Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Barack Obama is proving himself to be one of the most talented political leaders in decades.  He defeated the heavily favored Hillary Clinton and is on his way to possibly leading a landslide Democratic victory in November.  I agree with most of Obama's political positions and look forward to a Democratic victory.

However, there are things about the Democrats (in general) and Obama (in particular) that make me cringe.  And one of them is ethanol policy.

Here's an article from MSNBC today, reprinted from the New York Times, on Obama's ethanol policy.  Though I single his policy out for attention, as he is our presidential candidate, my guess is that his position is pretty similar to that of much of the rest of the Democratic Party.

As the article makes clear, Obama is strongly in favor of subsidies for corn ethanol production (and in fact has close ties to the corn ethnanol industry).  I think such subsidies are a disaster.  Corn ethanol is very energy-intensive to produce and thus is not so great for the environment, while the emphasis on converting corn to energy also raises food prices for the poor in the U.S. and around the world.

The article points out that one unit of corn produces less than two units of energy.  But one unit of sugar cane produces eight units of energy.  Sugar cane is much more energy efficient.  And it is much less expensive to produce, especially in Brazil.  Sugar cane ethanol has some problems as well, but it is much more promising than corn ethanol as a path to curtail petroleum use.

Unfortunately, not only is Obama wrong on corn ethanol policy, he's also wrong on sugar cane ethanol policy,  He supports tariffs on sugar cane ethanol, which dramatically drives up its price.  That's bad for the environment, bad for American consumers, and bad for Brazil.

As for John McCain, I think he gets it right on both counts--opposing subsidies for corn ethanol and opposing tariffs on sugar cane ethanol.

I won't vote for McCain, because there is lots of other stuff that I disagree with him on, but as a Democrat I am focusing on improving the Democratic Party.  And I wish that Obama -- and the rest of the Democratic Party -- would stop supporting subsidies for corn ethanol and stop supporting tariffs on sugar cane ethanol.

Tags: Barack Obama, Energy, Ethanol, John McCain (all tags)

Comments

53 Comments

I agree with you !

But I did not rec you for that reason... I recced you because we need to discuss corn subsidies more openly !!

by SevenStrings 2008-06-23 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you !

<scarcasm>you have a problem w/ Obama on certain policies. HOW dare you? allow me to quote WHY you have a problem---

And this comment from VENICIAN who said if  one expects Obama to Oppose Fisa  w/ a filibuster, you are :

Venician said "I'm begining to think what alive is really concerned about is a black man having all the power that has usually been reserved for white men. White men from the south appear to be running scared these day of just what will a black man do with all that power, and will he use it to exact revenge against the slave states."

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-23 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you !

If I may,

It is obvious that you have been hurt by the comment tht you cite... but I think you should just let it go.  Comments like that sometimes happen.. when you are blogging amongst strangers.

And I have uprated this comment..it does not deserve a hide rating !!

by SevenStrings 2008-06-23 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you !

Yeah, it did. Jumping on the first comment in a thread just to drag in some past grievance on a completely unrelated topic is thin-skinned, self-absorbed, narcissistic, bullshit behavior.

This is a good diary on an important topic that's spurred a detailed and informative discussion. It doesn't deserve to be hijacked by someone carrying a grudge from diary to diary.

Or is that an OK thing here?

by BobzCat 2008-06-23 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you !

Please check the blog rules again...thread hijacking is not against blog rules.  Unwarranted Hide Ratings are !!

by SevenStrings 2008-06-23 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you !

Isn't that interesting! So folks are free to bring old arguments into new threads, jump tip jars with petty grievances, stalk other users across diaries, and post off-topic comments without consequence?

I've noticed that sockpuppets and zombies are also not against blog rules, since they're pervasive and clearly tolerated by both users and admins. And apparently, moderation is a greater infraction than any of the above.

I'm beginning to understand this blog a little better every day. Or not.

I guess in a small group, where everyone knows each other (as well their alter egos and multiple personalities), this kind of thing is easier to overlook than at a large site, where chaos would reign.

by BobzCat 2008-06-23 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you !

You jumped to some concusions that are not warranted.

My understanding is that thread hijacking is a bannable offense, but not it does not warrant a Hide Rating.

by SevenStrings 2008-06-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you !

It would seem to me that, given that the purpose of a Hide is to make a comment invisible to casual readers, that would the best place to apply it. When those who would hijack threads with their personal issues discover that neither they nor anyone else can see what they did, they might be discouraged from doing so in the future. It also keeps threads on-topic.

