[EricaLubarsky]

1) opponents of global warming don't seem to understand the hypothesis that fully explains why certain regions will experience colder weather and some extreme conditions.

2) The prius is a car that reduces the demand on combustible fuel, and has less connection with ethanol than a hummer, which burns a lot more.

3) Ethanol is not the rallying cry of "greenies" who see ridiculous shortcomings in ethanol. First it takes acres of corn to fill up one SUV gas tank. Second, that same corn is fertilized with petroleum-based fertilizers. Third, it drives up the price of corn around the world.

4) Biofuels are not exclusively based on corn or even edible agriculture. Sugarcane is very efficient and much more efficient than corn, although still edible. Switchgrass is the perfect choice at this time but its also still in development.

5) finding new sources for a fuel source that is being depleted is not a partisan issue.

6) reducing fuel consumption is not a partisan issue, and even if you don't believe in global warming, its hard to look at the polution in Houston, Phoenix and Los Angeles and say that less pollution in the air is a bad idea.

The only people that are really for corn-based ethanol are a) Bush, b) politicians that want brownie points in corn-growing regions and c) corn-growers in the US.

Liberals, conservatives that do not like subsidizing pork-barrel agriculture, and peasants oppose corn-based ethanol. The article tends to use misconceptions, guilt by association and misunderstanding to try to make a larger point about those crazy liberals/Europeans and global warming but appears to utterly fail.