Quantcast
 
 
 
Top Story
Review: Palin is a Natural Taking On Obama
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Asian markets tumble after Wall Street sell-off
 
 
expand

The Biofuel Follies

To avoid drilling for oil in ANWR, the planet savers evidently prefer destroying forests that absorb greenhouse gases.

By George F. Will | NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Feb 11, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: catmeow @ 05/12/2008 9:13:27 PM

    Comment: Utah Transit Authority needs to get Accessible Vans and Small Buses to go into neighborhoods to help Encourage People to take the Bus, to take Individuals to the Main Bus Route or Trax. Gas Prices have Sky Rocketed. UTA needs to work on Barrier Free, Benches and Shelters and also Increase the Frequency of Buses. Utah Transit Authority has good Bus Service Down Town Salt Lake City and in the Aveunes, UTA has Destroy the Bus System in the rest of Salt Lake County, so they can put more REVENUE into Light Rail and FrontRunner. John Inglish General Manager Salary is $266,614 Bonus $39,860 Other Incentives $60,526 Total $100,386, there are 9 more High Paid Exectives that receive a Huge Salaries and Huge Bonuses all at TAX PAYER EXPENSE. UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY has Less then Half as EFFICIENT TRANSIT SYSTEM. Google: UTA Transit Follies 5 or Utah Transit Follies 5 and also go to transitridersunion.blogstot.com for more Information. Please Help! Thank You!

  • Posted By: catmeow @ 05/12/2008 9:10:36 PM

    Comment: Utah Transit Authority needs to get Accessible Vans and Small Buses to go into neighborhoods to help Encourage People to take the Bus, to take Individuals to the Main Bus Route or Trax. Gas Prices have Sky Rocketed. UTA needs to work on Barrier Free, Benches and Shelters and also Increase the Frequency of Buses. Utah Transit Authority has good Bus Service Down Town Salt Lake City and in the Aveunes, UTA has Destroy the Bus System in the rest of Salt Lake County, so they can put more REVENUE into Light Rail and FrontRunner. John Inglish General Manager Salary is $266,614 Bonus $39,860 Other Incentives $60,526 Total $100,386, there are 9 more High Paid Exectives that receive a Huge Salaries and Huge Bonuses all at TAX PAYER EXPENSE. UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY has Less then Half as EFFICIENT TRANSIT SYSTEM. Google: UTA Transit Follies 5 or Utah Transit Follies 5 and also go to transitridersunion.blogstot.com for more Information. Please Help! Thank You!

  • Posted By: pms888 @ 02/16/2008 5:29:21 PM

    Comment: As a professor of environmental science I have to give George Will a ???D??? grade for his ???Biofuel Follies??? distortions. Although he does join the environmental community in making a strong case against the Bush Administrations surge towards Biofuels (the folly of land conversion from forest to biofuel cropland), he distorts the truth by suggesting that such folly is the environmental community???s proposal. His finger pointing in misdirected. He further distorts ecological facts by rhetorically demoting the biodiversity hotspot we call ANWR into a ???frozen???, ???desolate??? ???moonscape???. Will did not do his homework. His blind-faith acceptance of the corporate party line (hook and sinker) regarding the laughably miniscule environmental impact of fossil fuel exploration and extraction reveals his complete inability to critically evaluate the evidence and question his sources. Regrettably the most provocative component of this piece is the carte blanche provided him to write what he wants without regards to the facts.

  • Posted By: Lartor @ 02/15/2008 7:31:26 AM

    Comment: Quit whining George, when oil goes to 1000 dollars a barrel we will look intelligent for having saved some to sell!

  • Posted By: astrobill @ 02/08/2008 11:31:30 PM

    Comment: George F. Will ignores (deliverately?) known facts regarding oil reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). The US Geological Survey???s best estimate is the proposed region contains no more than 10.4 billion barrels (BBL) of oil. Yet the Department of Energy (DoE) forecasts that the US will use over 7.6 BBL of oil this year alone and states "???demand for oil in the United States is projected to increase at an average rate of 1.5 percent per year??? reaching 28.3 million barrels per day in 2025." In other words, US oil consumption will be between 10 and 15 BBL/year by the time any ANWR oil could be developed. So, the mere 10.4 BBL of oil thought to be in the ANWR region proposed for drilling will supply perhaps 6-9 months of oil by the time we get any of it! The same reports indicate that the percentage of oil imported to US would barely change ??? decreasing almost imperceptively from 70% to 64% of total US oil use, for only a couple of years at most, before it???s exhausted. I believe if most Americans knew the numbers, they???d never support this risky idea! A simple calculation shows that even modest improvements in the fuel efficiency of ???sport utility vehicles (SUVs)??? sold in our country would more than make up for any energy to be gained from ANWR.


    Sources:

    1. "Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the ANWR," Mar 04, US Energy Info Admin Office (DOE)
    2. "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Petroleum Assessment, 1998, US Geological Survey
    3. "World Oil Markets," from the "International Energy Outlook 2004," US Energy Information Administration

  • Posted By: voxverax @ 02/08/2008 3:08:03 PM

    Comment: George Will accurately points out the problem of destroying forests to plant biofuels. He points his finger in particular at Indonesia, where, he says, "44 million acres [of forests] have been razed to make way for production of palm oil." He also reiterates the now well-worn argument that corn-derived ethanol is neither energy efficient nor economically sustainable.

    Guess what, George. No one who is familiar with these issues is arguing with you.

    Pulling forests to plant palms or jatropha for their oil, or cane for its sugar, is counterproductive if it results in a net greenhouse gas increase. And it's becoming increasingly clear that the silliest of all biofuels is corn because of the high energy demand in planting, harvesting and converting it to ethanol, as well as its dependence on oil-based, environment degrading fertilizers and herbicides in the growing process and oceans of water in the ethanol production phase.

    Fortunately, those who really know this issue, unlike you, have proposed other solutions, none of which include drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or processing shale in Colorado, both of which, like clearing forests, would increase greenhouse gas emissions.

    Agreed, there is no easy path out of the energy-vs.-climate hole that we have dug ourselves into. But the answer is not to take what appear to be easy, old-energy solutions and then fashioning a path to get there. The answer is to keep our minds open to all possible solutions, many of which have yet to be discovered, provided that we keep focused on these threefold goals for the future:

    ??? Energy efficiency (both in production and use),
    ??? Environmental stewardship (to avoid planet-wide catastrophe), and
    ??? Economic realism (which includes a full accounting of energy and environmental costs).

