Inconvenient Truth: algore admits “Maybe that ethanol subsidy thing wasn’t such a great idea”
As Vice President, he cast the deciding vote in the senate on the first bill to authorize government subsidies for (corn based) ethanol production. The self-anointed Moses of the “green” movement claimed it would reduce greenhouse emissions and be good for farmers. Unfortunately neither of these claims have proven to be true and the taxpayers have been bent over in yet another enviro-boondoggle. Here’s what Slate magazine had to say about federal ethanol policy in 2005 (more here):
But the ethanol critics have shown that the industry calculations are bogus. David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.
The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.
In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America’s total energy consumption, not decrease it.
Now it appears that enviro-hypocrite algore has had a change of heart on ethanol subsidies – they are not such a great idea after all. He further admits that his support had more to do with politics than the environment (story here from the Daily Caller).
Former Vice President Al Gore has reversed his support of corn-ethanol subsidies. He even went one step further by admitting his original endorsement of them was nothing more than political pandering. Or at least, that’s what he told a green energy conference sponsored by the Marfin Popular Bank in Europe.
In a display of unexpected candor, Gore told the audience, “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol…First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at the best very small.”
He continued: “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”
Now, Gore is citing that as his reason for his complete reversal on ethanol. “The size, the percentage of corn particularly, which is now being [used for] first generation ethanol definitely has an impact on food prices,” said Gore. “The competition with food prices is real.”
This man continually proves that he is a sham and a phony on the environment. He wants you to walk or bicycle to work while he rides around in a limousine and SUVs. He tells you to reduce your carbon footprint while his mansions and private jets spew more carbon than a small city – while selling himself carbon credits. His interests in the environmental movement do not extend beyond Al Gore Inc.
He is, in a word, a douchebag…