The EPA is finally getting serious about imaginary global warming.  It realizes that closing power plants is just not going to be enough to stop this non-happening global catastrophe.  As everyone knows, the real source of imaginary global warming is people, and in order to solve this fictional problem, you need to reduce the supply of people.  And a leading way to do that is to cut the supply of food.  That may explain why the EPA is mandating that more food produced be taken out of the food chain and used as ethanol.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday released a much-delayed proposal for the amount of biofuel that must be blended into conventional vehicle fuel. The proposal, which would become final by the end of November, would set levels for last year at what producers actually made but increase the total volume of renewable fuel required by 1.5 billion gallons, roughly 9 percent, by the end of 2016. That would bring the volume to 17.4 billion gallons[.]

If you click on this leftist link to the New York Times article, they will portray this increase as "moderate," but don't be fooled – a tremendous amount of corn is already used for ethanol, and now the EPA, in its infinite kindness, is "only" increasing this requirement by 9%.  That means even more corn, which is used in an extremely wide variety of processed food, is going to become even more unavailable, and food prices will go even higher.

Now, a liberal drone reading this might think, "Ethanol is good because it uses less energy than gasoline," but that would be incorrec. Seventy percent more energy is required to make ethanol than is actually in ethanol.  Also, ethanol produces 34% less energy than gasoline, and engine consumption is 51% higher.  Furthermore, ethanol damages car engines.

So if ethanol is not energy-efficient, why is the EPA mandating that we use more of it?  The only answer is that the EPA wants to continue to remove food from the food supply.  Could it be that they are trying to eliminate people as a source of "global warming"?

It sounds wacky, doesn't it?  But the government promotes abortions, which definitely eliminate people.  The government promotes lighter- and lighter-weight cars, which cause more fatalities in accidents, all things being equal.  The government also eliminated incandescent bulbs, requiring us to use ones with highly toxic mercury in them.  And bulbs break.

So couldn't this policy simply be viewed as another anti-human being regulation of the government?

By the way, where in the Constitution does it say that the government can tell us how we can fuel our cars?  And another question: how does the EPA make these decisions without the Congress being involved?  Why do we even have a Congress if such fundamental decisions are going to be made by the bureaucracy, without hindrance of elected officials?

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.