Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 30, 2008
Frank Gaffney :: Townhall.com Columnist
'Tax' Revolt
by Frank Gaffney
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


On the eve of the 4th of July, 2008, Americans are arguably as angry about being taxed without representation as at any time since they declared their independence from Great Britain. At the moment, they are furious about having no say over what amounts to a “tax” levied in the form of extortionate fuel prices driven by the supply-manipulating OPEC oil cartel.

As was true 232 years ago, we must channel that anger into action. This will require not just declaring independence from the Saudi-led oil monopoly, but taking the steps necessary to secure our freedom.

OPEC is able to effect an oil levy worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year for basically one reason: Currently, our transportation sector is almost entirely dependent on oil-derived gasoline and diesel fuels. As a result, our citizenry, economy and society today have no choice but to pay the tax and hope that the Saudis and their friends will recycle the national wealth thus expropriated by buying up our financial sector and other strategic assets for pennies on the dollar.

As Robert Zubrin, author of the best-selling Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, puts it: “OPEC will clear $1.5 trillion in net export profits this year. The entire worth of the US Fortune 500 is $18 trillion. So at their current rate of looting, OPEC will accumulate enough cash to buy majority control of the entire Fortune 500 within 6 years.”

As outrageous as the present pass may seem with the price of oil at over $140 per barrel, U.S. and foreign capital markets are being rocked by the prospect that there is – under present circumstances – no end in sight. Panicked selling on Wall Street followed a recent warning that gasoline could soon sell for $7.00 a gallon. Why stop there?

The truth of the matter is that OPEC won’t – unless, that is, we declare that our cars will henceforth be made capable of operating independent of gasoline.

Fortunately, this is not wishful thinking. We have the option right now to require that new automobiles sold in this country be capable of using alcohol-based fuels like ethanol, methanol or butanol instead of or together with gasoline.

This is a well-known technology. There are already 6 million such “Flexible Fuel Vehicles” (FFVs) on America’s highways. Seventy percent of Brazil’s cars are FFVs, many of them made by U.S. auto manufacturers. It costs less than $100 per car to allow a new car to be gasoline-independent – less than it costs to fill up many of our vehicles at today’s gas prices.

The really good news is that both Senators John McCain and Barak Obama have declared their support for the Open Fuel Standard that must be adopted to ensure that each of the roughly 17 million cars we buy in this country every year are Flexible Fuel Vehicles. In a speech last week, Sen. McCain declared:

“Our government must also level the playing field for all alcohol fuels that break the monopoly of gasoline, to lower both gasoline prices and carbon emissions. This can be done with a simple federal standard to hasten the conversion of all new vehicles in America to flex-fuel technology – allowing drivers to use alcohol fuels instead of gas in their cars. Whether it takes a meeting with automakers during my first month in office, or my signature on an act of Congress, we will meet the goal of a swift conversion of American vehicles away from oil.”

For its part, the Obama campaign website features the following commitment:

“Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles: Barack Obama believes that all new vehicles sold in the U.S. should be flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs), which means they can run on biofuel blends like E85. Obama will work with Congress and auto companies to ensure that all new vehicles have FFV capability by the end of his first term in office.”

Both of these would-be presidents and leaders of their respective parties understand a central reality: It is not just a sensible policy approach to begin making our automotive fleet independent from gasoline. It would be utterly irresponsible to do otherwise, particularly given that those cars will on average be on our roads for approximately 17 years. If they are not FFVs, we will be locking ourselves into the present form of taxation without representation for decades to come.

It stands to reason that replacing OPEC’s monopoly with fuel competition will force the cartel and commodities speculators to drop the price of oil. At the very least, the predictable emergence of tens of millions of cars here and abroad that don’t require gasoline will create a free market in various alcohol-based “Freedom Fuels” that are considerably less expensive to produce than gasoline at prices well below today’s.

Congress is said to be incapable of acting before the November elections due to the partisan gridlock that has set in with a vengeance – even on so pressing a matter as gas prices and energy security. Given the stakes for our people and country, however, getting an Open Fuel Standard adopted this year should be a test of the avowed desire of both Messrs. McCain and Obama to work across the aisle to get things done. And every member of Congress should be challenged during this week’s recess: Will you declare our independence from OPEC’s oil stranglehold by adopting the Open Fuel Standard now?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Frank Gaffney Jr. is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and author of War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Gaffney's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

