revisiting EPA's certainty about ethanol

As scientific as the environmental movement claims to be, it doesn't seem to matter when their assessments are wrong and their predictions don't come true.

From Joel Belz in World...

It wasn't that long ago...that the EPA was also very sure that ethanol was exactly what the world needed....during the debate, one fact did become clear. The EPA, in its unstinting backing of ethanol, had bet on the wrong horse...ethanol turned out to be much more costly and more damaging to the environment...[and] ethanol [is economically] practical only if it is heavily subsidized by the government.

Along the way, the destruction inflicted by the EPA's know-it-all mandates has been enormous....

So isn't it a little cheeky now for that same EPA to come along with a cocksure finding that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases "endanger public health and welfare" under federal clean air laws...cause climate change...pose an enormous threat "in both magnitude and profitability"?

And isn't it a wee bit disconcerting...that it's the very same Carol M. Browner who has graduated from heading the EPA and now serves as Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change?

...the EPA's momentous declaration a couple of weeks ago will reach into every nook and cranny of our weak and fragile economy...Where's the evidence that the EPA's gotten any smarter than it was a decade ago?