That seems to be the practical benefit of rating, as opposed to being merely punitive. But things do appear to work differently here.

by BobzCat 2008-06-23 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Sadly, you are right... The Ethanol boondoggle is one of the great tragedies of the recent past, and it's disappointing to see Obama buy into it so enthusiastically.

The good news is there are a lot of good scientists working on the impacts of biofuels and for once the science seems to be (slightly) ahead of the curve (i.e. we're looking at impacts before we switch entirely to a corn-based economy...).

But still, let your reps know that we know biofuels are BS.

by Mandoliniment 2008-06-23 09:10AM | 0 recs
Lobbyists still rule?

This is really disturbing.

I've been a Hillary supporter the entire primary season, but have been slowly warming up to the idea of a President Obama.

The selling point of an Obama administration, for me, is a "new kind of politics in Washington".  Though I still don't think a lot of things will change (Washington ain't gonna change overnight), I'm excited by the prospect of a power shift away from lobbyists and towards real people's concerns.

But then this.  I'm not pretending that a Hillary administration would be any different, but I think Obama ought to stick to his main selling point, and give us REAL CHANGE.

by Sieglinde 2008-06-23 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

The 8-to-1 figure quoted for sugar cane ethanol is very deceptive, because it only includes fossil fuels in the "energy inputs."  In Brazil, sugar cane ethanol is heated to fermenting temperature by burning the non-fermented parts of the cane, the bargasse.  Corn ethanol could be produced the same way here in this country, it just isn't, because natural gas is so cheap.  That would drastically increase the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) ratio for corn ethanol.

And expanding ethanol transportation and consumption infrastructure has long-term positive effects even if the method we use to produce ethanol today isn't perfect.  It will make it easier to transition to ethanol if we happen to come across a better method of production--like from algae--in the future.

Subsidizing corn ethanol isn't the best solution, but we should be doing something to economically encourage the construction of ethanol infrastructure while looking to the future.

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Who's to say that all your recommendations for the future will be cost-effective and beneficial?

The fact is that sugar cane ethanol from Brazil is so much cheaper to produce than corn ethanol from the Midwest.  There's nothing deceptive with the 8-to-1 figure.

by Sieglinde 2008-06-23 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

That isn't a "fact" at all.  The figure that's being used is energy balance, not cost; and it's a flawed energy balance figure because it's including only fossil fuel inputs and not biofuel/biomass inputs.

We could burn corn chaff to ferment our corn ethanol, which would increase the EROEI immensely on this flawed metric.  The reason we don't do that is because it's more efficient and productive to use natural gas, and natural gas is so cheap that the productivity benefits outweigh the monetary cost of the fuel.

In any case, the point is: corn is a pretty crappy way to make ethanol, but we're only a couple years from being able to produce huge commercial volumes of cheap, environmentally-friendly ethanol from algae or from high-yield cellulose crops like switchgrass and miscanthus.  But you need special cars to run on ethanol, and you need special pipelines to transport it, and those cars and pipelines aren't going to be built unless there's an actual market for ethanol.

It's a chicken and egg problem.  Without any nudging from the government, ethanol producers are waiting on the ethanol infrastructure, and ethanol infrastructure is waiting on the ethanol producers, and neither will get anything done.  So for a little while, we give the producers a nudge.

That's not a boondoggle, that's forward-looking.

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

I admit that I don't know much about this issue, so thank you for clarifying a few points for me (and for everyone else).

I would also probably put into the equation the pressure of ethanol production on food prices.  If energy prices continue to spiral upward, and when the corn ethanol production becomes streamlined and more cost effective, wouldn't many farmers convert their output more in the direction of ethanol instead of food?

Anyway, this is an issue I'm eager to learn about, and an issue that Obama and McCain should be asked about more often-- not just when they're on a tractor campaign in Iowa.

by Sieglinde 2008-06-23 09:48AM | 0 recs
Agreed

I'm definitely worried about the food price issue.  It's probably time to start retiring the ethanol subsidy at this point--we've gotten some infrastructure in place now, and ethanol production techniques are improving drastically.  It's probably done what it needed to do.

Unfortunately, a) the increasing cost of food is tied to many factors, and one of the major ones is the increasing cost of fossil fuel; and b) retiring the ethanol subsidy is a political kiss of death.

