Knowing how to spot bullshit

So, I'm doing some light searches, viewing automobiles that I find mildly intriguing, when I run across this.

This is the bit that's hard to swallow:

"The tax incentives, congestion waivers, lower priced e-85, better performance and significantly reduced C02 have all been significant contributors to these sales.

Having literally witnessed the prices and ubiquitious availability of E-85 in Sweden last summer during the Saab Festival, I can assure you that it’s a logical and obvious choice to go to BioPower.

This milestone is another contributor towards Sweden’s efforts to be off of fossil fuels by 2020."

Well, from a certain point of view, this may be true, but given a model, like Germany's, I don't think these assertions can hold water under serious scrutiny.

The first tip off is the notion of the tax incentives. This all has little to do with the actual economic viability of it, and is probably due to the exorbitant tax structure that artificially suppresses the costs of bio-based fuels. This has been the case for years in Germany, with rapeseed being used as a subsidized crop for its biodiesel compatible oil. The heavier taxes levied on gasoline make the diesel more attractive. This is not a market driven solution, rather, an onerous use (mis-use) of government power, attempting to subjugate its citizenry.

With Sweden’s short growing season and limited arable land, I’m rather curious about their sources for E85. They just can’t be doing it within their own borders, and therefore, must be importing it, presumably via ship. I just don’t view these types of scenarios as being nearly as “sustainable” as they are claimed to be.

I think it's more a matter of the .gov making another tax (Swedes love taxes), so that E-85 can get hauled in on a big boat, so that some chump can get all smug and self-satisfied, claiming to be all kinds of "Green".

Yet another reason to get behind the Carbon Belch Day.