Prostituting statistics and selecting facts: this AM on the Science Channel, they were hyping the shit out of "bio fuels," meaning fuel derived from plants like corn. So these tree huggers are supposedly driving across the country on ethanol, or more precisely the 85% ethanol that is actually used in the mixed fuel cars. So, they have to charge up their electrical vehicle. What do they do? They burn "switch grass" (a useless native grass) to charge the battery. The announcer pronounces that "these grasses use carbon dioxide from the air to grow so when we convert it to a fuel to burn in our vehicles the carbon dioxide we give off is the same amount that it took to grow the grasses--so we are a net zero carbon polluter." Only these lefty logic whores on a procurement run could come up with such a conclusion. Had they decided not to use this grass (and thus return carbon dioxide to the air ) there would have been zero carbon dioxide returned; and so the carbon dioxide removed from the air by the grass would have remained removed. Therefore by "returning the carbon dioxide to the air" they are main line polluters. But tell that to the environazis.