"F. George McDuffee" <gmcduffee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:k92jm3lm6cbd61ds0eosrhpljfa6mn17pk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:12:39 -0600, The Artist Formerly Known as
> Kap'n Salty <mikey666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>> Indeed there are, but again "the better is the enemy of the
>>> good."
>>
>>While I love aphorisms as much as the next guy, yours doesn't really
>>apply in the case of sugar cane; no new technology or infrastructure
>>(relative to what would be required for the exploitation of corn) would
>>be required for cane.
> =============
> It applies exactly.
>
> Listen to the arguments: -- cane would be better -- lets wait.
> No- prairie grass would be better lets wait. No
> bio-engineered/GM plants would be better -- lets wait. And the
> favorite excuse by the oil companies "we haven't pumped all the
> oil out of the ground -- lets wait." These may indeed be
> "better" but are preventing the implementation of the good.
>
> There is not now, never has been, nor ever will be a perfect
> "magic" solution that would supply an limitless supply of free
> non-poluting fuel/energy, i.e. perpetual motion, with no
> undesirable effects. The trick is to maximize the benefits for
> the majority while minimizing the liabilities/drawbacks. To mix
> the metaphors -- some one's ox is bound to get gored.
>
> What is im****tant is to get infrastructure in place and large
> scale pilot bio- and syn- projects running to provide expertise
> for full scale implementation as required, and some minimal level
> of emergency fuel supplies for critical trans****tation needs such
> as emergency services and food.
>
> While these programs/projects may indeed be expensive, it will be
> orders of magnitude less expensive that paying extortionate
> prices (which may involve far more than money such as blackmail
> over American foreign policy) for im****ted oil, and/or fighting
> WW-III over "energy."
>
> The US federal government has a long history of financing and
> promoting advancements in technology such as the canals,
> railroads, aircraft, and atomic/nuclear energy. In the process
> of doing so, they have made selected individuals rich, but in the
> aggregate have also "promoted the general welfare."
>
>> So why corn?
> ===============
> #1 Regardless of the facts, I will believe what I want and push my
agenda
>
> #2 Regardless of the facts, I will believe what I want and push my
agenda
>
> #3 Regardless of the facts, I will believe what I want and push my
agenda
>
> #4. Regardless of the facts, I will believe what I want and push my
agenda
>
> #5. Regardless of the facts, I will believe what I want and push my
agenda
Green house, blah, blah, Al Gore, blah, blah, Majestic 12, blah, blah, one
world government, blah, blah, global population 500 million, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah.
This has gone a little too far so until such time as the total collapse of
everything as we know it I would like to be able to log on to
rec.crafts.BREWING and discuss...... brewing!
Mark R
|