REFORM SENATE/HOUSE
I think its time to get all those self-righteous hypercrites out of those sea-side condos in timbucktoo,escalade driving ,I got it made for the rest of my life(literaly)people. who take positions that for what reson to be there until they die!!!! Wake up Americans! If we elect a President and they can only hold this office for 8 years what is with the elderly that draw their last breathe on capital hill? (well IF they feel up to going in to the office) We could at least have some one from each state that is a bit more up to par on what life really is on the outside of the HOUSE/SENATE. I am a senior citizen and I know that along with me there are old Farts that need to be coasting thru their last years in a garden or on a lake fishing! OOPS They "ARE" doing that while Washington runs on. Come on , Don't YOU THINK ITS TIME FOR A CHANGE? I for one want to see anyone over the age of 72 retired from the positions giving way for and to the brilliant minds of those who takes their position very seriously.I watch cspan and the reps and house members that have been there for yeaarrrsss, be so nonchallet. Talk about job security .I think its death that is their terminator while the remaining just sit by and play tiddle winks Bad memory,frailities NOR THE REALIZATION that there is a time to hand the reins over out of respect for the children of this great country. Wisdom doesn't have to come with the aged As it is they have an income forever and ever amen .

will someone tell . . .
the SUV drivers on Mars and the other planets in the solar system that their selfishness is causing the solar system to heat up.

One more thing
You talk about OPEC manipulating the supply to increase prices??

That's penny ante compared to the left-wing radicals in Congress, Sierra Clubbers, and the DNC manipulating the supply of oil that is produced in the USA though their whacko ideas about "saving the environment".

SCREW THE CARIBOU AND WHALES!!! KILL THEM ALL, JUST LET US DRILL FOR OIL HERE!

Delusional or Insane
Mr. Gaffney is suffering from some malady, don't know which.

For one, OPEC doesn't singlehandedly determine the price of oil - it takes buyers willing to pay that price for them to get it.

Second, if there is any tax we should be revolting against, it is the conglomerate of fuel regulations and federal taxes placed on gasoline. Plus the indirect hidden tax on all agricultural products BECAUSE of the forced use of ethanol.

You're a freaking idiot and a shill for the DNC, Mr. Gaffney.

DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!

Don't take my word for it
Here is a book review

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27627/pub_detail.asp

Gusher of lies
If we were to use every acre of cropland in this country for ethanol and we did'nt buy one more barrel of oil from the middle east it would make exactly 0% change in the oil flow from the middle east. Just because we quit buying it doesn't mean someone else won't.

Checkout the video from AEI on the book "Gusher of lies" these are facts you need to know.

http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1705,filter.all/event_det ail.asp#


They want us to reduce our "carbon emissions" from 22tons per person to 2.5 tons or 80% by 2050.

2.5 tons of carbon was the amount of carbon we were using in 1910 right out of the horse and buggy era and there were 92 million people in the country.

In 2050 there will be, according to the cencus beaueau there will be an estimated 420 million people here. So your dreaming that we are going to get carbon emissions down.

There are countries right now that use 2.5 tons of carbon per person....Ghana....Hati....Somollia....so if you buy all the politicians crap on the subject that is what America will be in 2050 so enjoy yourself now.............

This should give you som insight on the whole matter James Carville said in a conference call that any politician that used the words "energy independence" their poll numbers went up.


I like what Ben Stein said "the fuel of the future is oil" and he is right....for now the 21st century will be the century of natural gas....watch the video.....you'll see.

The answer still is..
...oil.

There are, what, 100 million gasoline powered cars in use here in the US. They will need fuel for the foreseeable future, period.

Even if Detroit or Tokyo comes up with a non petroleum car in tomarrow, we will still need oil for all of those who can't afford the latest technology.

We have, or soon will have, the technology to produce petroleum from the tar sands and possibly coal. Our demand for oil based fuels is not going away anytime soon.


Wishful Thinking
Its wishful thinking to think that we can grow our way out of high fuel prices. While alcohol fuels may be part of the solution, they will never provide more than a few percent of the solution. Conversion of natural gas and coal into petroleum products will be the only real solution until fusion and hydrogen fuel cells are perfected.
Batteries have their place but the relative efficiency is low and they pose their own environmental problems as well. (Think about exploding cell phone batteries).

This "tax revolt" is MORE GOVERNMENT?!?!
LOL. Is this what remains of our party? Even a "revolt" is more big government? Wow! Stuff like this is why I'm voting for Bob Barr in November.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com

Grumble Grumble
Talk about angry. I live in the great County of Cook in Illinois....and we know what great taxes are. Hello to a 10.25% sales tax. Hello to ridiculous property taxes. And hello to terrifying gas prices. I passed one station where gas was a whopping $4.39.

"They" say that drilling won't produce oil for ten years....I say that we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if we had begun drilling ten years ago. I think we also need to have EVERY SINGLE tax listed on every receipt, every pay stub. See how angry people are then!

