Project Wonderful Banner

Sunday, July 08, 2007

That damned ADM

What's Mallard raving about today?


Mallard actually seems to think he's telling us something we don't know.

Mallard also seems to believe this is in some way related to public demand for ethanol, which is, no doubt, all the environmentalists' fault.

Nowhere does Mallard mention Archer Daniels Midland, the poster child for American corporate welfare, whose campaign contributions are almost entirely responsible for ethanol subsidies. God forbid the private sector be held to account; The Market will take care of everything.

By the way Mallard, Archer Daniels Midland also manufactures a significant portion of the world's high fructose corn syrup, a substance which is widely considered to contribute to America's obesity problem.


Kaitlyn said...

What does the asterisk next to gas and air go to?

I can't make it out.

My mom used ethanol (that's the fuel based on corn, right?) in the summer of '05, when she visited her sister in Nebraska. She said the mileage was great and it was pretty cheap.

If it's an environmental thing, then it's bad that government money helped fund it.

If it's not environmentally sound, then government money is ok.

I don't get the conservative stance on the environment - hello, it's your planet too, you have to live here with us enviromental lunatics.

Wait... why are government subsidies that lead to a cheaper fuel source a bad thing?

I do not get this fucking duck!

Can somebody please explain this nonsense to me? (Today's.)

Maybe somebody who's on speaking terms with an anti-enviromentalist?

Scanman said...

Tinsley has a little bit of a point except he's using the strawman argument that environmentalists love it. They don't. Biodiesel is a better option, it's not as energy consuming to produce and it's being sold by smaller suppliers.

At least ethanol's carbon monoxide can replebnish the lost oxygen, Fossil fuel does not.

Anonymous said...

Actually, think about how much highways would cost without government subsidies, airports and air travel, churches would be without the support of tax payers.

anthony said...

also isn't part of the point breaking the dependancy on foreign oil, which has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with getting ourselves out of bed with dictators and out of situations like iraq? i see that as the main selling point for ethanol or biodiesel...

anthony said...

kaitlyn-- the asterisk says "john stossel column, jewish world review".

It's here.

Ironically, he DOES mention Archer Daniels Midland.

None of this goes into the issue that sugar ethanol is cleaner and more reliable but that the corn lobby in this country seems to have an NRA-like hold on congress.

Mallard can't offer more than one panel of knees jerking. GB Trudeau commenting on any complex issue would touch every point in a series of coherent strips incorporating the views and differences of his characters.

Frankie Machine said...

All you hippies can talk about the pros and cons of ethanol. But answer me this:
Why did Tinsley blatantly rip off Kool-Aid Man? I fully expected "Ethanol" to say "Oooh yeah!" at the end of his little rant.

Christopher said...

Every energy balance analysis I have seen indicated corn based ethanol is an energy loser or optimistically a break even scenario and that is before you factor in the increased land mass required to get to realistic production levels. Ethanol derived from corn is thermally inefficient. If you look into the pocket of the "Supermarket to the World" you will see the hands of Washington. The DC boys are going to rub our butts with corn oil before they give it to the people, again.