Biofuels Bailouts

e85-pump01-180-cropped1By Paul Chesser

Never mind the allegedly detrimental effect biofuels have by increasing greenhouse gas emissions and therefore global warming — the Obama Administration will continue to blast CO2 in the atmosphere by burning vegetation. It’s not a surprise as the president talked about it during his campaign, but now the ugly details are coming out and the new subsidies are being unveiled. From a May 5  White House press release:

President Obama today announced steps to further his Administration’s commitment to advance biofuels research and commercialization.  Specifically, he signed a Presidential Directive establishing a Biofuels Interagency Working Group, announced additional Recovery Act funds for renewable fuel projects, and also announced his Administration’s notice of a Proposed Rulemaking on the Renewable Fuel Standard.

The BIWG is to be co-chaired by Obama’s superheroic force of top eco-bureaucrats: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Part of their responsibilities will be to:

  • Immediately begin restructuring existing investments in renewable fuels as needed to preserve industry employment; and
  • Develop a comprehensive approach to accelerating the investment in and production of American biofuels and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

Read the rest of this article at

8 Responses to Biofuels Bailouts

  1. Rob N. Hood May 24, 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    Wait a minute! This article indicates there is such a thing as Greenhouse gases and global warming! Dan, are you against Bio-fuels for that reason (which would be shocking, yes shocking!) Or are you against it because it is an alternative to your much loved and PRECIOUS oil ???!!!

  2. Dan McGrath May 25, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    This just illustrates the contradictory nature of the so-called “green” movement.

  3. Rob N. Hood May 25, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    Good one Dan, not. Twisting and spinning. It’s pretty easy to do… I’m not impressed.

  4. Rob N. Hood May 28, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    Dan- U ever see Lord of the Rings? That creepy guy, I forget his name… he reminds me of you, and your….. PRECIOUS….oil. It is actually humorous for an adult person to spend so much time and personal energy helping what is arguably the biggest and most powerful industry in this world’s history (oil) to fight what basically are little fights on their behalf. And for what? Because you fear the “unknown” and believe that any change will cost you personally more money, even though that may or may not be true, and even though your other concerns (fears) whatever they may be are somehow unAmerican or some such nonsense. It appears suspicious to an educated thinking person. Are you that selfish and narrow-minded, really? Libertarian ideals sound really good at face value but the problem with is it is REALITY and having a conscience and compassion for your fellow man, woman, child. Libertarianism is really just anarchy with a nicer name and a better description in the dictionary. (so thanks Neil, but I don’t need you to look it up for me- It sounds real nice and noble in the dictionary, but all it is is anarchy). So Dan, man up, and admit that’s what you are for, either that and/or you work for Big Oil. And either way, I still think you need to pay Neil- that guy is working harder than you!

  5. Neil F. May 31, 2009 at 12:01 am #

    So now you’re right and the dictionary is wrong? Why aren’t you President? You got all the answers, and you know better than all of us, even the people who write the dictionary! So, what you would like is all of us to just shut up and agree with you, and we can all live happily ever after, passing the water bong around singing cum bi ya?
    what a wonderful utopia that would be!

  6. Rob N. Hood May 31, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    The above statement is a perfect example, Neil, how you pretty much take everything at face value. So you actually believe that everything in the dictionary, as described there, reflects accurately what occurs in reality??!! That is a shocking thing Neil! Very naive or… I don’t know what. You seem to like to leave out a little thing called REALITY that most people tend to deal with on a regular basis.

    Plus, I didn’t say or even hint that the “dictionary is wrong.” It says what it says, but for crying out loud- the reality of things, as defined anywhere, varies from place to place, time to time, era to era, etc. Your grasp of the shades of complexity of reality and insistence on black and white thinking is exactly what I’ve been fighting with you here for months. You still don’t get it, and so I don’t think you ever will. That is the reason why I question almost everything you say or post. Like you actually said- what you post is what you believe. Thus there is no purpose for you posting anything, or to pretend to be open to actual debate or back and forth. You could simply let Dan’s posted articles say it all for you, and get on with your life, and worry about things you may actually have some control over, or immediate impact on in your community. I can’t help but respond to your illogical statements, but this will probably be it, cuz you are a brick wall.

  7. Neil F. June 1, 2009 at 7:22 am #

    Reality is subjective. For each of us, our reality is based on our perceptions. Our perceptions are based on our individual experiences and beliefs. Hence, when one has an experience that alters a belief; ie an epiphany, or a paradigm shift, then one’s concept of reality is altered.
    In my 43 years of existance, I have had many instances where long held beliefs were challenged by the realization that my perception of a particular aspect of something was incomplete, inaccurate, or just plain wrong.
    You have no idea what I have gone through in my life. You have no idea what my thought process has been to arrive at the conclusions that I have. For you there is only one way of thinking…..your’s. Anybody else’s thoughts or conclusions have no merit with you if they do not conform to your subjective view of reality.
    Who are you? How arrogant you are to condemn, and dismiss what I think, or what anybody else thinks, just because it doesn’t match up with the ideaology that you believe.
    If you disagree with somone the proper way to challenge them is to say “I disagree, and here’s why I disagree” Your method of disagreeing is to say “I disagree because you don’t know how to think, and your beliefs are wrong” And you wonder why our undies get in a bunch.
    You have much to learn Grasshopper. You will see that your perceptions of reality will change over time. It is inevadable. Your first lesson is that you do not have a monopoly on truth, thought, or wisdom.

  8. Rob N. Hood June 4, 2009 at 11:38 am #

    You dismiss the collective wisdom of the vast majority of the WORLDS scientists who have been studying climate change since the 1960’s (at least), why? Because you feel it is wrong? Because you think you are smarter than them? Because you like to fantasize about some WORLD-WIDE conspiricy, the likes of which, if was true no one has ever seen or dreamed of as possible!! You scoff at the idea of the Trilateral Commission, and similar groups, which do in reality exists, and fall for some paranoia that Al Gore, all by himslef, is an evil master manipulator?? And YOU call ME arrogant? Wow. Nice parallel universe you live in Neil. Time to take your meds.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.