In an economy that is already bleeding, you don't put a leech on it and say "all better." And I thought we were out of the dark ages!

This is a liberal hackjob
IT assumes OIL is history and we must find alternatives. Rubbish.

Our Congress has trashed this country in many ways, and this is just one more thing.

DRILL NOW, EVERYWHERE...that alone will send the world a message we aren't going to take this anymore.

Has anyone noticed this countries wealth is slowly being siphoned off to the Oil Barons in the Middle East? Pretty soon (15 more years) they will own our houses and all property.

Hydrogen Production Engineer
Nice post. If the government stopped blocking drilling and nuke plant production, you'd see oil futures drop pretty fast. Aren't the next generation nuke plants designed to make electricity during the day and hydrogen at night? Get going on those nuke plants. There's no reason why this country can't have a petrol and coal free electrical grid. Then the oil goes for vehicles and planes until the hydrogen infrastructure gets up and running. It's a simple plan that will take a few decades, but we have to start now. And in the meantime, allow import of ethanol (or sugar for ethanol) from Brazil. It's only a fraction of what we need, but why not? Sorry, but there's not enough switchgrass, even if the technology is perfected, to fuel the country. Stop the dreaming and face reality.

Where's the E85?
There are thousands of flex fuel vehicles being sold in the southeast. So where is the E85 to fuel them? The ethanol scam coupled with the flex fuel vehicle scam will do nothing to move the nation toward energy independence. It will, however, make a small minority of people rich and, of course help politicians get re-elected.

Frank - you missed the boat!
Frank, nice try in using a "Tax revolt" as a lead-in to your moronic diatribe about using alcohol based fuels. Not one intellegent discussion about DRILL HERE DRILL NOW! ..and you wonder why food prices are skyrocketing?
Frank - Govt is never the answer to anything!

I hear the pipes and drums
The pipes and drums will lead millions upon millions of voters to the polls to elect those that will lead America to a 100% USA energy development program. This will create a new American only energy/transportation system that creates millions of high paying jobs in "AMERICA".

HURRAY ! HURRAY! HURRAY! JOHNNY IS MARCHING HOME !!!!

I don't know the answer...
to our energy crisis but I am sure that Washington DC will save us.

Pass the koolaid. We're out? D***!

And the EPA stood by smiling
The EPA currently mandates regional fuel standards. Do you think they will not require the same thing on the flexible fuels? EPA themselves claim to have dropped their standards 30 times in 2005 alone http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7c02ca8c86062a0f8 5257018004118a6/f4914cfd52d5e82285257196006785b9!OpenDocume nt
Gaffney needs to think through his articles. Our GOVERNMENT is causing the problem for fuel shortages; figure it out, Frank.

Alternative Fuels
I agree with Dwain Cleveland's comments. What isses me off, at least to date, is that the argument for biofuels presumes they can be formulated with a significantly positive energy balance and at a somewhat competitive price. I have been impressed with some of the recent announcements of algae based fuels - crop yields per acre and customization to the fuel intended. However missing from all these discussions is a economic analysis of the resulting cost per equivalent gallon of gas or diesel. Sadly, I presume that if such analyses were positive, they would be presented. Until then, drill, drill, and research - for true alternatives, not feel good alternatives.

ModMark - Last Rant
Aye? No just an old American that can still remember freedom as it was and should be today!
By the way, I didn't say GW was an "Emerging Science" (That came from the Petition Project). I honestly believe the science has been proven false. If we take the stand that it might happen or it might be true, or the science is "emerging" but just not quite there, then lets apply the same logic to Iran with their nuclear bomb. Lets not take a chance and Nuke the hell out of them. Or, per your verdic, just bomb them a little until we know for sure they have the bomb. By the way, your stand is very similar to John McCains.
I'm not trying to offend, but I feel there is sufficient data to disprove GW and Climate Change. When you honestly look at the cost to the world, this should be everyone's priority. Think about it! People are starving due to food shortages being brought on by the Fraud of GW. We are paying billions in excess gas cost due to the Fraud of GW. The idiots in Congress jumped into ethanol because of the Fraud of GW. McCain, Lieberman et al are planning the largest government takeover in the history of our country (Cap and Trade) because of the Fraud of Global Warming.
Hell, this makes the Scopes Trial look insignificient. At least Darwin didn't kill anyone or rip off a nation or the world.
Conclusion #2:
1)Stop all assumptions that C02 and other Green House Gasses are harmfull to our planet until ther is peer reviewed evidence and a consencious of qualified scientist. Any scientist involved may not have a potential conflict, i.e.: Grant Money, Book Deals etc.
2)If an animal is on the Extinction List, kill it and drill where it used to live, including polar bears.
3) Everyone burns trash in their back yard and celebrates freedom.
This is the end of my rant.

Hey Mod Mark - Re: your verdict
The reason we have jury trials is to prevent one judge from making a decision as the one you just came up with. I want Gore's A.S.S as well as the rest of the scumbag environmentalist who have been screwing this country with lies and unsubstantiated propaganda. I want to see them pay with everything we can get from them. I want to see them go to jail. I want them out of America, living in mud huts being ruled by Robert Mugabe. I want to see their Volvo's trashed. And most of all I want for them to be made to watch me burn my trash as the blue black smoke and C02 float lazily into the blue Arizona sky.

Hey ModMark - Conclusion
Regarding Computer Models:
All in a Good Cause
By Orson Scott Card
A great article about Mann and Santer and Gore's Hockey Stick.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/070313goodprint.html

This could go on and on and on, thru Hey ModMark #150

This is not political, this is unbelievable!
I think Orsen Scott Card does a good summery.
I also believe Michael Crichton started a lot of people thinking.
Conclusion: You can not yell fire in a theater full of people unless there is truly a fire.
Al Gore has been yelling fire and owes society his A.S.S.

Hey ModMark #Whatever
Gore was sued in Briton by a truck driver who felt his propaganda should not be shown in his child's school.
An Inconvenient Truth was criticised by a high court judge who highlighted "nine scientific errors":
1. The film claimed low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but there was no evidence of any evacuation
2. It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor". The judge said according to the IPCC, it was "very unlikely"
3. Gore claimed two graphs plotting C02 and temperature showed "an exact fit". The judge said "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"
4. Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans. The judge said that could not be established
5. The drying of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"
6. Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"
7. Gore referred to a study showing polar bears that drowned. The judge said "the only scientific study indicates four polar bears recently drowned because of a storm"
8. The film said that coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing and pollution, was difficult
9. The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"
Source: The Guardian












re: hydrogen, electric and other bull**
And forget about global warming. It is not happening. But i am not going to discuss this idiocy anyway))

Hydrogen hoax:

the only feasible way to use hydrogen is in a methanol fuel cell.

google news for the last week. US military is ALREADY buying this sort of batteries. Use your keyboard, find out.

DO you people know that hybrid sales of Toyota Prius was considerably lower last month then previous?
EDUCATE YOURSELVES!!!!! USE YOUR KEYBOARDS!

Find out WHY.

Metals, used in batteries ARE IN LIMITED QUANTITIES on this planet!!!!!!! Like oil, the same story.

It is highly possible that there are much less of necessary metals then THE WORLD AUTO INDUSTRY MAY NEED FOR THE HYBRID DEMAND!!!!!

And mind that THAT battery is needed to be replaced in 5 years or so.

So Toyota is already replacing them for Priuses made in 2000. Or they are NOT?

Besides Good news on Google use
i will give you another one:

CALCULATOR. Don't be ashamed to use it. It is not that complicated.

question for salty
at 6:47 salty wrote: "...Thought I was on a conservative website, but I keep reading articles advocating Government take control, subsidize, research, incentivize etc. to solve the energy problem. Fact is, Government is incapable of doing much of anything on any subject without screwing it up. Here though is what they could do to help:
...
3. Mandate that no American oil will be sold on the world market.
...
The market has worked fabulously for over 200 years. It will work now IF Washington stays out of the way."


I agree with your opening and closing paragraphs.

My question: in what way does your list - especially item 3 - consist of government staying out of the way?

to sandrob about his 6:59:
sandrob asks "I remember a program regarding Hydrogen Driven Busses using some kind of rock or mineral (Not platinum)."

It's been a while since I looked at it. Wikipedia has an extensive discussion under "hydrogen storage". It looks like platinum was a catalyst, not a storage medium.


"Also, a friend of mine built a Hydrogen Car (Combustion Engine) using solar panels on the roof of the car."

He probably used the electricity from the solar panel to electrolyze water into hydrogen. But since the typical hydrogen car scheme runs hydrogen through a fuel cell to produce electricity, it makes much more sense just to use the electricity generated from a solar panel to run the car directly or to charge a battery.

Hey ModMark #4
Continue from Part #3
Presented by
Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -

Sincerely,

Hey ModMark #3
Continued from Part #2
Presented by
Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational

headlines, they are no basis for mature policy

formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

Continued to Part #4

Hey ModMark #2
Thursday, April 06, 2006

Presented by
Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

Special to the Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.
Continued in Part 3

Hey ModMark #1
This will have to be split into several parts

The following petition has been signed by 31,072 scientist. 9,000+ are PhDs.

