbed as opposed to the constant easy flow of a controlled river.

Links: 

One of the benefits of being a homeschool mom is that essentially I had a refresher course on grades 1-12. (English skills are still rough!) It's been 39 years since I graduated from high school, but even without homeschooling, one thing I never forgot were the basics of photosynthesis. Seems like some of the Global Warmingists could use a refresher course too.

I still remember the 16mm educational film entitled, "Our Mr. Sun." It was quite entertaining and featured a very young Eddie Albert and a scientist. Coincidentally, I was able to show that same movie to my son for our science class. One of the things they discussed was photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is still a mystery today, but we do know the basic ingredients needed for plants to create food from sunlight: H20 + CO2.

I drew this copy of the cartoon animation featured in Our Mr. Sun so my son and I could refer to it during science class.

The FOOD ENERGY STORAGE shelf features jars of GLUCOSE (sugar) and STARCH. Without photosynthesis filling the jars, life for us would be impossible.

All of the calories we consume come either from plants or animals that consume plant products.

The bi-product of photosynthesis is the "garbage" in the cartoon: O2 or Oxygen. 

The plant supplies the water through its vascular system. The CO2 enters the leaf through the STOMAS or openings in the underside. This is also how the O2 leaves the leaf. The glucose and starch is found in the leaves, stem, roots, and fruit of the plant. (The little green chef is a personification of the chloroplasts in the plant.)
There are many things I don't understand about the global warming argument, one being that CO2 is a pollutant. To me, CO2 is a necessary gas--especially if you are a plant! I don't seem to be alone in that idea. German scientists did some research on the impact of CO2 on plants. Higher CO2 levels may be good for plants: German Scientists :

The dangerous rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may be troubling scientists and world leaders but it could prove to be a boon for plants, German researchers said Tuesday.

Increasing exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields, Hans-Joachim Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute for rural areas, forestry and fisheries in the central city of Brunswick told AFP.

"Output increased by about 10 percent for barley, beets and wheat" when the plants were subjected to higher levels of carbon dioxide, Weigel said.

The Thuenen Institute, which has been monitoring the phenomenon in fields since 1999, trains CO2 jets on the plants so the gas reaches 550 parts per million in the air around them -- the level expected in the atmosphere by 2050...

He said the next step in the study would be to evaluate the effect of higher temperatures on plant growth -- which scientists cite as another consequence of higher CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.

Wouldn't that be interesting?

"This research is not intended as an argument for doing nothing to curb the rise of CO2 levels," he said. "It is to find out what the effects would be."

What a coincidence that plants breathe in CO2, exhale O2, produce the only source of food there is, and people do just the opposite? What a lucky bit of evolution! Of course, being a Creationist, I don't find that bit of symbiosis coincidental at all, but that will have to wait for another day.

We hear a lot about reducing our carbon footprint and purchasing carbon credits, but not so much about increasing trees (large CO2 users.) Since plants "consume"  CO2 from the atmosphere and return O2, wouldn't you think we would be urged to plant as many trees etc. as possible, instead of cutting them down to make way for ethanol crops?  

Hope you enjoyed Chef Photosynthesis. Did you see Our Mr. Sun when you were in school? 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

Wednesday, I caught a few minutes from Mark Belling's last half hour on the radio. He read this Wall Street Journal piece, The Biofuels Backlash. It is yet another condemnation of the whole biofuel fiasco--the food crisis, pollution, excessive water use, price supports, etc. You know, the usual complaints... (Let them eat and drink ethanol).

The WSJ piece opened stating that for the past "30 years we...opposed ethanol subsidies. So imagine our great, pleasant surprise to see that the world is suddenly awakening to the folly of subsidized biofuels."

Belling also mentioned that McCain and other senators were asking the EPA to waive some of their standards that have been pushing biofuels. That brightened my spirits, since McCain has been chanting the ethanol mantra like most of the other politicians. I found the article, Senators call for EPA to reconsider ethanol output mandate. Here are a few highlights:

Twenty-four Republican senators, including presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona, sent a letter Friday to the Environmental Protection Agency suggesting it waive, or restructure, rules that require a fivefold increase in ethanol production over the next 15 years.