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

I recently saw a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which showed, pretty starkly, that biodiesel is the way to go.  Do you have any thoughts on this?  You seem to be pretty well-informed about ethanol.

by the mollusk 2008-06-23 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Haven't read the paper, though I think biodiesel has a lot of promise.  It can be used in existing diesel engines without modification and transported in existing pipelines, offers great overall fuel efficiency, and (at least when compared to corn ethanol) can be produced much more efficiently.  The only real advantage ethanol has is that it's generally cleaner-burning.

However, if you read that link I provided, there's a plant under development in Mexico that will produce ethanol from modified algae that actually excretes the ethanol as a waste product--meaning it doesn't even require destroying and fermenting the algae to get at the product.  Algae has also been suggested as a great high-yield crop for biodiesel, but it would involve crushing the algae to extract the oil, making the whole process somewhat more energy-intensive.

I think both of them have a lot of promise, personally.

Could you find and link to that paper, if possible?

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

BR-

Here's the citation -

Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and D. Tiffany. 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103: 11206-11210.

The algae thing could be promising, but I worry about this gargantuan tanks of sludge being sensitive to things like flooding.  Picture fish farming several orders of magnitude larger.  We don't have a very good history of getting our thumb on things like this until they cause weird viral outbreaks in a neighboring town.

by the mollusk 2008-06-23 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Thanks for the citation.

The algae would probably be located in glass enclosures/tubes that are airtight and sealed off from the outside air.  They do best in high-CO2 environments and are very sensitive to environmental conditions, so I doubt they'd be open-air.  That's not foolproof security, but it's at least a start.

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

if these algae do produce ethanol, they are probably cyanobacteria.  i know there is a fair amount of work looking at using Phaeocystis.  But cyanobacterial blooms are things that we typically try to minimize.

about the glass tubes - yeah, it'd be nice, but can you really make a glass tube big enough to give you hundreds of thousands of barrels of ethanol a day?  if i remember correctly, the u.s. uses something like 30 million barrels of oil a year.  so to make a dent, the scale of production would have to be - at minimum - a few million barrels a year.  so each of these algae (maybe cyanobacteria?) factories would really be impressive things to behold.

by the mollusk 2008-06-23 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

You are right, they're using cyanobacteria, not true algae.

You don't really need "a glass tube" that big--just many, many smaller glass tubes.  Hell, in a pinch you could probably use old recycled 2-liter soda bottles.  As I posted earlier, we use 400 million gallons of gasoline a day, so we'd need to produce close to that much if we were to flip over completely from gasoline (ignoring any potential fuel savings coming from increased mass transit).

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

I just read the link you posted above.  It says NRDC is in favor of it, so that makes me a little more open to it.  They have a pretty good track record as far as I can tell.

by the mollusk 2008-06-23 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Also, algae is not necessarily sludge and pond scum.  Seaweed is a kind of algae.  I'm not sure what physical form the algae they use takes, but I'd imagine it's actually closer to seaweed--better to use the entire underwater volume of the tube as a growing area rather than just the water surface.

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

You should diary your comments... they deserve a wider audience!!

by SevenStrings 2008-06-23 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

I'll put up some diaries one of these days. :)

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

What is yoru background ?

by SevenStrings 2008-06-23 02:54PM | 0 recs
Computer science, actually

I'm a software engineer.  But I like to read up on things.

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 03:05PM | 0 recs
Thank you!!!

Sorry for yelling, but there is a maddening ignorance about ethanol and ethanol production in the blogosphere.

You know what isn't carbon neutral? You know what can't be produced here in the US? Saudi Oil.

Corn is simply the lowest hanging biofuel fruit. After all, if ethanol (or biodiesel) were as energy efficient to produce as oil, we would never have been drilling in the first place. As you say, other ethanol substrates such as switchgrass can later be interchanged.

by iohs2008 2008-06-23 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

There is nothing inherently evil about ethanol itself.  The problem is using things like corn.  Now corn-based ethanol was a fine step along the way to something sane.  Nothing wrong with having developed it, nothing wrong with using it to learn.

There's a LOT wrong with actually employing it like this, though.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-23 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

"here is nothing inherently evil about ethanol itself."

I suppose that is true, but there isn't a viable alternative to corn.  Plus corn growers have the deck so stacked in their favor that ethanol really is synonymous with giving them more tax payer money to cause more harm.

by the mollusk 2008-06-23 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Switchgrass?  Algae?

The research can go in some interesting directions.  I don't mind my tax dollars going to research.  Putting food in my gas tank, however, is just plain stupid.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-23 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

I just don't see it happening.  Switchgrass has been the nemesis of farmers and ranchers for 150 years.  I think you'd have a hard time changing that mentality, especially with the deck stacked so heavily in favor of corn-based ethanol.