We urge the United States government to reject the Global Warming Agreement that was written in Kyoto Japan in December. 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damage the health and welfare of mankind .

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth' s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth' s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University is the author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with a focus on geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental and engineering geology (for a summary of his impressive bio click here). He voted for Al Gore in 2000 but now can't forgive him for turning scientific debate in to outrageous propaganda. He has called NASA's James Hansen a "so-called climatologist" "who says things that are idiotic".
Professor Easterbrook's Manuscript can be down loaded here:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/conte nt.php?content.24

End of Part 1

Are we running out of oil
or something? Find some real alternatives, (not the ethanol scam), but in the meantime, drill! And look at other EXISTING means as well, such as nuclear and coal. I'm tired of liberals stating it's going to be years before we'll get it. How long will it take for any of their proposed methods to have an affect on supply and prices? Years, I'm sure, if ever.

Gaffney - out of here
I think Gaffney needs to peddle his wares elsewhere. Conservatives deserve a higher quality of critical thinking than this drivel.

Hey Wendy
No argument with #1.
#2 Solar Panels remove the net energy loss problem.
#3 I agree to a point. A very strong possibility exist that Israel will have to take military action against Iran. When this happens, If we had been drilling here we would have been independent during a National Security Crises. I know, woulda, coulda, shoulda. However, if the Marxist in our Congress were looking out for us instead of trying to rule or lives this would not be an issue. One other thing regarding Oil Independence. I think you were referring to the world market of oil and how oil produced here does not necessarily stay here. I think you will find that the market (cost) will keep our oil here in the U.S. Or maybe I misunderstood.
Hydrogen was being discussed because it is a better alternative than ethanol (Gaffney's Solution) but not better than oil.

Some comments
1. This article is paranoid hysteria. The runup in oil prices has been caused by the inflation in the only currency for which oil trades in the market - the U.S. dollar. And you know what causes inflation. (And it's not oil price increases, for you Keynesians out there).
2. Hydrogen fuel cells - while a truly great idea for automotive purposes - is a net energy sucker. It takes more energy to split the water molecule than you can get by the hydrogen and oxygen re-bonding. We still need petroleum, and nuclear in the long run.
3. "Energy independence" is an illegitimate goal. "Energy independence" is the tagline of collectivists. The idea that oil is somehow to be cut off, not allowed to be sold across borders because WE NEEEEEEEED it, when every other good and service is allowed to move freely, is primitive, xenophobic, Progressivist claptrap. Let oil flow where the free market cuts its path.

Thanks Chris
One other question, if you don't mind.
You brought up a method of storing Hydrogen with platinum. I remember a program regarding Hydrogen Driven Busses using some kind of rock or mineral (Not platinum). Also, a friend of mine built a Hydrogen Car (Combustion Engine) using solar panels on the roof of the car. The Hydrogen was produced on the fly. It made the Arizona Republic Newspaper ( a rag paper). I never saw the article but the friend is credible.

Thank you very much for this article
I just wrote an open letter to McCain camp. Copy is here:
http://xyu.livejournal.com/

It is not going to be easy to get through ignorance and institutional dumbness as you can see in the comments.

OPEC corrupted our right wing to an unrecedented degree

people just lost any contact with reality
and will have to pay for their stupidity very soon

Totally agree on your point but ethanol is not the best alcohol for fuel needs: it depends very much on agricultural situation and we need roughly 500 million acres of farmland to cover 100% of national fuel needs.

Another thing METHANOL

read http://methanol.org/

it has hundreds if not thousands of scientific and technical articles about it.

God Bless America
Save us from idiots.

Oil prices
Our Congress is in charge of who drills for oil, where they can drill for oil and they already take 25 % off the top from the oil companies. The oil companies must buy leases from the US Government to obtain permission to drill.

All this talk from both sides of the coming election is a bunch of bogus crap. The entire action is in the sole hands of our Congress, both houses.

435 plus 100 senators control the lives of the 300 million here in the US of A. Count um up!

Guess I`m lost...
Thought I was on a conservative website, but I keep reading articles advocating Government take control, subsidize, research, incentivize etc. to solve the energy problem.

Fact is, Government is incapable of doing much of anything on any subject without screwing it up. Here though is what they could do to help:

1. Mandate a 50% reduction in imported oil over the next five years.

2. By Presidential order, open ANWR, all offshore zones, and the western tar sands to oil production. Let the courts and Congress bluster. They have no troops to enforce their ideas. The President does.

3. Mandate that no American oil will be sold on the world market.

4. Enter into long-term contracts for Gov`t purchases of domestic oil at $100/barrel to assure a price floor in case the world price drops.