Congress passed a law last year mandating a ramp-up to 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2015 and 36 billion by 2022. But McCain and other Republicans said those rules should be suspended to put more corn back into the food supply for animal feed, and to encourage farmers to plant other crops.

"This subsidized (ethanol) program _ paid for by taxpayer dollars _ has contributed to pain at the cash register, at the dining room table, and a devastating food crisis throughout the world," said McCain, in a statement.

...Analysts say lawmakers are unlikely to roll back popular ethanol subsidies during an election year.

Congress will not "turn on the corn belt" because of the significant number of votes held by ethanol-producing states, Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. analyst Kevin Book argued in a recent note to clients. Ethanol subsidies could face greater risks, however, in 2009 and going forward, according to Book.

The good news is political winds are changing a bit and promoting biofuel is no longer the slam-dunk it once was. Congressman Sensenbrenner just introduced his legislation, HR 5911, Remove Incentives to Produce Ethanol Act of 2008 against ethanol mandates. Wouldn't it be great to see some actual repeals? I hope people are contacting their senators and speaking out against S 2191, the Lieberman/Warner America's Climate Security Act of 2007.

The bad news is that, "Spokesman Jonathan Shradar said the Bush administration remains committed to ethanol as an alternative fuel because of its potential to 'get our nation off its addiction to foreign oil.' " (Good reason to start producing more domestic oil!)

Mark Belling expressed something to the effect that he wished Republicans* in our State Assembly would draft some sort of bill to state that Wisconsin wanted out of the ethanol mandates. It would have no teeth, but it would send a message.

It will be interesting to see how the presidential candidates adjust their positions on ethanol in the next 6 months. Do I dare hope the tide is turning?

*Maybe I should say Representatives who are anti ethanol since so many on both sides of the isle have sold their souls to King Corn. Since there are so many more food and fuel consumers than corn growers/ethanol processing plant owners, if the public would just bother to contact their representatives in all levels of government, maybe we could turn this around!

Links: Don't forget, Free Pass To Movie Preview of "The Enemy God" Saturday at 3pm

Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" is quoted a lot these days in regard to ethanol and rising food prices. There are many interpretations as to what she meant by it--some debate whether she said it at all.

The most interesting explanation I ever heard came from a UWM theater department teacher. She said that "cake" was the term for a gasket made from dough strips used to seal oven doors. When the baking was finished, the very over-baked, virtually inedible dough gaskets were scraped off and discarded. The poor would dig these out of the garbage and attempt to eat them. In other words, the bakers used food for a purpose other than human or animal consumption, and the insensitive Marie said the starving could always eat the gaskets.

I think that explanation fits in rather well with today's food for fuel fiasco. But I am adding to the travesty of diverting food into ethanol production, the misuse and abuse of water used for producing biofuel. Hence my version of Marie's statement, Let them eat and drink ethanol!

People are waking up to the fact that ethanol is not the answer to energy independence. Even Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in Pennsylvania, said, "Corn is the single most inefficient way to produce ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and because it drives up the price of food."

Some people are aware that food-to-fuel mandates have increased demand on water resources. Corn in particular requires irrigation in most areas. We noted this on our last few trips out west--hundreds of acres of corn fields all being irrigated. Water is becoming a rare resource in some areas. (If you live west of the sub-continental divide on Sunnyslope Road, you have probably been paying attention to water rights issues.)

But what most people don't realize is that ethanol production causes water pollution too--both in the growing of corn and in the production of ethanol itself--regardless of the plant source. 

Corn is a nitrogen needy plant and is very soil depleting. (Remember how the Native Americans taught the Pilgrims to put a fish in each hill of corn?) Well today's farmers rely heavily on nitrogen rich fertilizers. The Washington Post stated, "Increased agricultural production also means increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported last month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022 would lead to a 10 to 19 percent increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone" -- an area so polluted by fertilizer runoff that no aquatic life can survive there."

Polluting farmland runoff is not the worst of it. Ethanol factories also exude an alarming amount of polluted water. I have heard it described as a glycerin type effluent that causes fish die off.

Water Use and Pollution Syrup, batches of bad ethanol, and sewage are dumped into streams, threatening fish and plants with chloride, copper and other wastes which deprive waters of oxygen when they decompose. A state inspector in Iowa reported that a creek next to the ethanol plant in Sioux Center was milky and smelled like sewage.

