Sat, 08/28/2010 - 09:54
I recently read this report in the LA Times and it got me wondering:
-- Why is the state government still pushing corn-based Ethanol? Hasn't is been proved that it is more damaging to us than good?
-- Why was a company such as Pacific Ethanol which filed for bankruptcy protection last year made eligible for subsidies when there are several other companies and technologies available?
-- What was the due diligence performed by the agencies before awarding these subsidies?
This is the original article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/27/local/la-me-ethanol-20100828
I welcome your comments here
(2 votes)
Dear Paula,
Let me give you my random opinion since I know hardly anything of this case: Probably because some people within the government have interests in the production of corn-based ethanol, have shares in Pacific ethanol, or maybe because there are a lot of producers of corn-based ethanol what makes it bad for the economy to switch to different production? I guess there should be a report on the due diligence research concerning the award of subsidies to this company? It would be interesting to take a look at it.
Greetings,
George