    Despite the head-in-the-sand approach of the Bush administration over the past seven years, great strides have been made by scientists and futurists towards finding real solutions for our environmental and energy problems, which are too numerous to mention here.

    I suggest this: Before you write on this subject again, George, force yourself to read Lester Brown's Plan B 3.0. It should give you a whole new perspective on the options that are available to us.

    (Posted on http://voxverax.com.)

  • Posted By: WJBrock @ 02/08/2008 5:22:11 AM

    Comment: I am not sure if Will has written this to take potshots at the very people who have raised even his awareness about the need to address energy issues,"...the Clinton's tandem presidential policy...", or if he feels it is his right to tell everyone who HAS tried to change things for the better that they are wrong, while he sits idly by, refusing to suggest one single idea that might help the situation. Will's brand of conservatism tells us to do nothing until we can do anything perfectly. Were we as a race to adhere to that, we would not have invented the wheel yet. Get your club George, it's time to find a wife!

  • Posted By: papdjones @ 02/07/2008 8:03:45 PM

    Comment: The 44 million acres of palm trees will still be covered with trees and will give a living to the people who cultivate them.

  • Posted By: JohnGaltlaketahoe @ 02/07/2008 3:41:54 PM

    Comment: One month into the Presidential election year, leading candidates have yet to address issues of urgent importance for the every day lives of Americans.

    Health insurance industry, agribusiness giants, corporate criminals, nuclear power, energy providers pollution controls, big oil, big banks, drug companies, union busters, war profiteers, credit card companies, corporate Democrats in Congress and Corporate Republicans in Congress.

    This list of issues has been ignored by the so called leading candidates for President of the United States. The private cable networks, who now sponsor Presidential debates, have worked overtime to exclude questions on these issues, not to mention the candidates and the civic groups supporting these issues.

    What issues are the leading candidates now supposed to speak on while they wait out the American electorate until the Democrat???s and Republican Party???s convention?
    The message is that the natives are restless. The leading candidates do not represent whom they claim to represent.

  • Posted By: prairiefireusa @ 02/07/2008 3:08:11 PM

    Comment: I must object strenuously to George Will???s assertion that the ???planet savers??? are responsible for the ecological destruction caused by the production bio fuels. Most of the planet savers I know, my self included, are livid at co-opting of the environmental movement, by the forces of corporate agribusiness and the politicians they control, to promote so called green bio fuels. I welcome Mr. Will???s message that corn ethanol and palm oil are environmental disasters. But the blame for this disaster needs to laid on the greed of the agricultural industry and the cowardice of our political leaders. I would encourage Mr. Will to see what this earth saver and U. S. Senate candidate has to say about corn ethanol at http://www.prairiefireusa.com/ ???The Green Frog Says???

    Sincerely

    Stephen Williams
    Candidate for U. S. Senate
    Independence Party of Minnesota
    Steve@prairiefireusa.com
    www.PrairieFireUSA.com

  • Posted By: Ilium315 @ 02/07/2008 2:25:21 PM

    Comment: George Will lays out his support for ending the prohibition on drilling for the estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil in Alaska???s Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). I would argue that immediate drilling is short-sighted from a financial perspective.

    Oil is a non-renewable resource, unless one is willing to wait millions of years for suitable geologic conditions. One may quibble over exactly how much remains, but the basic concept of a finite supply is a statement of fact, and the point at which demand outstrips supply, forcing astronomical oil prices (sound familiar?) will come much sooner than the actual exhaustion of the total quantity.

    Drilling in ANWR now is the equivalent of an individual cashing in his 401(k) while still in his 40s. It may improve the standard of living for a while, but at the heavy cost of wiping out long-term financial security. Once the OPEC countries have pumped their wells dry, we will have our own oil supply, pristine below the ???moonscape??? of ANWR, to both meet our own needs and to export to the world for a handsome profit. All that is required is patience.

  • Posted By: 8starsnorth @ 02/07/2008 1:30:26 PM

    Comment: Thank you for expressing what Alaskans have always known, but what the rest of the country refuses to recognize! Open ANWR now!!!

  • Posted By: kadz @ 02/07/2008 5:48:11 AM

    Comment: the environment is not theproblem, theproblem is the user of that envirnment. the traffic congestion from all major world towns is the biggest consumer of fuels, and the displacement of food crops in an attempt to grow energy will definitely be self defeating in terms of world food security. the use of hybrid cars, electric cars is the way forward, as production of electricty does not have to displace food crops. Is it a coincidence that the major fuel companies are posting the biggest profits world wide, due to inflated crude prices and endemic traffic jams! there will no solution found in the near future as long as oil companies are dictating world and natoinal policy through financing campaigns!

  • Posted By: misterharban @ 02/06/2008 11:04:54 PM

    Comment: In the last 25 years we have nearly doubled the number of PER CAPITA miles driven each year. This, and our penchant for bigger and more powerful cars has much more than eliminated improvements in automobile efficiency over that same period. Many commentators have suggested the need for one form or another of mass transit to replace automobiles, often augmented that the increase in traffic is due to increased commuting. According to the Energy Information Agency???s annual reports most of the increase is due to social and recreational usage of automobiles and shopping ??? none of which are particularly amenable to mass transit solutions.

    There are surely places where mass transit solutions may improve things. But of all the things over which we have control with respect to energy efficiency, the simple act of distinguishing between reasonable and necessary use of our mobility and gratuitous waste is the most immediate and most cost effective thing we can do. That one half mile detour to get a four dollar cup of Starbucks consumes a twenty cent cup of gasoline. It doesn???t seem like much, but when you add them up and multiply by all of the other kinds of mindless little trips we makes it turns into the majority of the miles that we have each added to our consumption each year. In the past 25 years the percentage of children who live within one and one half miles of their schools has nearly doubled. And on and on.

    I find immense irony in the fact that even the greenest advocates for change in this country have not made any visible effort to determine how and why our energy usage has increased so much since the last energy crisis. And those who are less green trot out statistics that show that we have actually decreased our energy usage per unit of GDP. It seems as if everyone despises our industrialists and at the same times looks first for industrial solutions to the things we would change. I see repeatedly in places like this everyone???s brilliant and sometimes useful suggestions for making changes which will allow us to not change, as if mindless consumption was somehow a natural state of existence and our birthright.

    It would be refreshing if all, or even any, of the advocates for changes in our energy systems would first look at the changes they have made as individuals in years past for clues as to the changes they each might make going forward to restore some measure of energy sanity in their own lives.

  • Posted By: inkspots7 @ 02/06/2008 7:40:23 PM

    Comment: Whether we Americans use bio-fuels or fossil-fuels, we must face the verifiable fact that half or more of that fuel is wasted while we sit in traffic congestion. This growing problem adversely affects each one of us, and will ultimately kill our earth. Traffic experts continue to claim that there is NO SOLUTION, while demanding $Billions annually (see Secretary of Transportation, Mary E. Peters??? recent article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120062474267899727.html or The 2007 Urban Mobility Report: http://mobility.tamu.edu/).

    Of course, the true solution could never come from within the flawed traffic industry (which pockets enormous profits), but rather must come from an entirely new and different mind-set. As Albert Einstein wisely said, ???We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.???

    Good news! Now for the first time independent innovators, with an entirely new mind-set, have found the true, universal solution to all traffic congestion! By embracing accountability and challenging the status quo a small group of citizens CAN demonstrate this amazing TRAFFIX solution.

    If you are honest and accountable, willing to seek true solutions to this, the world???s greatest problem, check out the TRAFFIX yahoo group: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Traffix/
    Or email: traffix88@yahoo.com

  • Posted By: wataylor @ 02/06/2008 4:59:29 PM

    Comment: There is another reason to go slow with biofuels - they aren't really renewable. This article http://www.scragged.com/articles/biofuels-the-non-renewable-resource.aspx
    points out that all plants take SOMETHING out of the soil. Unless we put back whatever the plants take out, THOSE plants won't grow there any more once it's all gone. Depending on the energy cost of putting the right stuff back into the soil, we may or may not gain anything with biofuels.

  • Posted By: LTelleen @ 02/06/2008 3:32:46 PM

    Comment: George, you must be in bed wtih Big Oil. The point of protecting ANWR has less to do with the "footprint" you and the world's biggest corporations say you'll minimize, and more to do with the urgency we face of finding alternate means of energy. Granted, ethanol is not the solution...I agree. But destroying Alaska to keep Exxon-Mobile raking in record profits and all of us burning oil isn't either. How about encouraging American ingenuity to develop wind, solar and hydrogen technologies, instead of endearing Bush & Co.'s status quo?

  • Posted By: tc125231 @ 02/06/2008 3:30:54 PM

    Comment: There is certainly a lot of fantasy in the "get off oil" crowd. However, consider that a rise of another 70 parts per million in the carbon found in the enterprise is likely to wipe out over 1/2 of the world's largest cities. Considered in that light, the "burn baby burn" of the oil crowd doesn't sound so bright either. It sounds like someone explaining they can't quit making lead toys for toddlers (common in the 19th century) because it would interfere with the economy.

    Once upon a time this country had a fair proportion of people who lived in reality, and tried to solve the problems found there. When did all the pundits, and most of the readers, turn into automatic pilot blabbermouths?

  • Posted By: mannami @ 02/06/2008 3:13:40 PM

    Comment: The quickest way to solve our energy problem is not drilling for off-shore gas or oil, but rather use existing technology and use wind and solar power generators to power the national grids. Then tell the auto companes to pull out their designs for battery powerd cars.

  • Posted By: mannami @ 02/06/2008 3:11:36 PM

    Comment: Thw way of the problem is using wind, solar and nuclear to power the grids. Then tell the auto companies to quickly develop (or pull out the drawings for) battery powered cars!

  • Posted By: Solshapiro @ 02/06/2008 10:33:35 AM

    Comment: Have those of you who are pushing biofuels to the exclusion of coal to liquid consiidered the issues of technology development and PARTCULARLY CAPACITY of such fuels in the United States? We consume about 20 million barrels per day of liquid fuel. Pushing off from the Brazil experience, a tropical country much better able to produce biofuels, there is great risk in our meeting the goal of 36 billion gallons per year (about 2 million barrels per day equivalent) by 2022 mandated in the energy bill. Wake up and support coal-to-liquid as an unfortunate necessity so that my grandkids and your kids don't have to fight another war in the Middle East.

  • Posted By: tc125231 @ 02/05/2008 11:55:29 PM

    Comment: Although switch grass is way better than corn, and might finmd some place in a sustainable fuel economy that doesn't starve people and destroy the remaining forests, I am shocked to conclude that Will is at least half right. This proves the old adage about broken clocks being right twice a day.

    However you see no discussion of promting wind power or nuclear power. Wind power has much to recommend it --although like everything else --it is not a silver bullet. Nuclear power would be highly desirable IF we could get past NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) and create a permanent storage facilities, and IF it was combined with the stringent carbon controls necessary to move us back from 383 parts per million to 350. It is known that "The last time the Earth warmed two or three degrees Celsius -- which is what 450 parts per million implies -- sea levels rose by tens of meters, something that would shake the foundations of the human enterprise should it happen again."

    Of course, Will, being a broken clock, is fine for criticiziong the follies of environmentalists (who like the rest of us, are human), but pretty weak at offering constructive suggestions for gettinbg out of this mess.

  • Posted By: Mwalimu @ 02/05/2008 11:20:26 PM

    Comment: Before Wills trashes biofuel, he should read the article Growing Fuel in National Geographic. Wills is right in that ethanol from corn is the least efficient way to get ethanol, but he says nothing about getting ethanol and biodiesel from switch grass, which grows on marginal land, or algae which can be grown from the exhaust of coal-burning power plants. He should check out Dunkirk New York, which has or is about to have such a plant in operation. (Australia is also planning similar plants.

    Wills??? other citations are equally disingenuous. The amount of oil we can obtain from ANWR varies, depending on which internet site you consult. Most of Wills stats come from oil companies or the Department of the Interior under Gail Norton, hardly reliable sources. At most we can get 9% of our energy needs from ANWR, and that oil will last only 25 years. We will need far more than one drilling site. All the sites will need to be connected by roads or pipelines. Wills doesn???t mention the damage to permafrost or the effect on global warming. Nor does he consider what would happen if methane gas trapped under the permafrost escapes. (Methane is far more lethal than carbon dioxide.) Wills should check out the havoc that oil companies have wreaked on the Niger Delta and that is what oil companies will do to ANWR.

    Before Wills touts coal as a ???clean fuel???, he should investigate the effects of mountaintop removal, a common practice in West Virginia. He seems also to have forgotten the horrible tragedies that occurred in mining accidents in Utah and West Virginia. The same disingenuous babble applies to his belief that vast stores of natural gas that exist under continental shelves. He forgets that we will need expensive off-shore drilling rigs to get this natural gas. These off-shore rigs may collapse under gales or hurricanes because at times the open ocean is a lethal playground. He does not consider what would happen if methane leaked out or escaped.

    I will concede, that so-called clean coal and even ANWAR drilling might be feasible under strict regulation, but that???s another problem. Wills hates all forms of regulation. Under the Bush Administration, regulatory agencies were run by the industries they were supposed to regulate, and whistle blowers or truth tellers were persecuted. That does not bode well for the energy sources Will advocates. Which brings up the final problem. From 2001 to 2003, the Bush Administration lied to us 953 times. During that time Will simply regurgitated those lies. He has no credibility. PERIOD. Why should we believe him now?

    • Posted By: Braes @ 02/06/2008 01:17:36

      Comment: Geo. Will is a fossil and hardly relevant, writing a piece that offers two false choices. I think Karl Rove and the American Petroleum Institute clear his writing prior to publication per Cheney's directives at the same energy task force that said, "Let's go steal Saddam's Oil once and for all." No less than the chairman of Fed Ex cites that 40% of our Defense expenses are about camping oil. That's fascism baby. The energy tail has wagged our dog to death. Monopolists need to be smacked with the anti-trust stick.
      That government of by and for the top.01% of the people shall not perish while Cheney reigns as regent for the man-child, Shrub.

  • Posted By: Solshapiro @ 02/05/2008 8:04:45 PM

    Comment: The two major problems with the recently passed energy bill edicting 36 billion gallons per year (about 2 million barrels per day of the 20 million we use) of biofuels in about 15 years are technology (cellulosic processes need to be developed),and capacity:, there is a major question of how much land area we can use for these crops. Brazil, a tropical country about the same size as continental United States produces about 300,000 barrels per day and estimates that the maximum they could produce would be about 3 million barrels per day on 12% of their land area. We would be hard pressed to duplicate that feat!
    As to the 10 billion barrels in ANWAR, that's a little over a year's supply. The answer is to create a coal-to-liquid industry based on the 80+ year old Fischer-Tropsch process used by Germany during WW2 and currently producing 150,000 barrels per day in South Africa as a vestige of their apartheid era. This approach has capacity for many decades of U.S. consumption and can be produced for less than $60 per barrel. We need a standby subsidy to protect the needed investment of many billions of dollars against predatory pricing; (One billion dollars, it is estimated will build a facilty capable of 10,000 barrels per day.) And we need to overcome the environmentalists grip on our politicians on the issue of added CO2 emissions from this source. A realistic look at the environmental issue will require a short term "geoengineering" solution (e,g., emulating the cooling effect of a large volcanic eruption - among the ideas supported for possible implementation by many prominent scientists over the past 30 years) This will give us the century or more we need to change the world's energy base.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 02/06/2008 01:08:21

      Comment: The Air Force is onto the Fischer-Tropff and we argued that below. It is viable. It also requires a large energy input to produce and I'd drag out nuclear for that and the Canadian Tar Sands action. I'd also like to see a lot more improvement in grid.

  • Posted By: mksr1979 @ 02/05/2008 7:40:36 PM

    Comment: Has George heard of biomass, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, or even solar? None of the presidential candidates would fully support using valuable food as fuel. Obama specifically states in his energy platform that he would invest in cellulosic ethanol, therefore not utilizing food as fuel. By the way George, is corn reallly that nutritious? Why don't you research that among many other things and get back to me.

  • Posted By: mksr1979 @ 02/05/2008 7:39:09 PM

    Comment: Has George heard of biomass, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, or even solar? None of the presidential candidates would fully support using valuable food as fuel. Obama specifically states in his energy platform that he would invest in cellulosic ethanol, therefore not utilizing food as fuel. By the way George, is corn reallly that nutritious? Why don't you research that among many other things and get back to me.

  • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 12:03:21 PM

    Comment: The world started making its biggest mistake when it started listening to algore. This entire frenzy is based on bad, dispelled science that fewer and fewer people are believing. We now have to heed the knee-jerk reaction and shortsightedness of people who weren't even smart enough NOT to take algore on face value. Can we stop this insanity before we actually DO long term damage to real people?

    • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 12:30:12

      Comment: Please live in a costal area. I think Gore might be right. I also like Nuclear Power. Yes, you can build it in my backyard.

      • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 13:14:00

        Comment: Think all you want, but science show that carbons follow temperature and not the other way around...

        • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 14:06:39

          Comment: Effect creates cause? Hmmm.

          • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 14:50:47

            Comment: Nooooo... Increase temp causes carbon to rise over about an 800yr period, and not the other way around as algore babbled on about. Sort of like when scientists first started blathering about the 'hole in the ozone', forgetting that they were taking measurments when there was less sun at the pole. Notice they have dropped that silly notion...

  • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 11:25:58 AM

    Comment: Dear Mr. Will. We use almost 800 Sq miles a year just to make the paper to wrap hamburgers. Those forests are managed by Potlatch, Weyerhauser, Georgia pacific, etc. They are regrown as fast as they are used. So drop your Oil shill spokesmodel outfit and go wash. We have plenty of crops that we currently lack the same infrastructure as corn and soybeans that will yield a much higher gallon/acre such as sorghum, etc. So it isn't about chopping down trees until ANWR opens. You are an ass. It is about thinking ahead of the curve. Did Cheney draft this article for you? The 5 major oil/fascism/cabalists are eating our middle class and we're going to get answers. There is righteous desire for a new energy model.
    You are a candidate for recycling.

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 11:57:01

      Comment: First off, we plant trees because we use trees. The more trees we use, the more we plant. Because of the 10-20yr cycle on tree growth, they DO have to plan ahead. The same is not true on a seasonal crop like corn. In order to grow more corn for ethanol, more farm land has to be cultivated. To do this, they are deforesting the rainforest (as they once did for cocaine in the 90s). In the US, people are switching over less profitable crops to corn, or cutting down trees to make room for more crops. This effects food supply if the food you want cost more to produce and yields less profit than corn.

      • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 12:15:20

        Comment: I agree corn is wrong, we just have a huge in-place system to deliver it to market, and that is why with it's lobbies it is in the front seat for now. I want more nuclear and grid. I'll support any fuel that is an improvement over the current model. The refiners aren't even using the Cornohol we are making. There isn't an E-85 station within 100 miles f me.

        • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 13:15:17

          Comment: start using E-85 and watch your mileage go down by 20% - you will have to use more. That sounds like a solution for dependency...

          • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 14:00:15

            Comment: Yes, it transfers the problem from one cartel to another, until we can build out a new model. Yes, it has lower BTU/lb than gasoline. It is going from Heroin to Methadone. No doubt. Nevertheless the guys driving Formula One seem to get power out of Ethanol. Probably the tuning and compression.
            I want a Chevy Volt. I want more nuclear and grid. Distillates of all stripe are problematic. The Car companies have been slaughtered by having one fuel model in their inventory. I will admit missing the 426 Hemi. I also miss .29/9 Leaded Premium. (I have a '71 Olds in Storage with a 455... I loved my gasoline.)
            It's just not sustainable.

    • Posted By: misterharban @ 02/05/2008 11:31:39

      Comment: Certainly, let's trade our Oil shills for timber and agriculture shills. Potlatch, Weyerhauser, Georgia Pacific and Archer Daniels Midland may spell their names different, but they still use the same alphabet. You can bet when the government waves the same money at them that you folks believe is waved at the oil giants you will get the same results.

      • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 11:41:15

        Comment: Dear Knee Jerk Moron, Please note the mention of alternative crops outside the corporate infrastructure.
        Go have a bowl of humus. Read the whole article and learn the meaning of all of the words in context.
        You are also a candidate for recycling.

        • Posted By: misterharban @ 02/05/2008 13:12:38

          Comment: Dear Intellectual Giant, I don't care if the crop is mold, we are talking about a lot of energy, ergo a lot of mold, ergo a lot of money. The shills follow the money. Show me when the man toed the line because of anti-trust. It never happened. The shills just started giving some money to foundations and everybody said "it is good". If you really think mom and pop are going to carry the ball here, just pass me the bong.

          • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 13:41:33

            Comment: Teddy Roosevelt used it to break up the trusts once, and a Teddy type will do it again.

            • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 14:53:37

              Comment: Yes, lets switch from capitalsim 9which has made us great) to fascisim, which hasn't done a thing...

              • Posted By: Braes @ 02/06/2008 01:22:48

                Comment: Fascism ran you over, two elections ago.

            • Posted By: misterharban @ 02/05/2008 14:18:44

              Comment: Yes, Teddy broke the giant Standard into the seven giant sisters. So what? The Seven Sisters turned out to be nearly as abusive, taken as a whole, as the Standard. Certainly, not very many people would take the position that it made much difference over the long haul to the consumers of their products.

              • Posted By: Braes @ 02/06/2008 01:29:51

                Comment: It provided competition until we ran into consumption beyond our production. Since then we have played cartel vs. cartel. We also had other regional oil companies like Phillips, Union 76, etc. that competed with the Standards. I will agree that they weren't much better than their parent. Predatory practice is a hallmark of any monopolist. I still would like to smack them and quite a few other monopolists with the full hand of the Justice Department, once we get past waterboarding brown people for oil. Maybe we should waterboard Big Oil CEO's and get to the bottom of Cheney's energy task force.

        • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 12:11:39

          Comment: Put down the hemp skirt and look at the big picture. Whether it is a lumbar provider, oil providor or farmer (regardless of crops), they all want the biggest PROFIT possible. If the farmer can make more money growing and selling whatever crop, they will do whatever is necessary to grow that crop, including cutting down trees and other natural resources. And eventually, as the market dictates, they ALL will become 'the man'.

          • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 12:28:55

            Comment: That can be fixed by tax policy. Back when we did anti-trust suits, the man toed the line. Deregulation and greed got us where we are. And I do not waste hemp on a skirt. Nice slam though. Hehehe. I agree that money will get made by producers. How much is determined by congress. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The power to regulate is the power to moderate. We have had neither in the energy sector for a while. Swing the anti-trust bat at energy monopolists.

            • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 13:16:36

              Comment: Government has no place in determining what profits are made - that is the responibility of the consumer.

              • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 13:47:20

                Comment: You're right, anarchy is the answer.

  • Posted By: jimjhb @ 02/05/2008 10:01:14 AM

    Comment: I am not sure why George Will is explicitly linking ANWR with ethanol. Lots of other conservatives also think it shouldn't be drilled at this time. If you are playing bridge, is it wise to play your trump card first? I don't think so. We need to build plug-in hybrid vehicles that run on renewable methane. (Maybe add a small liquid fuel tank until the infrastructure for CNG improves.) That's all we need to do.

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 11:58:48

      Comment: And what do you do when the MILLIONS of cars begin to deplete all of the NG? Back to square one...

      • Posted By: jimjhb @ 02/05/2008 12:56:22

        Comment: Renewable methane can be obtained for the anaerobic digestion of plant materials. This is a mature technology (unlike cellulosic ethanol) and can provide twice the energetic output from a given amount of biomass compared with ethanol.

        • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 13:10:56

          Comment: Decaying matter emits capturable methane in the 475BTU range and can be used with processing. You are spot on.

          • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 14:54:42

            Comment: So instead of drilling for oil, we start drilling people - more decay, more fuel!

  • Posted By: ewsmith @ 02/05/2008 9:50:59 AM

    Comment: There is an answer. Over the next fifteen years America could convert most of the vehicles on the road to run on compressed natural gas (CNG). This is being done in other parts of the world as we speak. It would require all aspects of society to get behind the conversion. Do your research it's not rocket science.

  • Posted By: JeandeBegles @ 02/05/2008 7:58:33 AM

    Comment: I agree with you: biofuel is not the response to the lack of oil or coal. But I completly disagree with your point that US should drill Alaska or Utah. First you have to know that clean burning coal is probably clean about sulfur or whatever, but coal ALWAYS emit carbon dioxyd which is the main cause of the global warming threatening us. Second, the only solution is a tough one; we need to change the way our society uses oil. coal

    second, the only solution is to change the way our society usees

    • Posted By: misterharban @ 02/05/2008 08:38:28

      Comment: Existing clean coal technology principally aims to deal with sulfur, particulates and heavy metal emissions. A number of researchers and utilities are presently working on technology which will, for all practical purposes, eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. Various approaches to the problem aim at sequestering or capturing carbon dioxide either by reactions which convert them into inert solids, or at simply capturing the carbon dioxide gas for reinjection into deep oil reservoirs or brine aquifers. Reinjection of carbon dioxide into depleted oil reservoirs is an especially important way of dealing with the issue because oil producers presently purchase carbon dioxide for this purpose because of special physical properties it has for assisting in getting the last little bit of oil out of nearly depleted reservoirs.

      Here in Oklahoma, the local electric utility has undertaken pilot plant studies of an especially promising technology which, if successful will be retrofitted to a very large existing plant nearby. While there is certainly a constituency of coal haters who want to end its use at any cost, the development of carbon dioxide sequestering technologies which can be retrofitted to existing plants may be a useful part of the solution to emission problems in this country and a VITAL part of the solution to emission problems in places like China which are currently building immense amounts of new coal fired capacity.

      Who knows, maybe this will be a major technology which we can export to China?

      • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 11:43:07

        Comment: So you are a coal shill?
        Off to the recycling pile with the rest of the intellectual compost.

        • Posted By: misterharban @ 02/05/2008 12:41:25

          Comment: Hardly, I have paid a huge amount of money in my utility bills for the coal fired plant that sits up there and pumps stuff out. I'd rather fix it for a few dollars than shut it down and replace it for a grundle of bucks. Conservation consists of many things, not the least of which is NOT wasting valuable resources, including the parts of our current infrastructure which can be improved and used in a responsible fashion. Hopefully, the money saved with a relatively modest retrofit can be used to move on to the next great thing. The coal shills have already nailed this one down goober.

          • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 13:30:00

            Comment: We have a coal plant nearby as well. They flyaway ash has radioactive isotopes in it and all of the other junk that comes with coal. I do not know that the fix and sequestration will be economically viable.
            Goober, I sure am. Southern Fried Goober. I watch coal trains coming out of Wyoming that are 2+ miles long each day, and the plants near Pine Bluff and Tulsa can barely keep supply stocks for more than a few days operation. The Nuclear One and Two at Russelville hum along with little service interruption.
            Call me a nuclear shill, and I'll bite. I like reliable. Newer nuclear technology exists, and we are already building out electric cars, and other new models. Dragging grid to bypass bad surces might be cheaper.
            I know the ratepayer has taken it hard. To that issue, I understand your position entirely. I get really cheap power, and am between the N plant and two coal plants as far as sources go. Our electric bill here is less than 130/mo for all utilities. Get Harry Reid out of the way of Yucca Mountain for waste storage, and Nuclear viability is suddenly improved. Walk around downrange from the stacks of your Coal Plant and get some soil analyzed and you'll find more clicking stuff in the flyaway ash than would sound an alarm in a containment building at an N plant. I still have my old Civil Defense Geiger counter and have seen it for myself. That is when I decided coal was a bigger issue than folks realized.

            • Posted By: misterharban @ 02/05/2008 16:44:08

              Comment: I am probably a stronger advocate for nuclear power than you are. Increasing our reliance on nuclear power takes time, money (a lot of it) and a change in the attitude of the citizens of this country. Neither you nor I can wave a wand and make this happen overnight.

              This country currently has installed nearly 334 thousand Megawatts of coal fired capacity which would probably cost between $1 and 1.5 trillion to replace with nuclear power plants. Over the next 50 or so years these existing plants will wear out and become obsolete. As they wear out and as new capacity is needed, and as public attitudes change, nuclear and other cleaner forms of generation will be able to replace them. In the mean time, the availability of technology to sequester carbon on existing plants may be able to make a significant contribution to cleaning things up at a very low added cost, thereby realizing added value from our existing infrastructure and making funds available for other necessary energy projects. Several recent studies on carbon sequestration have suggested that the technology may eventually come in at a price of 2 or 3 cents per KWH. It may not. But it is certainly worth a shot, given the size of the problem.

              More importantly, we will not be able to dictate energy policy to China. China has such vast and inexpensive coal reserves that nothing is likely to cause them to abandon that energy source for nuclear generation. Therefore, developing carbon sequestering technology, especially technology which can be retrofitted to existing plants will be useful in breaking the stalemate that exists as a result of China???s pending emergence as the worlds largest carbon emitter.

              I???m sorry you live by a large coal burning plant. Perhaps you should move. With the exception of the trains which presumably interfere with your meditation, the other problems such as radioactive fly ash do have solutions which fall short of abandoning the plant. In fact, many of the sequestering concepts currently being explored capture virtually all of the combustion products in forms which can be disposed of more easily and safely than nuclear byproducts. The difference between what we do and what we could do is a matter of money, public interest or indifference and public policy. Sadly, nothing is likely to mitigate your coal plant problem in the foreseeable future.

              Short of getting off our dead *sses and working to reduce our own personal consumption, there are no magic technological bullets that are cheap and painless. And there is no SINGLE magic bullet. In the end many different technologies will be a part of the changes that we will make. I would be pleased to see our deadhead leaders remind us that we have nearly doubled our driving mileage per person in the last 25 years and to examine the prudence of burning a cup of gasoline to go fetch up a cup of Starbucks. Not everything related to our energy consumption requires a technological fix.

              • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 17:17:55

                Comment: Concurr. I also agree that we are not the worst actor. You are very correct on China. The state of competition is such that they kill a few thousand a year mining coal. They are polluting rivers and destroying their living space in ways we didn't even get to in the 60's.
                You are spot on with personal responsibility. You are also spot on with the costs of immediate replcement of all coal plants. Strategically, I wish I could depend on clean coal, as we have a 400 year supply here. The plant near Tulsa on the Turnpike is my nearest Coal plant and that is about 85 miles out. There is a smaller one here in Arkansas but it isn't close to the output at the Tulsa facility, which keeps this region up. I do not hear or see the trains, and rarely meditate. I know where they are when I go into town and shut off my car for the 25 minutes it takes for the train to go through. I don't gripe about railroads as they are a strategic asset as well, we need far more intermodal freight, instead of single tractor trucking, over-the-road. I just note that it takes lots and lots of coal to get the job done, and that's lots of carbon.
                A toast to you.

  • Posted By: vanwahlgren @ 02/04/2008 11:00:55 PM

    Comment: George you imbecile. Why do you want to use our oil when oil is still cheap. Haven't you noted over the last 7 years oil has increased by 300%. If we should use our oil, how about do so when it is worth $1000 per barrel not $100? Has Cheney brainwashed you?

  • Posted By: misterharban @ 02/04/2008 10:48:30 PM

    Comment: A modest proposal: instead of relying on self serving studies by interested parties, how about independent comprehensive studies of new energy concepts that include TOTAL environmental, economic, natural resource and human impacts (especially including total carbon balance and total energy balance) before we sign off on schemes which will cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. Ethanol is and will continue to be a poster child for what happens when somebody comes up with a neat sounding idea and leaves the advocacy and opposition to vested interests. I spent much of the last ???energy boom??? in alternative energy development and was astounded at the money which our elected officials threw at silly things which ultimately amounted to nothing. The new rush to ethanol is making that effort look like chump change.

    I have reviewed dozens of so called total energy balance studies for ethanol which cover the entire range from extremely efficient to totally inefficient. Almost all are heavily biased by the point of view of the source. There are far fewer sources which even claim to comprehensively address the subject of total carbon balance. What is available is neither objective nor encouraging. What is most remarkable, and discouraging, is the development of new ethanol facilities that are coal fired. This makes no sense at all from a carbon balance standpoint.

    Based on current conclusions that the Greens in Europe are coming to, I suspect that our corn ethanol industry will find itself on the ash heap of history within four or five years, having wasted many billions of our dollars.

    My father once counseled me that for every problem there was a solution ??? simple, straightforward and wrong. Our ethanol policy is a perfect example.

  • Posted By: tdn0024 @ 02/04/2008 9:55:23 PM

    Comment: Google up charts on US total government spend.

    We're all for a great military. But if we have to spend 10 times as much on the military as the Russians and Chinese -- aren't we just being foolish?

    If we are so great, and we are, shouldn't we be able to kick their tails (if and when needed) on the same spend as theirs? Even after adjusting for purhasing parity, it is hard to justify spending more than 3 times China or Russia in peace time.

    Why is George Will so quick to point out the cost follies of ethanol, and not the our military?

    Also, it may be of interest to George to consider these fuels on a long term basis. As and when cellulistic ethanol becomes a reality, many of these feedstocks will be a good deal more efficient.

    Our fine military didn't stop upgrading in 1919. It kept investing, and getting better.

    And that is what we are looking to do with biofuels.

    George, the reason to invest in them now is that we hope to get better at that with scale investment ... and then they can really be part of our long term solution.

    A billion barrels out of Alaska isn't going to make a hoot of difference on the posterity question. Better to leave it in the ground so that if future generations are in an energy pinch (they won't be), they have it as at least one reserve of fossil fuels we didn't suck up before figuring out a post-oil future.

    George, your criticisms of ethanol in Iowa and green folly in Alaska are fine.

    But the larger context for your arguments is daffy. Again: why don't you write about the much more massive waste that is involved by voting to make our military a waste? Why don't you tell us how you plan to live in a post oil world of 6 billion increaslingly wealthy, active people?

    Make your observations in that context, and fine. But this article put you as a low rent hack, Below your standards.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 12:19:49

      Comment: Well, having a foreign policy that tells the world, "Toe the US line or get bombed" comes at great expense. Bush submitted a 3 Trillion budget. We spend more on offense than the next 15 nations in line for defense. Empire maintenance sucks, go read some Tacitus. Being Roman is hard.

      • Posted By: tdn0024 @ 02/09/2008 12:09:29

        Comment: Agreed.

        Our generation is one of military fools. Not kidding. Read on.

        What was the single greatest military lesson of the last 60 years? Simple, single answer.

        Cold War, backed by wholly assured destruction of our potential enemy, is the war that favors us. We don't want to get into wars of attrition, like Viet Nam.

        We just sit back, and let the tyrants mismanage. Fund their opponents a bit from the periphery to keep the pressure on them, so that their people can seize the moment when local events warrant.

        To do this, and keep them from encroaching or starting a war with us, we have to have the foresight to show them the end game. And the end game must be total, so that even a madman on their side wouldn't go for it.

        We were going to obliterate everygthin from the Baltic to the Balkans to the Sea of Japan if the USSR had nuked us. We made that perfectly clear, and it froze them.

        By simliar fashion, all we have to do is assure the Muslims that our response would be to nuke from Marocco to Indonesia, and all Muslim lands in between.

        What do we care if Iran has a nuke? Pakistan? Iraq? The USSR had thousands, and we didn't get ourselves whipped into hysteria about it.

        Our generation paid billions to acquire the real world lessons of the Cold War. And these lessons sit there unused, for any politician to grab.

        Obama and Clinton each would have the chance to outhawk the hawks by describing Massive Muslim Assured Destructuion -- and then play to Dems+Indies+the Ron Paul crowd for a decisive majority to bring the troops home and sit back comfortably behind our (paid for) nuclear defense.

        The chance is there. Hillary is so pathetic she sought to prove her bona fides by supporting Hot War, which is what Bin Laden wanted. Obama has the opening to define and decide on Cold War... but he doesn't seem to understand that. The R's are juest waiting to paint him weak.

        His willingness to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden gives hope. He has set himself apart from the establishment fools who chose to invade Iraq (never nailed us) but won't run after Bin Ladens team (did nail us) in Pakistan.

        He seem to have very good judgment. I hope he considers Cold War, and uses it to trump Johnny McCains eager lietentant's desire to run over the hill and get them bad guys.

  • Posted By: greenjoel @ 02/04/2008 6:43:20 PM

    Comment: What continues to drive me nuts are the ignoramuses who keep clamoring about biofuels being bad for the environment...then they trot out studies that use PETROLEUM and FOOD PRODUCTS (inefficient ones at that) as production elements for the biofuels that they are supposedly analyzing.
    Algae-based biodiesel is a FACT, it is here now and it is extremely viable. The only thing that it is not? You guessed it - profitable to the big petro conglomorates who have a death-grip on today's world (and U.S. politicians).

    Algae will produce multiple factors of 10 times the amount of soybeans within the same amount of area, PLUS it's preferred growing region is in otherwise unusable (non-agricultural/desert) areas, PLUS algae while growing removes quite a bit MORE greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than would soybeans, etc.

    Again, this is a completely valid and viable fuel 'feedstock'...but you won't hear much about it since it would mean a decrease in profits for the fat cats at the top of the food chain. Do a google on "algae biodiesel" and do some reading.

    In other news, there is a large amount of waste vegetable oil that would be perfect for diesel vehicles and home heating - this is a 'waste' product that is extremely clean to burn (especially in comparison to petroleum diesel). This should be a win/win situation: an American 'made' fuel that is recycled AND cleaner for the environment...but do you hear much about it? Nope...

    I personally know over 50 people who run their diesel cars/trucks on recycled vegetable oil, and have met or corresponded with probably a dozen who either heat their homes/businesses on recycled vegetable oil and/or power their buildings by use of a diesel generator that runs on recycled vegetable oil.

    These are just normal, fairly average folk that are trying to save some money, reduce their footprint on the planet and remove the need for some questionable socio-political policies.

    But....you're not going to hear much about them on the evening news - can't distract from Britney's latests problems now can we???

    • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 12:21:46

      Comment: It is one of the highest yield sources.

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 11:48:48

      Comment: Well, the only way you are going to have enough used vegetable oil to run millions of cars is if we all start deep-frying everything. Aren't we suppossed to be moving AWAY from fried foods..?

      • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 12:33:17

        Comment: Distill human fat and run a hummer on that. Mandate Liposuction in the deep south and you'll hit the mother lode. Call it Soylent Goo.

  • Posted By: Jim DiPeso @ 02/04/2008 1:18:03 PM

    Comment: George Will raises important issues about biofuels that deserve careful scrutiny. He is right that energetic rethinking about energy policy is in order.

    Unfortunately, his support for the feel-good bromide of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge shows that he has not carried his rethinking very far or very energetically.



    The facts don???t bear out proponents??? wild claims that drilling the refuge will significantly lower energy prices and make America energy secure. Department of Energy studies show that opening the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling would cut oil imports and fuel prices by only minuscule amounts.

    No one knows how much oil may lie beneath the refuge???s coastal plain, but even if the quantity is as large as Will claims, there simply isn???t enough there to appreciably change the dynamics of the global market, where oil is bought and sol.

    Our problem with energy security turns on how much oil we use, not how much we produce. Once we grasp that fundamental fact, then we can pursue effective solutions that will get us off the oil treadmill for good, rather than chase our tails in the Arctic wilderness.

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 11:45:54

      Comment: If we pull the oil out of ANWR, the impact on global prices is irrelevant. This oil does not have to be mixed into the global market, therefore we are no longer dependent on others. Oil pumped in the USA can stay in the USA. And if the US buys less from the global market, demand goes down, price goes down.

      • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 13:08:34

        Comment: Honestly, you are spot on, it wont change world prices a bit as those are rigged to the gills. OPEC is just one Cabal, our Monopolists another. It is a secure source however, and I could be swayed to drill right through the freaking Caribou to get it. Domestic production which is still nearly half of our supply is sold to us at world prices without the built in costs, so the 5 Majors book huge profits. If it costs them $40 a bbl to get Tulsa oil out and they can sell it at $80-100 they make out fat, and ANWR won't change that. Texas, California, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisianna (on and offshore) are all capable of ramped up production.
        The producers collude good Sir. Traders in the pit admit that there is a $30-40 premium on oil right now because of war threats and suply disruption. BTW I have family that works at Phillps. (Conoco Phillips now) I also have family that still fly and fight. Take a look at the amount of Barges tied along Piers not moving until the NYMEX price hits 95+/bbl.
        Another answer is to rebate the costs of changing out the Heating Oil units in the US Northeast. If we took a decade to install heat pumps, especially the earth coupled types, the energy savings would be dramatic, and the stocks consumed there can be put to other uses.
        The pure, supply-demand-price triangle works in a pure vacuum in deep space. When you stick ENRON boys and Cheneyites in cahoots with their shills and other cartel operators, none of the laws of pure economics apply. It is a rigged market. Get out the Anti-Trust stick, build down the corporate collusion with enforced competiton. You'll get closer to the market models then.
        Until then, we will spend people in uniform for oil, as we have since Gulf War one. Ahhhh, the maintenance of empire...

        • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 13:21:58

          Comment: So if we are trading solders for oil, why aren't prices going DOWN? If the electorate wants to get re-elected, shouldn't they want to appease the masses with lower prices?

          • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 13:43:29

            Comment: Because facsim is not about making it good for the consumer.

            • Posted By: dewcooper @ 02/05/2008 14:59:50

              Comment: Let's see, fascism is the governemnt control of industry, which is what suggest with a federal tax policy to control fuel pricing. So you support fascism..? And if the 'fascists' are in control of the oil market, why aren't prices lower instead of high via OPEC?

              • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 17:24:29

                Comment: When the Oligarchs and their political party control the government and use the military to dictate terms and conditions, it's fascism. When the Government controls a planned economy it's communism. I want to spin the dial a little away from the right to left. Somewhere toward a middle where government creates a level playing field. The tools they use are taxes and regulation.
                The prices set by the cartels are not controlled by the government. Fascists don't care about the consumer or what you pay, but what they get out of the deal. Communists don't produce anything. They achieve equality in poverty.

  • Posted By: Conservative Dan @ 02/04/2008 11:55:55 AM

    Comment: Let us look at McCain???s conservative credentials:

    -IMMIGRATION: he wrote the bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants
    -TAXES: he voted against the Bush tax cuts multiple times (he has since flip-flopped and has campaigned as a lifelong tax-cutter)
    -PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: ringleader of the infamous Keating 5 ethical scandal which cost US tax payers $160 billion (Google it)
    -PERSONAL ETHICS: McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident that left her partially disabled. He then divorced her and married his multi-millionaire mistress, whose daddy bought McCain a spot in the Congress

    • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 11:58:48

      Comment: Oh this is Germane.
      Recycle the trash.

  • Posted By: FarNorth @ 02/04/2008 11:37:46 AM

    Comment: What really baffles me is how some people can sit there and call for use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and say it will bring down the cost of fuel but on the other hand refuse to use the oil in ANWR saying it wont do anything to help. Which is it? will more oil help or not? Plus does anyone understand the amount of jobs just opening some of these place to drilling will bring...

    • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 12:11:00

      Comment: I actually don't really care if we drill ANWR, but it will be only a 4-5 year fix. It can buy us some time to switch models in transportation. What we are doing now is unsustainable. You are right aboutthe jobs though and revenues for the Alaska General Fund. Much of the growth up there and our energy security has been the pipeline and existing draws. The Canadian sands project shows promise and the Fischer-Tropff process for coal also works. I just would like less greenhouse emissions of any sort. As far as the Strategic Reserve, that is necessary for Strategic threats, not price stabilization. As a retired Air Force guy, I would have people note the Air Force is and has been working on alternative fuel certification and stockpiling. Now, that's not about ego, green, or any other consideration other than operations once the Iranians close the Gulf. Foreign Oil, Devil #1, Carbon emissions, Devil #2.

  • Posted By: oswaldtherabbit @ 02/04/2008 10:34:25 AM

    Comment: The problem is not so much ethanol as CORN ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol shows great promise and in 2-3 years could make up the majority of our ethanol production. It has the benefits of burning about 80% cleaner than corn ethanol, producing a great deal more energy, and being made from things that aren't food.

    To paint all biofuels with the same brush is disingenuous: it's corn ethanol that's the villain in this situation.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 02/05/2008 12:50:47

      Comment: I agree with you, one mentioned the algae process and there are others. I am against burning food.

  • Posted By: philmon @ 02/04/2008 10:15:38 AM

    Comment: Your typical environmental activist doesn't have a clue how things work in general. They like simple symbolic things that they can proudly point out to others that they are doing. Sticking it to "the man" (in this case, Big Oil or anything that can be construed as "establishment" is key to this narcissism. They have no idea what goes in to ethanol production and don't care. It's not oil, so it's