Water Supply Can't Meet Thirst For New Industry ...Nowhere is the growing clash between economic development and water conservation more evident than in the push to build ethanol plants that typically guzzle 3½ to 6 gallons of water for every gallon of fuel produced. Minnesota's 15 ethanol plants together consume about 2 billion gallons of water per year.

Drunk on Ethanol MTBE pollutes ground and surface water, but so does ethanol. With each gallon of ethanol you get 12 gallons of sewagelike effluent produced by the fermentation/distillation process.

So, let's see... biofuel production causes local and world wide food prices to rise, food shortages, water shortages due to irrigation, pollution from fertilizer runoff, and pollution to waterways from ethanol production. (Don't forget air pollution from burning ethanol.)

And most politicians are still chanting the ethanol mantra in order to save the planet from supposed CO2 pollution? (Explanation: The corn grower / ethanol lobby is very influential.) 

Let's hope these increasingly anti-ethanol articles and news stories about world food shortages and pollution will embarrass our Federal and State legislators into voting against or better yet repealing global warming and ethanol mandates. Otherwise, I am afraid we won't have much choice but to eat and drink ethanol! 

Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket

Ethanol's Failed Promise

Let Them Eat Cake

Hunger fuels food riots in Haiti 

Go, Jim and Jeff, Go! Repeal Those Ethanol Mandates (links to legislators included)

Links: Don't forget, Free Pass To Movie Preview of "The Enemy God" Saturday at 3pm

Just heard this on Mark Belling, Sensenbrenner co-sponsored a bill to end ethanol mandates: 

"Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Menomonee Falls) is a cosponsor of HR 5911, the Remove Incentives to Produce Ethanol Act of 2008 (RIPE Act), introduced this week by Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona.  This bill will repeal the legislative provisions responsible for the artificial demand for ethanol by:

• Repealing the renewable fuel standard;
• Repealing tax credits for ethanol producers;
• Repealing tariffs on importing ethanol.

“...The fact is, the ethanol industry has been subsidized for twenty-seven years [51 cents/gallon] and claims to still need the subsidies to survive,” Sensenbrenner added.  “If an industry cannot survive without government support after twenty-seven years, there are more serious problems in place.”

Mark Belling did not give the bill much chance to pass because of the powerful ethanol lobby, but hope always springs eternal in my heart. After all, Belling isn't omniscient; he did not think Gableman had a chance against Butler for State Supreme Court either.

Almost every day we are seeing newscasts and articles on how biofuel has caused food shortages and food prices to rise. If the American public puts enough heat on their congressmen, who knows?

Contact Congressman Sensenbrenner, Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101  

Links:
Update: "Creepy" picture Billy Ray cannot deny

Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Oh, did you think I was talking about gasoline?

Maybe this is not the all time high for milk, but I do not purchase it very often. The $4.00+ price tag surprised me.

These days, I pity the family that has lots of teenage boys to feed.

It is no secret that the stampede to bio-fuels is leading to increased food prices.

In the meantime, we have politicians, ethanol plant owners, and farmers trying to sell the public on the idea that bio-fuel are the way to go to save the planet.

The following are just a few excerpts from a great article link I found on Jay Webber's website (do I call that an Ear Tip?), Earth Daze, Courtesy of Al Gore. Do take the time to read it.

The Gore-induced rush to biofuels has diverted crops such as corn, soybeans and palm oil from food to fuel. Vast swaths of rain forest in places like Malaysia and Indonesia have been cleared to provide farmland not to feed the hungry but to fuel our cars. Our own grain belt has been increasingly diverted to ethanol over corn flakes.

This has pressured food prices while damaging the environment. In the U.S., more cultivation has increased runoff from pesticides and fertilizer, creating dead zones for aquatic life from Chesapeake Bay to the Gulf of Mexico.

"Climate-change remedies can lead to greater poverty, starvation and disease, as well as widespread ecological destruction — some of the very misfortunes that they're supposed to prevent," Goklany [Cato Institute] wrote in the New York Post. "In our haste to address global warming, we have yet to think seriously about our policies' unintended effects."

For a while it seemed no one was going to speak out that the Emperor has no clothes (a.k.a. Global Warming). Thankfully, as time goes on, more and more people are speaking out against the ridiculousness of using food for fuel and the whole concept of CO2 causing global warming. I hope it is not too late.

