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

I attended Congressman Sensenbrenner's Town Hall Meeting Sunday. Attendance was light--maybe 2 dozen people (mostly men). Perhaps the early start time kept people away?

Wisconsin's Representative Rich Zipperer was also there to answer questions.

I missed the first question. The second dealt with Common Ground, a group that has been appealing to churches for support. Is it truly bi-partisan?

Both Congressman Sensenbrenner and Rep.Zipperer expressed their doubts of bi-partisanship since Common Ground did not seem to be interested in tax relief, school choice, etc.

A reader had emailed me about this group 2 weeks ago after Vicki McKenna talked about Common Ground on her radio show. The reader was "taken aback" that their St. John's church bulletin urged people to attend the Common Ground conference. Many people might be surprised to learn their church supports Common Ground.

Energy and taxes were the topic of the remaining questions.

One man inquired if the direct donation from retirees' IRAs to a charity option would be renewed (this would then satisfy the distribution requirement). Mr. Sensenbrenner said that there would be an effort to bring that donation option back since donations to charity support groups that often help others without any additional government funding.

The next question asked about the Congressman's opinion of nuclear power. He said he was "All for it--it emits 0 greenhouse gas." He added that Chernobyl's defective design for nuclear power plants has never been used in the U.S. There was more discussion about Wisconsin's rising energy costs, which the Congressman also discussed on Charlie Sykes show Monday morning. It is a subject all unto itself, so I will get to that in a later post.

The last question was on Ethanol. Mr. Sensenbrenner said it was "Bad stuff--not energy efficient, and the blend reduces gas mileage." He also mentioned that there is engine damage and increased pollution because of it, and the 51 cents per gallon subsidy was passed 20 years ago!  Add to that the economic and social impact of food into fuel and it is time to "Get off the ethanol kick!"  (Amen)

"The real problem is politics", he said. Iowa is the first caucus in the primary process. For any candidate to succeed, they must first "Worship at the altar of ethanol!" That is why we have it, the Congressman explained.  (I was aware of that, were you?)

He closed by mentioning he would be discussing the N.A.M. report (National Association of Manufacturers) on energy and the business climate in Wisconsin and the United States, Monday morning on Charlie Sykes radio show. Catch the podcast, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

From what the Congressman said at the town hall meeting, Wisconsin's energy costs in the near future will be sobering if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill passes. More about that later.

Links: 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:

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