The EPA Would Like to Expand the “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico

by Little Miss Attila on August 20, 2010

. . . via moving us from 10% ethanol to 15% ethanol (E15). That way, we can grow more corn to make fuel, using more chemicals that will travel down the Mississippi River and into the Gulf, and increase the number of dead fish floating therein.

Because nothing says “green energy” like dead fish. And nothing says “sustainable” like “government-mandated and -subsidized fuel source that is a huge source of pollution and inefficient—and drives up food costs.”

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

ponce August 20, 2010 at 10:49 am: Are the brave Republicans gonna cut off all them Red State farmers’ ethanol subsidies?

Right after they balance the Federal budget!

*rimshot*

Reply
Texan99 August 20, 2010 at 10:54 am: The EPA isn’t even about the environment any more. It’s about ignorant orthodoxy.

Reply
KingShamus August 21, 2010 at 6:33 am: Oh Ponce, don’t be such a bedwetter.

Yes, the GOP is bad on farm subsidies. But, LMA isn’t exactly cheerleading for the Republicans on this one. She’s just pointing out how massively wrong the EPA is.

By the way, while both the Republicans and the enviro-statists are messed-up here, the GOP still manages to be less screwed-up on this issue.

Reply
Retriever August 21, 2010 at 7:53 am: Ethanol doesn’t just destroy small motors over the winter (lawnmowers). It dEcreases your gas mileage, by 25% under some conditions. Like many green boondoggles, it forces one to refill and/or replace stuff sooner, which is fine if you love to shop but not if you resent having green lifted from your wallet. And don’t even get me started on greener packaging that breaks, splits, tears and generally fails to preserve freshness and protect food (milk carton in trunk).

Rant over (I am passing thru beautiful Vermont but feeling oppressed by soft spoken hippies and emporia selling second hand stuff and left/lib posters)

Reply
ponce August 21, 2010 at 2:26 pm: “She’s just pointing out how massively wrong the EPA is.”

Shouldn’t the free market determine whether 15% Ethanol fuel is a good idea or not?

Why is the EPA keeping certain fuels off the market a good idea?

Reply
Darrell August 21, 2010 at 8:37 pm: Shouldn’t the free market determine whether 15% Ethanol fuel is a good idea or not?

You can’t find the free market in any of this with an electron microscope. If the EPA mandates a higher ethanol composition, it will become the standard. If they merely allow it, some States will make it the law to show how “Green” they are. What do consumers do then, drive to another State to fill up? Drive to Canada or Mexico? Not too long ago, regular unleaded was a commodity that could be purchased anywhere, shipped anywhere, and consumed anywhere. Now with the patchwork of boutique fuels mandated by the States, shortages and price spikes loom everday. The average gasoline retailer makes $0.01 for every gallon sold. Is the EPA going to subsidize those extra pumps for E15?

Reply

The EPA Would Like to Expand the “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico

Search this site

Links and Things

Pages

Archives

New Posts

Site Admin