Check out these other editorials from Investor's Business Daily too:

The Environmentalists' Real Agenda "Once in a while the truth accidentally tumbles out on global warming activists' real agenda...ending capitalism to save the planet."

Time Bomb "Time...likens global warming to the fight against Nazism"

The Torch Has Been Passed "China is the world's No. 1 polluter...why does the U.N. want it exempted from carbon restrictions?"

The Nerve Of ABC "The mainstream media were taken aback by some of the questions asked of Barack Obama..."

The Green Zone "The president's plan to reduce carbon emissions legitimizes the environmentalist agenda of destroying the earth in order to save it...one scientist says we need more CO2 emissions, not less", 

The Chill Is On "Global warming? Don't worry about it. It's over. No longer does Al Gore have to fly around the world in private gets emitting greenhouse gases to save the world from -- greenhouse gases.", and more!

Links: 4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Kinsey Park Clean Up and Pier

You may have thought this post was going to be about the rapidly spreading religion of Islam, but it is not.

This fastest growing religion I am referring to is the religion of Global Warming, and its most recent, prominent convert is the President of the United States.

I call Global Warming a religion, and rightly so, because in its present form, it is not science.

Religious beliefs require faith: faith in something not seen or provable.

Science is defined by Encarta as: "the system of advancing knowledge by formulating a question, collecting data about it through observation and experiment, and testing a hypothetical answer." "Science, limits itself to what can be observed, measured and verified." Scientists use the Scientific Method to "explain the events of nature in a reproducible way."  In other words, you test the theory and if it is repeatable, then the theory moves ahead to be considered true science.

Over 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition rejecting the idea that man made greenhouse gases cause Global Warming, but we don't hear much about that! The website ICECAP does an excellent job of presenting a different view of Global Warming.

At best, when scientists first observed a warming trend, Global Warming could have been called a theory. But in recent years, people have bypassed the theory adjective and jumped toward embracing Global Warming as an undebatable fact. This transition from theory to fact was done without any scientific proof. Those who promote Global Warming no longer even refer to it as a theory.

As more and more data is collected, most of the Global Warming alarmist predictions are not proving to point to the doom and gloom that the planet is warming. In fact, temperatures this past year point to something else: a cooling of the planet.  

It seems however, that no matter how much counter Global Warming evidence is presented, the faithful and most politicians are still blindly chanting the mantra that the planet is doomed to heat up unless we do something to control CO2 emissions soon. 

According to an article in the Washington Post today, our President is now chanting the mantra too--Bush prepares global warming initiative: (Emphasis added)

"This is an attempt to move the administration and the party closer to the center on global warming. With these steps, it is hoped that the debate over this is over, and it is time to do something," said an administration source close to the White House who is familiar with the planning and who said to expect an announcement this week...

...Still, Republican members of Congress who were briefed last week let top administration officials know that they think the White House if making a mistake, according to congressional sources and others familiar wit the discussions. Opponents said Mr. Bush could be setting off runaway legislation, particularly with Democrats in control of Congress." 

One of the things we are doing at present is jumping on the ethanol bandwagon to reduce our carbon footprint. In fact reducing the carbon footprint is one of the cornerstones of this new religion.

Like another religion in bygone years, this Global Warming religion also provides the opportunity to purchase Indulgences to atone for breaking the rules. In our new Global Warming religion, we call these Indulgences, Carbon Credits. 

All 3 of our Presidential candidates favor the practice of using Indulgences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, they do not call them as such, they call them, "a cap-and-trade system, such as the Europeans have. The system sets an overall limit on carbon emissions and allows polluters to buy credits from companies that stay below their carbon targets."

"..Congressional and administration sources said it's not clear whether Mr. Bush will go that far this week." So we don't know how deep President Bush's conversion is.

Brian Kennedy, spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research stated the US is already ahead of Europe:

"US taxpayers are already spending more than $40 billion a year to address climate change, and to date we're achieving better results than the Europeans... ...That should be kept in mind before any rash--or political--decisions are made inside the White House. Excessive regulations would come with significant economic consequences and additional costs for consumers." 

Considering fuel and food prices are already through the roof, our economy does not need the further encumbrance of mandates and extra fees.