5. STOP all other gov`t-funded energy activities, funding, research.

6. Take a long vacation and let American entrepreneurs sort out the merits of all these competing energy sources.

Result: Domestic production will ramp up as imports ramp down. Prices will stabilize at the correct market-based level. Competing energy systems will sink or swim based solely on their overall feasibility.

The market has worked fabulously for over 200 years. It will work now IF Washington stays out of the way.

Hey Talent Scout
I don't necessarily agree with all of the points. I am for the war and the patriot act. If I wanted what this program offers, I would have voted for Ron Paul. I did not!
I personally would like to see us organize to sue Al Gore or any other environmentalist regarding Global Warming.
A class action suit. The environmentalist are the cause of a lot of this country's problems. They represent the worst of the Democratic Party. They have put at risk our National Security. They have cost lives. They are currently costing the American People, billions of dollars in the increased cost of gasoline and diesel. With a jury trial, I believe the truth would come out. This would be a modern day Scopes Trial. It would also put on notice, those Extremest that interfere with the governing of our country are going to pay.
This is how they got where they are, thru law suits. So, lets have a big one.

to sandrob on hydrogen:
The problems with hydrogen are mainly energy density and storage. H2 is, of course, an excellent fuel, but does not like to be stored as a gas.

You can liquify it (like for the space shuttle), but that requires a great deal of energy to get its temperature down to within 20 degrees of absolute zero. Chilling it, then pumping it onto the space shuttle just before launch makes sense - but doing so for cars does not.

Storing H2 as a room-temperature gas is also very probematic. It is so rarefied that the energy density tends to be very low. Enormous pressures are required to overcome that tendency, meaning the tank walls have to be very thick, and the safety implications of a damaged tank are much more serious than for gasoline. Also H2 works its way through the metal of the tank and escapes, and in the process makes the metal weaker and more brittle, making the tank problem even worse.

The other way to store hydrogen is to intentionally dissolve it in a metal such as platinum, but a platinum filled tank on a car would be - well - worth its weight in gold.

Hopefully we'll overcome these technical issues - but for now, fuels that are high-energy-density liquids at or near STP are the only way to go. (Propane is a liquid near STP).

OPEC dependence
Frank, there is a new bio-diesel technology that can easily free us from our dependence on foreign oil. Check out http://www.changingworldtech.com. The company already is converting animal carcass waste into oil, natural gas, pure distilled water and minerals for fertilizer. It takes care of oil production and waste disposal at the same time. It works on any carbon-based material (tires, plastics, sewage, medial waste). Truly amazing - and super efficient (uses under 20 units of energy for every 100 produced). The TV show Modern Marvels is broadcasting a story about it later this year.

False Hope
So under your dream we would all have to go out and buy new cars. Besides, the savings are a pipe dream at best when you consider how much fossil feul is needed to produce and ship these fuels. I have a better idea! declare our freedom from OPEC by opening up our own domestic oil. If you want to cripple the oil funded terrorists dump so much domestic American oil on the market that the price of a barrel tanks. Drill here! Drill Now! Lower the price of Oil in a way that works!

Hey Hydrogen Production Engineer
I kept up with BLDP for a couple of years (about 5 years ago) and they had a number of busses running with fuel cells. Canada also had fuel cell busses. These, if I remember correctly, were running diesel thru the fuel cell. However, there was a test car run accross country on Hydrogen. My memory is a little fuzzy. Hydrogen is not that hard to make. Why couldn't a company come out with a Hydrogen Generator for the home? I know they have commercial units out there now. There is a home distiller for ethanol called a "Microfeuler". It takes 13 pounds of sugar to make 1 gallon of ethanol. This puts the gallon price at about $7.00.
For those who don't know, hydrogen is a way to store energy (like a battery). When run thru a fuel cell is produces D.C. electricity. Out put is energy and water.

just to pile on...
Previous posters have already beat me to it, but why not pile on?

I thought I was going to read about taxes here. Oh well. HIGH PRICES ARE NOT TAXES! moron.


If FFVs are so wonderful, and so cheap to convert to, why hasn't the market mandated their existance?

"The really good news is that both Senators John McCain and Barak Obama have declared their support for the Open Fuel Standard"

Ah yes, yet another reason to NOT vote for McCain. And he calls himself a Reaganite. BS!



Hey I have an idea! Why don't we have congress mandate cars all have to run on PIXIE DUST. That would do about as much good as this nonsense.


Better yet, change your last question to "Will you declare our independence from OPEC’s oil stranglehold BY DRILLING OUR OWN *$&^@# OIL HERE, NOW?"

