Survey takers Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research recently quizzed 800 registered voters about corn juice. They discovered the majority either favored or strongly favored "continuing to increase the use of ethanol, a renewable source of energy, in our nation's fuel supply." Hold on there, what's with the little caveat about "a renewable source of energy?" What would the results have been if they'd left that little gem out? Did the fact the The Renewable Fuels Association paid for this research have anything to do with the wording? Of course not. Anyway, "By a 71 to 17 percent margin, voters believe the rising cost of oil and gas is the primary reason food prices have been going up, rather than blaming the rising use of corn-based ethanol." Key word: "primary." The question asks what respondent blame "the most" for rising food prices. Eight percent blamed ethanol above increased demand in China and India and severe weather. And here's the kicker: 21 percent of those surveyed said they were less likely to support a candidate for president who supports ethanol, "a renewable source of energy." Go figure.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Not this voter. And I will punish incumbents that voted for this nonsense come November
The majority of the voting public thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq as well. We can see where listening to the majority got us.
I agree 100%. E85 should have its R&D dollars heavily reduced!
The wording if definitely the reason for the results.
I create surveys everyday and the wording is one of the most important aspects of a survey.
so believing makes it true?
what if 59% of voters are idiots?
(we should be so lucky.)
True to the spirit of the Ministry of Propaganda. Word the questions differently, and the outcome would be reversed.
I’m more interested in real-world data. As of July 1, Oklahoma law required retailers to disclose whether their pumps were dispensing adulterated gasoline. Typically the signs say something like “fuel may contain up to 10% ethanol.”
Now that people know what they’re buying, there’s been a backlash. The other day in OKC I noticed a flock of stations were advertising “no alchohol” or “100% pure gas” or such. The price may be ten or twenty cents more per gallon, but of course unadulterated fuel is worth it. My gas mileage is back to normal, and the lawnmower runs much better.
BTW, morning headline: “Oklahoma again has cheapest gas prices in nation.” Time to run out and buy a Yukon or Titan before they’re all gone!
GS650G Says:
Not this voter. And I will punish incumbents that voted for this nonsense come November
Me too.
The federal government has NO BUSINESS indefinitely subsidizing this boondoggle with my tax dollars.
I am not opposed to somebody starting an ethanol business, or adding ethanol to their business, as long as it is allowed to survive or die in the economic marketplace.
I think all laws not part of the constitution (and all elected officials) should come with an expiration date. Timely re-elections, term limits for all, and no special dispensation for politicians. If a law is good enough for all of us, then it should be good enough for the politicians too!
It’s like the old Onion headline; Survey says 95% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Anyway, “By a 71 to 17 percent margin, voters believe the rising cost of oil and gas is the primary reason food prices have been going up, rather than blaming the rising use of corn-based ethanol.” Key word: “primary.” The question asks what respondent blame “the most” for rising food prices.
This differs with a World Bank economic survey that said Biofuels have forced food prices up 75%.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy
Wording of the survey makes all the difference. Have you ever seen Penn and Teller’s “ban di-hodrogen monoxide” petition?
The majority of the voting public thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq as well. We can see where listening to the majority got us.
Nonsense. Polls demonstrate the time-honored principle that garbage in produces garbage out.
The majority of the voting public was told (by the US government, CNN, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Hillary Clinton, Bush, Cheney, John McCain, Colin Powell, and the New York Times) that Iraq had nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and was ready to use them, with a strong parenthetical implication that they had something to do with 9/11. (Some Fox News viewers still believe this.)
And, even so, it was a slim majority, and most still wanted additional proof. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq.
People aren’t as stupid as you might think, but they need valid data to make correct decisions.
Anyway, “By a 71 to 17 percent margin, voters believe the rising cost of oil and gas is the primary reason food prices have been going up, rather than blaming the rising use of corn-based ethanol.” Key word: “primary.” The question asks what respondent blame “the most” for rising food prices.
Soon hemorrhoids et hangovers will be blamed on “the price of oil and gas”. Sigh.
It’s weird. I never voted for Bush 43 but I seem to be the only one to whistle a foul when Daily Kos-like comments try to take a thread off topic.
The public, and the whole world for that matter, was told beginning in the early 90’s that Iraq had WMDs and never satisfactorily accounted for their disposition. Even our main opponents in the Security Council–Germany, France, Russia (which had key people on Saddam’s payroll)–agreed on that. Regime change in Iraq became official US policy during the Clinton administration. In 2002-2003 the argument had boiled down to whether Iraq had run out of time to avoid compliance with numerous UN mandates. Some people, here and abroad, thought we could take a risk and let the issue simmer longer. Other people, here and abroad, thought it too risky to delay resolution. The events of 9/11 argued for using penicillin against Islamofascism attacks rather than reaching for aspirin afterwards. Iraq didn’t cause the 9/11 attacks, of course, but it was a state sponsor of terrorism, had given aid and shelter to 9/11-related people and organizations, and was a continuing threat. It was still shooting at our forces that were trying to protect Kurds, Kuwaitis, Saudis, etc. The sanctions were rapidly crumbling with the aid of corrupted Europeans. Sometimes life gives you a choice between bad and worse. Often it’s hard to tell which is which.
Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source for subjects vulnerable to personal bias, such as political issues. Anonymity in authorship and editing promotes that. Instances wherein articles were rewritten to slant them toward an editor’s prejudices are not unknown. I notice CNN polls are repeatedly cited in the Wikipedia article. I refuse to watch Fox News because the content is too thin, but CNN is really beyond the pale as a credible source of political news and opinion.
These people would probably vote to ban DHMO.
faster_than_rabbit Says:
The majority of the voting public was told (by the US government, CNN, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Hillary Clinton, Bush, Cheney, John McCain, Colin Powell, and the New York Times) that Iraq had nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and was ready to use them, with a strong parenthetical implication that they had something to do with 9/11. (Some Fox News viewers still believe this.)
Some still believe it because it’s true. Downplayed, but true. Saddam DID have yellowcake uranium. It has since been reprocessed by a company in Canada into something other than weapons, for use in power producing plants.
I’m telling ya, all it will take is ONE single bomb or EMP strike, and you’ll see this country (and even the world) be technologically put back 150 years.
Then we won’t be able to protect or feed ourselves, let alone the poor and dying in other countries. Do you have enough water and land in your backyard to start growing your own food? How will you protect it from your hungry neighbors who don’t plan as well or work as hard as you?
These things could happen, much more easily than you might suspect.
The Libs spent years whining that Bush senior should have finished the job the first time and now whine that junior tried to finish the job. McCain was dead right about the surge. Iraq is far ahead of many countries in the world like Zimbabwe, the Sudan, etc. The Dems are disappointed they can’t lose another war.(not like they haven’t been trying)
The libs are very good Monday morning quarterbacks. If not for McCain the man that expects to win all 60 states could not go to Iraq.
Happy_Endings, you’re citing a position paper that was one input to a final World Bank report; the World Bank never conclusively gave a number.
Most estimates that I’ve seen put the cost of biofuels from 3%-25% and pin the majority of the blame on world supply issues, fuel prices, and increased food demand. From 1994 to 2005, grain increased 21M tons every year (mostly due to population growth). Last year, demand for ethanol increased 27M tons. So essentially, ethanol production has only increased the demand for grain to a level it would see in a year or two anyway.
Ethanol gets saddled with the “boondoggle” label because of the Pimental study which has been shown to be a flawed study, to put it mildly.
Oil production is also heavily subsidized from the U.S. government, which the GAO says was $150 billion compared to $116 million for ethanol from 1968 to 2000.
Corn is not the only source of ethanol. The list of things you can produce it from is long but includes sugar cane, sweet potatoes, sugar beets, mesquite, cattails, and Jerusalem artichokes. A lot of these ethanol-producing plants can be grown on marginal land. If the U.S. dropped all it’s trade barriers to ethanol imports, the supply would be there for us. And it would give impoverished third-world countries a market to sell it’s supply of ethanol, bolstering up their economies.
Having freedom of choice of where I want my fuel money to go to is a key issue to me. I would rather my money go to ethanol, methanol, or butanol producers, domestic or foreign, rather than OPEC. And I would not mind paying more for it due to it’s positive benefits. The best way to accomplish freedom of choice at the pump level is a Federal mandate requiring all new cars being sold in the U.S. to be flex-fuel capable. This would add between $30.00 to $100.00 to the price of a new car, but the positive side effects would be significant.
I’m going to buy a flex fuel vehicle and E85 as soon as I’m able to.
For what it’s worth…
The author of The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You to Know About–Because They Helped Cause Them
http://www.amazon.com/Really-Inconvenient-Truths-Environmental-About-Because/dp/1596980540/
estimates that about 1/3 of the recent run up in food prices is due to diversion of food crops to biofuels.
Maybe we should first close the “Enron loophole” in petroleum futures speculation and see what happens before we ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’.
A data base of 800 from a population of 301.139,947 – that represents 0.0000002% of the population. Typical manipulation by the powers that be to produce statistics to suit their own purpose!
Ethanol: Just like LP, another way for the gov’t to tax you and the big oil companies to stay on top, unless…Segrams and InBev get in the fuel business.
Remember, it is still AGAINST THE LAW for you, a free American, to produce your own fuel (alcohol) even though it is easy enough for you to do…because you might get drunk, not pay taxes, drive an obnoxious Orange Dodge Charger with musical horns and marry your sister in short shorts…
On my local NPR station, KCRW, I was listening to a news bit about how ethanol refineries have essentially no margins now, compared to when a refinery could pay itself off in short order. Apparently, the soaring cost of corn wasn’t taken into account. One refinery owner said, “We’re just one day of bad ethanol pricing from shutting down.”
I indulged myself in a delicious bit of Schadenfreude, knowing the market, at least in this short term, feels the same way I do about ethanol.