Thankfully, not all politicians are being indoctrinated into the new religion, but because there is so much political pressure to jump on the bandwagon (become a believer), resisting is difficult. Our Congressman James Sensenbrenner and Illinois Congressman John Shimkus "told the White House it was making a mistake" to call for congressional action on this.

You may wish to drop Congressman Sensenbrenner an email or give him a phone call, (262) 784-1111, to encourage him in his fight against global warming initiatives. Or, tell Congressman Sensenbrenner in person. He will be hosting a Town Hall meeting on Sunday, April 27th at 1pm at the Brookfield Safety Building.

Links to counter Global Warming articles. There is still very much room for debate:

ICECAP A great source for alternative views  

2008 Climate Debate: "Over the past few years, more than 19,000 American scientists have signed a dissenting petition coauthored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, renowned physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (www.oism.org/pproject)". The petition urges political leaders to "reject the Gore-supported Kyoto Protocol or other similar proposals that would mandate draconian tax and regulatory measures aimed at virtually all human economic activity"...

..."As the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change) report, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, points out, the hard data from satellites and weather balloons shows the exact opposite of the predictions of the IPCC and the climate alarmist choir: a slight cooling with altitude in the troposphere and slight warming on the surface."

Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact 

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History' 

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for US, Globe 

Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find

Surprise! There's an active volcano under Antarctic ice 

Links:

"From: Paul Olsen
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:43 AM

Subject: State Sen. Olsen drops role in pushing

alternative fuel mandate

Renewable fuels...
creates jobs $$$$
clean environment $$$$$
supports local economy $$$$$$$
keeps our dollars home $$$$$$$$$$$
its the future $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
a flip flop senator who doesn't defend reality

WORTHLESS !!!"

Now for the conflict of interest issue.

We know that Senate Bill 380 sponsor Senator Olsen removed his name from the bill and will abstain from voting for it due to a perceived conflict of interest. That article from the Oshkosh Northwestern paper stated: (Emphasis added)

Olsen came under fire shortly after the bill was introduced in early January because he has family ties to the ethanol industry and is a part owner of a grain mill that sells corn for ethanol production. Olsen was a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 380, which would require vehicle fuel distributors to make renewable fuels 25 percent of their total sales volume by 2025.

On Wednesday, Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Director Kevin Kennedy indicating Olsen's support of the bill would not violate conflict of interest statutes even though Olsen has a one-third ownership stake in Olsen's Mill, a family business that sells corn to Olsen's brother's ethanol plant, Utica Energy LLC...

...The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board's Standards of Conduct for elected officials generally requires legislators to step away from discussions, votes or support for legislation that will have a benefit for the legislator, a member of the official's immediate family or any organizations with which the legislator is associated...

...Kennedy's decision indicates "immediate family" applies to a spouse or children, but not to brothers or sisters. He said the actual impact of the legislation on Olsen's Mill, in which Luther Olsen has a financial interest, would be "unspecific and speculative."

"Thus, based the facts you have provided, in my view you may participate in the sponsorship, consideration and vote on legislative proposals that increase incentives for manufacturing and using ethanol and renewable fuels without violating laws administered by the Government Accountability Board," Kennedy's letter reads.

So, according to the Government Accountability Board, there was no real conflict of interest.

But here is another tidbit from Jay Webber that I was unaware of. (My alarm is set to WISN so I catch a bit of his radio show each morning.) According to Jay this morning, ethanol producers cannot purchase corn from just anyone--it is not like just any Farmer John Doe can take his load of corn to Senator Luther Olsen's brother's Utica Energy LLC ethanol factory. No, Jay said it had to come from a licensed grain mill, such as Olsen Mill, the one Senator Luther Olsen is a co-owner of!  To me, that really crowds that perceived conflict of interest line.

Jay also told about a very interesting email Charlie Sykes spoke about on his radio show. It was from Senator Luther Olsen's Chief of Staff Heather Smith. It evidently is a response to an email sent by Luther's brother Paul. Pretty interesting stuff. The complete email is at the bottom of the Charlie Sykes link. Here are just a few excerpts:

Why? [does Luther have a target on his back over this issue] Because of you [brother Paul]. They know that you are the c h i n k in Luther's armor. It doesn't matter what any ethics board says about if it's ok or not. Anyone who is not completely retarded running a political campaign knows how to make a perceived ethical problem look just as bad as a real one.

