Over the years, Hillary Clinton has voted against subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol in the Senate a number of times. If you know anything about corn ethanol, you know that's a good thing.
When Clinton released her (otherwise excellent) energy plan this week, it contained a whole boatload of ... subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol. That is, conversely, a bad thing.
Obama's campaign took the opportunity to bash Clinton for it -- not for switching from a sensible position to a more politically convenient but substantively wrong position, but for ... having the sensible position in the first place. How can we trust that she's truly committed to this awful position? they asked.
This prompted an explanation from Clinton that is nothing short of tortured:
This is what we've come to in the strange world of ethanol politics: a presidential candidate furiously trying to explain away her previous good sense. Sigh. I can't wait until the Iowa primary is over.
U.S. pushes for compromise in Copenhagen climate talks
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 2:30 pm
07 Nov 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:04 pm
07 Nov 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/iowa2
http://greyfalcon.net/iowa
Permalink
farnishk Posted 7:33 pm
07 Nov 2007
And biofuels from animal fat! That'll be interesting when fuel pumps have to be labelled "suitable for vegetarians".
Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:47 pm
07 Nov 2007
Hmmm... there is some slick willary.
When you want to become leader of a banana republic, feed people bananas! Everybody like bananas! Green bananas!
Permalink
DonnClark Posted 10:00 pm
07 Nov 2007
Ethanol may not be a bad thing, but the cost and lack of efficiencies using corn as a basis for ethanol production is akin to using coal as the primary energy source for the future ... we have brains, and need to use them to develope the best, most efficient energy infrastructure possible ... corn does not meet the criterion as a sensible alternative ... it is pushed solely by vested interest for profit, similiar to the vested interest of the coal industry to deceive the general public on the reality of their industry.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:41 pm
07 Nov 2007
The flip-flopping on this issue would make a good circus act. "And now, for your pleasure and amazement, I present a ring full of presidential candidates doing backward flips over ethanol! Watch it Hillary, don't crash into Fred!"
Other blogs are chastising John McCain for first being against ethanol subsidies, then for them, and now against them again. Fred Thompson has only gone through stages 1 and 2 so far.
Only the non-candidates (like Michael R. Bloomberg) and no-hopers (like Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and ron Paul) seem to be willing to take a clear position against corn-ethanol subsidies.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:51 am
08 Nov 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:33 pm
08 Nov 2007
Yeah but Ron Paul keeps pushing Hemp as a biofuel.
RonPaul: "OMG It's better than corn ethanol!"
GreyFlcn: "Yeah but it's worse than soy biodiesel."
And yes, thats the report you wrote Steenblik :P
Permalink