The Ethanol Papers - Paperturn manuscript - Flipbook - Page 465
Concern for the environment is an admirable mission. Concern for the animals
who depend upon the environment is highly commendable. Frankly, I feel exactly the same about the environment and animals. This is why I can't understand how someone (you) can be concerned about the disastrous effects when
it's related to alternative fuels, but not concerned when the damage is caused
by the oil industry in its efforts to literally shove more poisonous gasoline down
our throats. I'm sure that you must have seen photographs and videos of all the
dead mammals, birds, and fish that have been killed by oil spills and explosions.
I'm also sure, Bill, that you must be aware of all
the deaths caused by the oil industry to that
other abundant species of mammals known as
humans. Oil industry destruction of human beings occurs in several ways, most notably via
respiratory diseases, cancers, and war.
Every few months I update a story that I originally published in September 2014. The upshot
Dead U.S. servicemen in
of this story is that no American servicemen
Afghanistan
have been killed defending the ethanol industry.
By my count, it is now 15,763 consecutive days
since the October 1973 oil crisis in which no American servicemen have been
killed because of ethanol. Do you know how many days have gone by since an
American military man has been killed defending oil? How about, oh, two days!
If you're such a strong conservationist and humanitarian, why haven't you written any editorials about the death and destruction caused by our national dependence on petroleum oil?
It's interesting that you cite a report by the Organic Consumers Association as
your source for the amount of grassland at risk by corn crops. Have you researched who OCA is? You are a "research fellow," aren't you, fellow? Do you
know that one of their biggest claims to fame was their protests against Starbucks Coffee? Don't get me wrong, if you've ever tasted Starbucks' regular coffee, then you know there's lots to complain about, but their protests concerning
the use of cow's milk in Starbucks' coffee is a bit excessive, don't you think? I
understand that their protest was against the use of hormones to make the cows
produce more milk, but how do they square the potential health risk to humans
associated with hormones against the proven health risks to humans that are
associated with the use of gasoline and diesel fuel? I find their concern over
America's grasslands and wildlife to be very disingenuous.