So, in other words, she does not think there is any real conflict of interest! 

I also found it interesting that Ms. Smith noted there was not one call from a constituent in favor of ethanol--after all, their calls would be from Luther Olsen's district, presumably a more favorable district toward ethanol considering the potential for new jobs.

There were not a hundred calls, or ten, or EVEN ONE CALL from a constituent who wanted to tell Luther, "Heck yeah, vote for this, it's great!" We got a memo from a "special interest group" and the DNR, and heaven knows the DNR should always be listened to.

 

Is it any wonder we need to watch all of our politicians regardless of their party? 

Let Governor Doyle know if you agree with his assessment of ethanol in Wisconsin. 

608-266-1212, 414-227-4344

Blogs: Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

UPDATE: The Ethanol bill is on the Senate floor right now. Reportedly, Senator Jim Sullivan is on the fence regarding this bill. Please let him know what you think. If passed, the bill goes to the Assembly. There Assembly Speaker, Mike Huebsch is said to also be on the fence.

I heard that Senate Bill 380, commonly referred to as the Ethanol Bill, made it out of State Senate committee with a 4-1 vote. State Senator Ted Kanavas cast the only NO vote on the measure. (Thank you, Ted.)

The bill now heads to the Senate possibly as early as this Thursday, January 31st.

"This bill generally subjects a refiner to a penalty if the percentage of renewable fuel sold by the refiner, beginning in 2009, is less than a percentage set in the bill. The percentage of renewable fuel sold is determined by dividing the total volume of wholesale sales of renewable fuel in a year by the refiner’s five year rolling average volume of wholesale sales of all motor vehicle fuel, other than diesel fuel, and multiplying by 100. The percentage begins at 10 percent and increases to 25 percent in 2025 and thereafter." (Emphasis added)

Like so many of these Going Green bills and measures, they sound good but are NOT environmentally friendly--nor are they practical or economically feasible. Ethanol is not an efficient fuel*. In fact, many scientists believe it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it provides.The miles per gallon with ethanol are not as high as without ethanol.

The only thing Green about this renewable fuel bill is when you follow the money to the ethanol manufacturers and corn growers.

If contacting your state representatives about ethanol mandates seems familiar, it is because we defeated this once before back in 2006(?)

Sometimes I feel like we are playing that old arcade game called Whack-a-Mole with these bad bills that keep returning. (Whack-a-Mole is a game where the player takes a mallet and tries to hit a plastic mole who pops out of various holes in the game play field.) But call or email we must; it is only weapon against oppressive legislation like this. 

Contact your representatives:
State Senator Jim Sullivan, Democrat, 5th District
Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-2512,  866-817-6061

State Senator Theodore Kanavas, Republican, 33rd District
Sen.Kanavas@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9174, 800-863-8883

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-282-3614

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120 

Governor Doyle
608-266-1212, 414-227-4344

Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Majority Leader), from Horicon. Counties: Columbia and Dodge
Rep. Michael Huebsch (Assembly Speaker), from West Salem. Counties: LaCrosse and Monroe
Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (Senate Minority Leader), from Juneau. Counties: Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Jefferson, and Waukesha

With gas prices rising, people naturally are looking toward purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. The free marketplace is addressing fuel efficiency and experimental fuel vehicles. We don't need to mandate the use of such an expensive carbon footprint fuel like corn ethanol.

And let's not forget that taxpayers (us) subsidize the price of each gallon of ethanol blended gasoline. From the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

"Motorists pay 51 cents less in federal gasoline taxes for every gallon of ethanol purchased, and Wisconsin pays ethanol makers 20 cents for every gallon produced. If ethanol were such a great deal for consumers, it would not need market-distorting tax breaks and subsidies, much less a market-rigging mandate, to compete with conventional gasoline."

 Be sure to read The Ethanol Fallacy in February 2008's Popular Mechanics issue.

* "Among the various ethanol sources, sugarcane is by far the most efficient in both land and energy use. The ethanol yield of sugarcane per acre is roughly 650 gallons, whereas for corn in the United States it is 350 gallons, scarcely half as much. The net energy yield of 8 for sugarcane offers an overwhelming advantage over that of the 1.5 for corn."

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative