masthead-highres

Monday, February 18, 2008

Ethanol Subsidies, Mandates May Be Vulnerable

David's op-ed on the many problems with ethanol continues to be picked up by newspapers (since the nine newspapers I mentioned Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Oakland Tribune, the Alameda Times-Star and the Argus in California have run it), and is generating an unsually high amount of comment emails -- all opposed to ethanol subsidies -- to the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Here's a sample of the letters we're getting:
My husband has been on this bandwagon for years. Ethanol makes no sense in any way.

Our ultra liberal daughter acted as if everybody knew how stupid this whole ethanol aberration was.

We were shocked to find one issue we could agree on.

Yet our congress rolls on mightily filling ADM's pockets and others with cash for destroying food crops and further increasing the worlds hunger problem.

As a right wing Jesus freak, I would like to add it is a sin to burn food when people are starving.

Sharon Milton
Norphlet, Ar
Public interest in ethanol -- or, more precisely, public interest in ending ethanol subsidies and mandates -- appears to be greater than I had at first supposed. It won't happen overnight, but perhaps this is an issue on which we can win.

P.S. A bunch more have run it now, but I'll stop listing them all.
_____

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:53 AM

Copyright The National Center for Public Policy Research