If, however, you argue that it would be impractical for Midwestern states to push higher ethanol blends for one reason or another, then you are at least on the right track. I may disagree, but at least you are demonstrating some understanding of my points.
If you read my arguments and conclude that I am anti-ethanol, then you either 1). Don’t understand my argument; or 2). You do understand it, but assume I am not being sincere.
Because Marc Rauch immediately accused me of intellectual dishonesty — something nobody who knows me well would ever accuse me of — then he seems to believe I am not being sincere.
No Country for Straw Men
Most of the push-back to my articles from ethanol interests has been focused on the idea that oil has a lot of negative aspects, and therefore we should be using ethanol instead. That’s an interesting rebuttal, considering it is entirely irrelevant to the arguments I am making. My plan would actually boost ethanol consumption, but do it in a way that is no longer at the mercy of four-year election cycles.
Much of Marc’s response is along these lines, and as such, there is no point in rebutting these specific arguments. They are straw men, diversionary tactics, or simply emotional arguments for ethanol. But, they are blanks when it comes to the points I have made.
I will, however, make one ironic point. Much of Marc’s reply focuses on the many evils of the oil industry. But, this is the same industry that powers the ethanol industry.
Corn farmers aren’t using ethanol to run their trucks and tractors. They aren’t using ethanol to dry their corn when they need to. They don’t use ethanol to produce the fertilizer to grow the corn. Ethanol plants aren’t using corn stover to provide process heat for their factories. Those are all petroleum product inputs. Yes, in addition to being utterly dependent on the federal government, the ethanol industry is utterly dependent on petroleum. My plan takes aim at both of those dependencies.
Addressing Specific Points