These idiots like McCain and Gaffney apparently have control of both major parties. And now they're going to fix our problems. Nice.

Hey Gaffney
Have you been drinking out of the same Kool Aid Pitcher as Bill O'Reilly?
1) It cost $1.74 to produce one gallon of ethanol and $.95 per gallon to produce 1 gallon of gasoline. This figure reflects prices prior to the Midwest flooding. The cost of corn today is in excess of $7.00 per bushel, so these figures are outdated. The cost is much greater today.

2) It takes 131,000 BTUS (Energy)to make 1 gallon of ethanol which puts out 77,000 BTUS (Energy). In other words it takes about 70% more energy to produce Ethanol than the energy that is in ethanol. Thats why liberals like ethanol, it doesn't make any sense.

3) Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed. This means Corn is not sustainable. Runoff water will be rich in nitrate fertilizer causing water tables to have excess nitrates. This is bad for the children.

4)If every car in the U.S. ran on pure ethanol, it would require approximately 97% of all land in the U.S. I'll let you do the math for 15/85 flex-fuel.

5) When the leftist environmental find out that the ethanol plants are having to switch from Natural Gas to Coal, eliminating the C02 benefits associated with ethanol (Which were false benefits to begin with) I can assure you they will be picketing Archer Daniels Midland and then our Marxist Congress will be calling in the ethanol CEOs and blaming this boondoggle on them and the Republicans.

6) What most people don't realize is that you and I currently subsidizing Ethanol to the tune of $.51 per gallon, thanks to the idiots in Congress.

I could keep going, but Frank Gaffney, you need to do a little research. Stick to Terrorism, your usually good at that.

Mr Gaffney's "Flexible Fuel Vehicles"
Converting our food crops to gasoline (ethanol) is stupid - what you end up with is high gasoline prices and high food prices. Ethanol gets lower miles per gallon, harder on the environment and does not cut down on our use of oil because of all the extra farming that uses normal gasoline and diesel and more fertilizer which runs off into our water supplies. We need to drill every place for oil and natural gas - also start running more cars on natural gas - it is clean and your car will run better and we have thousand year supply.

More BS Gov subsidy for the people
who contribute most to their campaign(brinary) chest; ethonol. Ethonol should be drank and not burnt.

If they were serious they would outlaw the internal combustion engine and we would all drive electric golf carts back and forth to work.

They are ot serious, they are after more government control, more taxes, and better methods of getting bribes.

Lucas - Reply# 7
Hydrogen tech at this point is not yet developed into an "economically deliverable" mode for commercial usage. The fuel-cell technology has a long way to go before it is viable as a replacement for petroleum based fuels. The equipment is out of reach financially for most Americans. The build-out of fueling stations by the hundreds of thousands and production of billions of cubic feet of hydrogen, in a commercially viable manner is not possible with the level of technology available. Radio Frequency Electrolysis of water is one such hydrogen technology that may bear fruit in the near future.
At some future date that tech may very well become economically viable. At this point in history, we would be exchanging the chains of OPEC, for the chains of whatever corporate entity controls the vastly limited hydrogen supply.
Reality bites but the reality is that "Drill Here - Drill Now" is the most "doable" answer. LNG is abundant inside the U.S. continental territories and LNG vehicle tech has been around for 75 years. LNG is miles cleaner, pollution wise, than gasoline and would require billions of dollars less in refinery build-out costs. MPG would be equitable with gasoline and in some cases much better.
Fuel cell tech is a gamble we don't really have time to engage in; LNG fueled vehicles would provide a proven technology, pollution levels superior to all EPA requirements and a "doable" energy fix today.

Dwain Cleveland

Lucas:
Well, we agree that ethanol is a waste. And I'm all for adding more nuclear power plants, which, with hydrogen technology whould be a solution to a number of problems.

But I can't agree on government subsidies. Politicians love them, because they can claim to be doing something, while actually just using the taxpayer's money to reward their friends and buy votes.

Stan
I agree that government shouldn't be in the way of business, but it seems that subsidies keep being the currency of the washington realm. I'd rather taxes going to something with more promise, such as hydrogen, than being (in my opinion) wasted on ethanol. I'm sure the private sector will eventually start to pick up on the fuel cell technology at a faster pace so the subsidy point may be moot. As far as it being difficult to make hydrogen to be used as fuel, Honda is already working on making an at home recharge kit for refueling fuel cells. So the process really isn't overly difficult....electricity + water = hydrogen seperating. Build some nuclear power plants and that electricity won't even be to expensive to come by.

