Date published: 4/25/2008

I welcomed the editorial titled "Fuelish thinking" [April 21]. Newspapers are long overdue in speaking out against the folly of producing ethanol from corn.

Physics, chemistry, and economics do not support this industry. It exists because politicians of both major parties are trying to placate environmentalists and woo the votes of Midwest farmers, at the expense of taxpayers everywhere.

I differ, however, with the editorial's assertion that there is "no clear link between increasing ethanol production and rising food prices."

Economics 101 explains the relationship between supply and demand. When we convert 25 percent of our corn crop to ethanol, the price of corn is certainly going to increase, and it has. The folks growing chickens and making grits have been forced to pass the increased cost to the consumer.

I hesitate to concur with the U.N. on anything, but I do think that converting food to fuel is fundamentally a bad idea.

With food shortages and increasing prices causing massive problems worldwide, we could only justify conversion of food to fuel if it were the last resort. But it is not!

The U.S. does not suffer from a shortage of energy, but from a shortage of will. We have massive reserves of fuel in shale, coal, and uranium deposits. The technology for converting these reserves into useful products exists.

The economics for these technologies are very positive at or below current crude prices. These initiatives are blocked by powerful opponents who cite environmental and global warming issues.

Canada can strip mine the Athabasca tar sands from their tundra and send the refined crude to Chicago. France can have 80 percent of its electric power supplied by nuclear plants (compared to 16 percent in the U.S.). But we can't even permit a coal-fired power plant in Utah much less drill for oil in Alaska.

Bert Fant

Spotsylvania

Date published: 4/25/2008

Most recent reader comments: