[ QUOTE ]
For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated
[/ QUOTE ]
I did and this is what I found in the first linky:
Was this:
Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is far more efficient than the U.S. maize-based industry. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per litre, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[6] Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual rainfall. Sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. Ethanol is produced by yeast fermentation of the sugar extracted from sugar cane. Sugarcane production in the United States occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. In prime growing regions, such as Hawaii, sugarcane can produce 20 kg for each square meter exposed to the sun.
U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Unfortunately, despite this cost differential in production, in contrast to Japan and Sweden, the U.S. does not import Brazilian ethanol because of strict U.S. trade barriers (tariffs) corresponding to a levy of a 54-cent per gallon. These are promoted by the powerful American sugar lobby, which does not want a competitor to high-fructose corn syrup, and domestic sugar interests.
Any chance of a transfer of wealth to U.S. farmers and U.S. sugar growers with a protective tariff that amounts to a subsidy more or less?
[ QUOTE ]
Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah the oil robber baron argument. Except that the U.S. public owns oil companys more or less.
Edit:
For new members of this forum, EliotR likes to parrott the liberal, Democratic party talking points as in his oil company rant. When I say the public owns oil companys I mean that the shares are owned by instutions like mutual funds, pension accounts, etc. Stuff people put there money in for retirement and such. Here's an article that appeared in the NYTimes about who owns oil companies:
What Is an Oil Company, Anyway?
Are we angry, then, at the owners of the oil companies? Maybe, but then it's self-hatred. Roughly 41 percent of Exxon Mobil stock is owned by retirement funds, private, public (federal, state and local) and individual retirement accounts. In other words, by us.
It is demonstrable that many retirement funds hold a great deal of oil stocks, including Exxon Mobil. Of the other owners, the largest holdings by far are at mutual funds and exchange-traded funds — generally vehicles for middle-class investors and retirees.
No individuals own more than 1 percent of the stock, and the largest single personal holding, representing far less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the company, is owned by Lee R. Raymond, the retired chief executive, who took the company through some very rough sailing to arrive at its present, fairly secure position.
ONE of the largest holders is the College Retirement Equities Fund, for higher-education teachers and others. Are we angry at them? If teachers get a bigger retirement because oil company profits are up, are we sad?