Algae?  Again, I guess it could be good.  But, really, can we grow enough algae to produce tens of millions of barrels of ethanol a day?  Even if we could, where would this happen?  Could we do this in such a way that it didn't pose an enormous environmental danger?

by the mollusk 2008-06-23 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

The US uses about 400 million gallons of gasoline per day.  Algenol claims that their genetically-modified algae can produce 6000 to 10000 gallons of ethanol per acre per year.  To match the current rate of use of gasoline we'd need 15-24 million acres (23,000-38,000 square miles) of dedicated cultivation area.

That sounds like a lot, but it's less than 1% of America's approximately 10 million square mile surface area.  And it probably wouldn't be placed in a single location; you would have numerous ethanol plants located all around the country to decrease transportation costs.

Anyway, obviously any alternative energy program must also include conservation provisions like increased use of public transportation.  Plug-in hybrids would also greatly help.

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

The Democrats have a long history of being very very bad on agricultural policy.  But ethanol seems to be especially bad.  One thing that bothers me the most about it is that it uses the issue of climate change to simply advance the interests of one of the most destructive forces in this country - industrial agribusiness.  At the very least, biodiesel, rather than ethanol should be promoted.  But really it's all about conservation and developing communities that are livable and provide a range of transportation options.

It pains me greatly to see that Obama is apparently so in the tank for ethanol interests.  This is the first issue that has given me serious pause about voting for him.

by the mollusk 2008-06-23 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

I feel ya.

But we don't have a lot of options here.  We need to hold his feet to the fire on it, of course, but the alternative is particularly unattractive.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-23 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

To me, one logical response to high gas prices is to develop local food markets so that food doesn't need to be shipped as far thereby cutting down on transportation costs.  Essentially, this would cause the locally-grown stuff to be cheaper and would (in a perfect world) encourage people to eat local foods.  But right now, it is very difficult to even grow crops other than corn, soybeans, rice, or wheat  (the big four commodities) on much of the land in this country.  I don't remember the specifics, but I recall seeing an op-ed in the NYT a while back about a farmer who bought some land in Southern Minnesota thinking he'd grow a variety of vegetables for local markets.  It turned out that his land was designated for only "big four" commodities.

So ass-backwards it's hard to imagine.  I think these kinds of assinine policies would only get worse if we relied too heavily on corn ethanol for energy.

Another issue is the current flooding in the Midwest.  The levee system has been known to be a flawed idea since really the late 19th century (see the book "Rising Tide") but here we are in the 21st century with a bigger levee system.  One of the main reasons is that agricultural interests demand absolutely no danger of their fields being flooded.  The irony is that when there is a flood, it just tends to be a lot worse.

Ugh.  I could go on.  This issue is very high on my priorities because it is intimately linked to so many other issues.

by the mollusk 2008-06-23 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Again, I feel ya.

I can't wait for one of our leaders to openly not take the ethanol pledge.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-23 09:58AM | 0 recs
Biodiesel can't help ya

Biodiesel's very popular amongst the hippie crowd (no offense), but to produce biodiesel from soy (the most practical method here in the US), you need 9 times the land, and it is only slightly less energy intensive as ethanol.

And instead of the corn lobby, you're going to have the soy lobby.

So unless other measures are taken for both corn or soy, it's big agribusiness just the same :(

But I'll take big agribusiness over Saudi oil any day :( :(

by iohs2008 2008-06-23 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Biodiesel can't help ya

Corn does produce more ethanol per acre than soy produces biodiesel, but it's not 9 times.  Corn produces around 370 gallons per acre per year, soy produces 60-100 gallons per acre per year.  So corn produces 4-6 times as much fuel by volume.

Biodiesel also has a significantly higher energy content per unit volume than ethanol, almost twice as much.

Corn ethanol is better than soy biodiesel, but not by much--and anyway, neither corn nor soy are really good biofuel plants.

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Biodiesel can't help ya

iohs -

see the citation i gave to bishoprook above.  there is a good reason biodiesel is popular among the "young hippie crowd".

plus, i realize that waste vegetable oil isn't going to get off of saudi oil, but, honestly, neither is ethanol - no matter how it is produced.

by the mollusk 2008-06-23 11:51AM | 0 recs
I saw this

also in the NY Times. I did not want to make a diary out of it.

I want a GOOD explanation from Obama on this.

by kevin22262 2008-06-23 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I saw this

There is a lot of corn grown in Illinois.  Obama represents Illinois.  It isn't that difficult to understand why he supports corn based ethanol.

