The Ethanol Papers - Paperturn manuscript - Flipbook - Page 501
So now, there are only five more minutes of lies (in Hilton's seven-minute video
segment) to respond to.
In referring to ethanol's environmental benefits over gasoline and diesel fuel,
Hilton says, "And here's the crazy part...a report from the National Academy of
Sciences found that the production, farming, and transportation of corn-based
ethanol actually creates more emissions than the production and use of regular
gasoline." And, he says, that ethanol contributes to pollution in the Gulf of Mexico because of all the fertilizer used to grow corn and soybeans.
Here's the real crazy part of what Steve Hilton calls the "crazy part," it's that
he's quoting from a study by the National Academy of Sciences, an organization
that he vehemently criticizes in his opposition to man-made climate change activism. Hilton has stated that climate change activists are the biggest threat to
our environment. Well, the NAS is a climate change activist and they rather
vehemently state the position you disagree with. How about some consistency,
Steven, not just adherence to whatever single position or benefactor can do the
most for you? This is the problem that I described at the beginning of this paper,
Fox News needs to be consistent. It's okay to have different opinions on different issues, but don't hold out something as a trusted or important resource when
you otherwise consider its opinion as being wrong. If NAS's position on manmade climate change is wrong, and that same position relates to a judgment
that they made about ethanol, then maybe the ethanol comment is also wrong.
But if they're correct, then Hilton's position is wrong; and if Steve Hilton can be
wrong about this, then he can easily be wrong about ethanol.
However, the true point with pollution in the Gulf of Mexico is that if it's such a
bad situation, and it's a situation that requires immediate and drastic attention,
then why not call for the elimination of all corn crops, not just corn for ethanol.
As I've written in the past, we don't need popcorn in movie theaters, there's
plenty of other candy to buy. We don't need corn-on-the-cob at picnics, there's
macaroni salad. And if corn and soybean crops account for about half of the
pollution in the Gulf of Mexico, why not also take aim at other gross users of
fertilizers that drain into the Gulf? For example, golf courses use a tremendous
amount of fertilizer to keep their fairways and greens looking so green. There
are thousands of golf courses located in the states that are connected to the
Mississippi River. Why not abolish golf; it's just a silly game? And why not abolish other agricultural uses that require fertilizer, such as growing grapes and
hops in those states that feed into the Mississippi. We don't need wine grapes
or beer hops from Indiana or South Dakota, we have plenty of vineyards in
California, Oregon and Washington.
