DU Produced Oped on Sen. Talent's Ethanol Flip Flopping

[usregimechange]

Please proof/factcheck before I submit:

Carl Bastin (Globe, Sept. 6th) characterized Sen. Talent’s flip floppy record on ethanol by saying that he has taken a “leading role on expanding the use of ethanol.” He cited Talent’s support of last year’s energy bill as evidence.

Senator Talent voted against various pro-ethanol measures in 1988, 1990, 1995, 1996, 2004, 2005, and 2006. These measures included voting against reducing taxes on Ethanol blended gasoline and the Missouri Qualified Fuel Ethanol Producer Incentive Fund, which would have given rebates to producers of ethanol in Missouri.

Last year’s energy bill included pro-ethanol measures but also included 9 billion dollars of perks to oil companies that are now struggling with record profits in the tens of billions. They struggled so much that they gave one of their CEO’s, in the case of Exxon, a nearly 400 million dollar bonus.

We should support ethanol because it is close to the efficiency of gasoline and because it can be produced right here in Missouri. Why is Senator Talent jumping on the ethanol bandwagon now after years of opposition? The answer has more to do with politics and money than it does with wise and independent leadership.

[usregimechange]

1. I am thinking of making it shorter by not going into the energy bill

Carl Bastin (Globe, Sept. 6th) characterized Sen. Talent’s flip floppy record on ethanol by saying that he has taken a “leading role on expanding the use of ethanol.”

Senator Talent voted against various pro-ethanol measures in 1988, 1990, 1995, 1996, 2004, 2005, and 2006. These measures included voting against reducing taxes on Ethanol blended gasoline and the Missouri Qualified Fuel Ethanol Producer Incentive Fund, which would have given rebates to producers of ethanol in Missouri.

We should support ethanol because it is close to the efficiency of gasoline and because it can be produced right here in Missouri. Why is Senator Talent jumping on the ethanol bandwagon now after years of opposition? The answer has more to do with politics and money than it does with wise and independent leadership.


What do you think?

[usregimechange]

2. changed it again....

Carl Bastin (Globe, Sept. 6th) characterized Sen. Talent’s flip floppy record on ethanol by saying that he has taken a “leading role on expanding the use of ethanol.” Senator Talent’s full record indicates otherwise.

Senator Talent voted against various pro-ethanol measures in 1988, 1990, 1995, 1996, 2004, 2005, and 2006. These measures included voting against reducing taxes on Ethanol blended gasoline and the Missouri Qualified Fuel Ethanol Producer Incentive Fund, which would have given rebates to producers of ethanol in Missouri.

We should support ethanol because it is close to the efficiency of gasoline and because it can be produced right here in Missouri. Why is Senator Talent jumping on the ethanol bandwagon now after years of opposition? Let’s take a look at another issue for insight.

Senator Talent has withdrawn his co-sponsorship on Senator Brownback’s bill to ban all forms of human cloning. Election time was coming and the stem cell issue was going to be a tough one. Republican moderates (yes they still exist) would have jumped ship. What is the moral of the story? Senator Talent’s decision making has more to do with politics and money than it does with wise and independent leadership.

[Sherman A1]

3. I have found that the shorter the more likely to be published

Looks good! If you can cut it down any and keep the message intact do so. Just like anything else, the LTTE section is limited on space. If you write a short (pithy) letter. The chances of getting published increase as they can fit more letters in or your might fit into that odd leftover space that another might not. Just my 2 cents for whatever it's worth.

[usregimechange]

4. True but under 200 is good given the limit here is 300 words.

[Sherman A1]

5. Granted - I usually shoot for about 100 words or one paragraph

and have a fairly good average of getting published. We live in a world of sound bites!

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Well:

My own view is that ethanol production is a non-issue, and that it's not one that's deserving of support in any case because it won't address any of our energy issues. Most studies show that, thanks to current farming practices (mechanised, diesel-powered farm equipment, petroleum-based pesticides, etc), production of ethanol from maize (corn) is a net energy sink; that is, it requires the expenditure of more fossil fuel energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than is returned when the ethanol is used as a fuel. And it'd take 90% of all the arable land in the United States to replace fossil fuels with ethanol at current rates of consumption; any contribution to our energy supply made by ethanol would be so slight as to be insignificant. As it stands, most of the various ethanol-production programs and incentives are nothing more than subsidies for the agriculture industry.

[msongs]

7. corporate agriculture gets more welfare than people. nice summation.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[usregimechange]

8. Do you have a link or citation that producing ethanol requires...

more energy to make than it puts out?

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. ...

http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0813012.htm

Then there's this, which speaks to some of the other downsides: http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/Ethanol-Largest-Scam6jun03.htm

[usregimechange]

11. Interesting, thank you

[johnaries]

12. The Pimentel study was debunked. Just Google "Pimentel Study"

Further, there are much more efficient sources of ethanol than corn, such as switch grass. And it's not to be a "total solution".
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/

[ikojo]

10. I hope you'll send it to the

St Louis Post Dispatch!!!

James noTalent is from suburban St Louis (Chesterfield MO to be exact)

Here is the info on the editorial page...


CHRISTINE BERTELSON
Editor of the Editorial Page

Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Responsible for: The Post-Dispatch's editorial and commentary pages.
Background: Bertelson joined the Post-Dispatch in 1986 as a general assignment reporter, and later became a feature writer and columnist. In April 1997, she was named editor of the editorial page

[usregimechange]

13. Just sent er in! Thanks