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-23 10:58AM | 0 recs
Well

it is "Time For Change".

Right?

by kevin22262 2008-06-23 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

If you are waiting for a Senator to take a position that would hurt his constituents then you are going to wait for a long time.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-23 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Corn ethanol is an increment.  It's a lot easier to develop than cellulose ethanol and subsidizing it fosters public familiarity with the product.  In addition, most of the corn that is used for ethanol is not human food, it's animal-feed-grade.  And grain-feeding beef is responsible for a lot of problems, so curtailing that practice, even by accident, is probably a good thing.  Corn ethanol will not be our salvation, but ending it's production before we have another supply of ethanol fuel available will set back domestic energy production years, perhaps decades.

by Endymion 2008-06-23 10:19AM | 0 recs
Ooh, a substantive diary!

Thanks to you and the commenters for enlightening me on this complex yet important issue.

There are two things I look for on blogs: high-level information and conflict :)  The primary wars were fun until around April, but all these postmortems and unity appeals got a little dreary.

I'm glad we're back to having this kind of diary on the rec list.

by corph 2008-06-23 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Ooh, a substantive diary!

Yes, I appreciate the commenters and the recommenders.  I haven't had the time, nor do I have the expertise, to contribute substantially to the discussion (beyond reporting and commenting on a news article in the diary), but I'm really glad to see so many informed comments.

by markjay 2008-06-23 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Illinois is the....

...second biggest corn producing state in the Union.  LINK As a result, it isn't too hard to understand why a Senator representing Illinois would support corn based Ethanol subsidies.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-23 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Anyone remember John Edwards?
How far did the truth of "Them against us" take him?
Anyone who does not believe that Sen. Obama really knows about "Them against us" re-read his books.
Anyone who does not believe Sen. Obama possess the intellectual strength to understand "what's goin' on?"...re-read his books.
Every big corporate interest in THE WORLD is against the serious changes that must be made....

Don't get me wrong...after Obama's election..I will oppose BS with the same CD actions I have taken in the past...but until then...
tell ya what...
Do you come home from your job with complaints about
the disrespect you were treated during the day...and go to the same job tomorrow?
Did you object to the multi-layer illegal activities of the Bush years..with the personal courage of a simple arrest in opposition?
(yeah it does fuck up your resume)
Maybe..just maybe... because a prime example of the conscience of the fight against BS...died yesterday..I am fed up..

But for ANYONE to believe this is not about
melanin? "FUCK YOU!"....G. Carlin

by nogo postal 2008-06-23 11:16AM | 0 recs
Corn Ethanol is BAD

Using more energy to produce less energy is always bad and that's what corn base ethanol is. It took the press many years to speak the truth about this subject and now we have people defending this deceptive industry? It's all about the billions in energy subsidy that the energy companies wants, and the billions in subsidies that the farmers want. It is cheaper for us to import sugar cane converted ethanol to this nation than to subsidized the corn ethanol industry. What say you?

by stevent 2008-06-23 11:16AM | 0 recs
Losing the forest through the trees

At this time, no biofuel produces more energy than it requires to produce. If it did, we would have been using it instead of oil all along.

Yes, corn has a particularly low yield, and I'd like to see championing of alternative ethanol products. But we have to take baby steps here.

Any biofiel is going to be produced from a crop. Without proper checks, any crop is going to have a lobby and be run by big agribusiness. If there isn't a corn lobby, there's be a soy (for biodiesel) or switchgrass lobby.

Sugracane has a better yield. Sugarcane is also one of the most environmentally destructive crops you can grow. And it isn't grown here in the U.S. I'm really not comfortable shipping jobs to Brazil where the environment can be destroyed out of sight and out of mind.

by iohs2008 2008-06-23 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

Obama won't stop subsidies for corn ethanol. He owes too much to the industry.  He's also in the pocket of big energy corporation Exelon.  It's also intersting that Obama voted for that 2005 Cheney Energy bill -- which McCain actually opposed.

by moevaughn 2008-06-23 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama/Dems on Ethanol :-(

He's also in the pocket of big energy corporation Exelon.

LOL.  Where to begin.

a) he's taken no money from Exelon or any of its lobbyists or PACs.  Money that's listed as being from Exelon is actually from Exelon employees.  Considering Exelon employs a lot of people in Illinois, that's to be expected.

b) What does Exelon have to do with biofuel?  It's a nuclear/coal/gas electricity plant operator.

by BishopRook 2008-06-23 11:45AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads