Question: How should we address climate change?
Mike Gravel: Should be a global solution. Who thinks that this is just an American problem of climate change? How arrogant we Americans are that we just think that we’re the only ones that suffer this. These are complex issues. But let me tell you one thing with respect to Iowa. I am opposed to ethanol. Ethanol is going the wrong way, and these are tax advantages that are given to large corporations. And all it is – and let me put this real pointed to you – it is screwing the average farmer to produce a gallon of equivalent gasoline like ethanol takes 12,000 gallons of water. If this generation continues to go at the water table like they’re doing to produce ethanol, the farmers of the next generation won’t be able to farm in Iowa. And that is a national policy that is absolutely the stupidest policy that we could devise. There are ways that we can solve these problems, and farmers in Iowa know what I’m talking about. We’ve disrupted the wheat market. We’ve disrupted these other countries that . . . on production. And also Archer Daniels Midland and a few other countries could rip it off from the taxpayers. I’ve had it up to here with that, and I become president we’re gonna look at this thing a lot more thoroughly than we do now. And if we’re . . . if we’re gonna have help to the farmers, let’s make sure it gets to the farmers that need the help; not the farmers that are clipping coupons and living in Florida during the wintertime.
Recorded on: 10/23/07
Discuss
Timothy Johnston on January 16, 2008, 2:52 PM
The cause of climate change is still highly disputed. There is no doubt that it exists, but also no scientific evidence that it is anthropogenic. It angers me that an issue like this has become a political one, dictated by representatives who have no idea what they're talking about. I suppose if they can scare people into voting for them, then it maks perfect sense to support this "global problem". In all practicality, a bill like the kyoto protool would cost the united states billions of dollars only to make a possible redution of .01 of a degree for the mean global temperature. This problem is best left for the scientists, not the politicians.
Timothy Johnston on January 16, 2008, 7:52 PM
The cause of climate change is still highly disputed. There is no doubt that it exists, but also no scientific evidence that it is anthropogenic. It angers me that an issue like this has become a political one, dictated by representatives who have no idea what they’re talking about. I suppose if they can scare people into voting for them, then it maks perfect sense to support this “global problem”. In all practicality, a bill like the kyoto protool would cost the united states billions of dollars only to make a possible redution of .01 of a degree for the mean global temperature. This problem is best left for the scientists, not the politicians.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register