Just a quick check of a few letters to the editors in some Sunday papers across the country reveals a possible increase in the understanding and acceptance of biodiesel.
This letter from Chip Keen, a certified mechanic from Puget Sound in Washington state, wound up in the Fort Wayne (IN) Journal Gazette:
Petrodiesel is highly toxic; biodiesel is less toxic than table salt. If the world ran on biodiesel rather than petroleum, oil spills would no longer be the matters of great concern that they are today, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would no longer be a bone of contention, and repressive regimes and global terrorism would no longer be supported by petro dollars.
And in the Billings (MT) Gazette, Mary E. Fitzpatrick, chair of the Clean Energy Task Force, Northern Plains Resource Council in Billings wrote:
Cleaner exhaust and homegrown prosperity helps everyone. Montana farmers can grow oilseed for a local market that is not controlled by agribusiness or multinational energy companies. The infrastructure supporting a biodiesel industry would bring jobs and income to rural Montana. The product could power many farm and ranch operations.
Just a couple of letters? Sure, but when you couple this anectdotal evidence with a recent survey from the Renewable Fuels Association that says 85% of Americans think that the government should be involved in the development of alternative fuels (see Cindy’s January 25th post), it at least seems to indicate more acceptance.