Well Lanny, I could have cut snippets from your argument and taken them out of context (see the first quote you use, which basically is a statement to set up my main argument that given the cost to government to set up this technology, without even going into the environmental costs) I will just try to respond to your general post.
Well it is arguable whether this "technology" already exists to exploit. If it takes a higher input cost to create the fuel then what you receive as output, you are not really exploiting anything. All you are doing is using the equivalent in gasoline to create biodiesel. At best biodiesel provides a marginal output vis-a-vis its inputs, at worst it pollutes more than if it did not exist at all.
Furthermore, Canada already could be energy self-sufficient without a single litre of biodiesel. We produce 3.5 million barrels of oil a day, and consume slightly above 2.2 million. So that idea is bunk. Maybe if you were trying to win the Iowa primary you would support biodiesel and ethanol subsidies, but in Canada we have more than enough traditional fuel sources to be self-sufficient
My point is that biodiesel, given the questions about whether it is even environmentally friendly, the cost to the taxpayer to subsidize biofuel, and the low percentage of daily usage that it supplements makes biodiesel a poor investment for any government to make.
You can find alot of scientists
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/...inforests.html that believe that biofuel will increase world carbon output, increase GHG and further pollute the earth. To be a proponent of this technology worldwide, one logically has to support chopping down the rainforest....which i guess is fine, the rainforest is kinda late 80's early 90's anyway
I do agree with you on the electricity thing though, that would be real leadership. And the cleanest way to get electricity is nuclear power.