Newsprint Helps make us Manure-Independent !!

Hey Folks -

I don't know whether Michael Hamill works for an oil company or is just one of those conservative loonies who hate government and all tax money spent on anyone but themselves; but, in any case, he is a good example of how ignorance and a narrow perspective on reality will neither keep a person from being published nor save him from sounding like a foolish know-it-all.

Directly below is his letter to the Columbus Dispatch. Below that is my response. Mine probably won't be published.

You decide which makes better sense.

- Uke Man

Ethanol shaping up to be a boondoggle Thursday, August 16, 2007

I was pleased to read The Dispatch's Aug. 10 editorial on ethanol and government subsidies, "Look before leaping." I've followed ethanol's merits, or lack thereof, for years and have written to my representatives about it. I can tell from their responses that they're under great pressure from corn growers and corporations to provide government subsidies and inducements for ethanol production.

If, in fact, the benefits of producing ethanol from corn were so compelling, then the industry could grow on its own without government support.

The rush to government-supported ethanol production in this country has the look of a costly boondoggle in the making. If people don't speak out, before long we may have additional interest groups dependent on and constantly seeking government funding for an inefficient means of energy production.

MICHAEL HAMILL Columbus

To the Editor,

Debating the benefits and liabilities of ethanol and other alternative energy sources is worthwhile, but it should be done rationally. A longstanding criticism of alternative energy is that it requires "subsidies" to compete with oil. This makes no sense.

The billions of dollars we're spending on today's war, the billions we spent on the last war, and the billions we've spent over the years maintaining an army and navy presence in the Middle East were spent solely to maintain our access to oil. Had we been energy self-sufficient via some "subsidized" alternative, none of this oil "subsidy" would have been needed.

How can any existing or proposed "subsidy" of alternative energy production even begin to come close to the number of dollars and lives expended to subsidize oil?

Yours - Tom Harker

Hey Folks -

I don't know whether Michael Hamill works for an oil company or is just one of those conservative loonies who hate government and all tax money spent on anyone but themselves; but, in any case, he is a good example of how ignorance and a narrow perspective on reality will neither keep a person from being published nor save him from sounding like a foolish know-it-all.

Directly below is his letter to the Columbus Dispatch. Below that is my response. Mine probably won't be published.

You decide which makes better sense.

- Uke Man

Ethanol shaping up to be a boondoggle
Thursday, August 16, 2007

I was pleased to read The Dispatch's Aug. 10 editorial on ethanol and government subsidies, "Look before leaping." I've followed ethanol's merits, or lack thereof, for years and have written to my representatives about it. I can tell from their responses that they're under great pressure from corn growers and corporations to provide government subsidies and inducements for ethanol production.


If, in fact, the benefits of producing ethanol from corn were so compelling, then the industry could grow on its own without government support.


The rush to government-supported ethanol production in this country has the look of a costly boondoggle in the making. If people don't speak out, before long we may have additional interest groups dependent on and constantly seeking government funding for an inefficient means of energy production.


MICHAEL HAMILL Columbus





To the Editor,

Debating the benefits and liabilities of ethanol and other alternative energy sources is worthwhile, but it should be done rationally. A longstanding criticism of alternative energy is that it requires "subsidies" to compete with oil. This makes no sense.

The billions of dollars we're spending on today's war, the billions we spent on the last war, and the billions we've spent over the years maintaining an army and navy presence in the Middle East were spent solely to maintain our access to oil. Had we been energy self-sufficient via some "subsidized" alternative, none of this oil "subsidy" would have been needed.

How can any existing or proposed "subsidy" of alternative energy production even begin to come close to the number of dollars and lives expended to subsidize oil?

Yours,

Tom Harker