Lucas:
Why should the goovernment be in the subsidy business at all? If there was much potential for a specific approach, there would be no shortage of private investors (assuming the government doesn't threaten to confiscate any profits, of course).

In a free country, the government has no business trying to pick commercial winners and losers, and promoting one approach while discouraging others. Governments act on political considerations, not economic, which is why we are currently burning food for fuel.

And it takes lots of energy to seperate hydrogen so that it can be used as fuel.

HYDROGEN
Why bother with the Alcohol based alternatives? They're pretty inefficient and still require gasoline in most cases. I think a better program would be to take those massive subsidies that are currently funding things like ethanol and apply them to building up the infastruction for recharging hydrogen fuel cells like in the Honda FCX Clarify that comes out this year and re-tooling Detroit to start mass producing these fuel cell vehicles.

You want an FFV?
So who's stopping you?

Mandating it is one of the silliest policies proposed recently, and one of the most destructive.

Look up the numbers. How many acres of corn do you need to use to supply the energy needs of this country? If its greater than the total amount of farmland here, what are you going to eat? We are already seeing the effects on food prices (both here are around the world) from diverting only 23 million acres of cropland to fuel production.

That sounds like a typical liberal solution: solve the fuel problem by buring your food! And ending up with a second rate fuel that causes more environmental damage than what it is intended to replace. And it won't even bring down your costs.

The actual solution is "drill here, drill now" as many people have realized.

Want to read about a real Tax Revolt?
Read this then:

June 30, 2008 may be remembered in history as the day Americans began, in earnest, the moral and solemn process of holding their (servant) Government accountable to the Constitution -- under threat of withdrawal of allegiance, support and tax money.

Next Monday, approximately 1200 American citizens will begin the process of exercising a profound, but little-known, 800-year old Right first articulated in Magna Carta by formally serving a "Legal Notice and Demand" for Redress of Grievances upon the President, the Attorney General and every Member of Congress at their local district offices.

Incredibly, academic research since 1986 makes clear the Right to Petition for Redress is NOT a redundant statement of the Right of Speech. It is in fact, the individual exercise of Popular Sovereignty. Here's what the Founders sitting as the first Congress wrote:

“If money is wanted by Rulers
who have in any manner oppressed the People,
they may retain it until their grievances are redressed,
and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised
petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113

Demanding an official response within forty (40) days, the Notice includes seven (7) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding substantial violations of our Constitution including the war, money, privacy, arms and tax clauses.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Letter 2Editor-Jun-08-SHORT.htm

What a twisted weaving
To use the Tax revolt of the Founders to justify and promote this bilge, obviously you think we are all stupid out here.



America has as much oil as the mid east has, and its been blocked.
This is the only problem in the entire issue.
We have no free markets any longer and are ruled by money loving scum buckets.
How much stock you own in ethanol,methanol or butanol?


quote:
We have the option right now to require that new automobiles sold in this country be capable of using alcohol-based fuels like ethanol, methanol or butanol instead of or together with gasoline.

Ethanol/Alcohol Fuels Crap AGAIN
You Sir are guilty of pretending to be concerned about the American peoples fuel woes. The real question is which of the "Bio-Fuels Corporate Structures" owns your soul and pays for your loyalty; or possibly, I suppose, you really are just sincerely stupid.

Physics, process chemistry and math prove factually that bio-fuels is in fact a "fools-gold fantasy" perpetuated by individuals such as yourself for usually nefarious reasons.
FACT: Bio-fuels must be supported by tax-payer dollars in order to be marketed in any form. The tax-payer contribution to their marketing, hides the actual cost of producing bio-fuels from the general public. Add in the hidden, tax-payer dollars, and the actual cost of producing bio-fuels exceeds the cost of all other equitable fuel types available; by yards and yards.
I've been doing engineering in the various fuels/power fields for many years and when some political hack starts in with a load of disinformation as to the worth / benefits of "Bio-Fuels" it really *isses me off. Producing "bio-fuels" requires a direct "taxation without representation" crime against the tax-paying public and you know that to be true. The price of fuel will not be mitigated by the unwise and politically motivated infliction of "bio-fuels" on the citizens of America; the real price will be hidden under the additional taxs required to fund the programs. Add that to the criminal diversion of food and livestock fodder to the exobitant price of the "bio-fuels and the final price per gallon could well double the price of a gallon of gasoline.
I would tell to be ashamed of yourself; but as your article indicates - you have no shame and no moral compass.

Bio-fuels is a scam and a crime against the American people.

Dwain Cleveland

ahh yes....
More government control. That's what we need. Its not like that's what got us here in the first place.

Sounds nice, but ...
... simply saying that we are going to have a different standard won't do a thing about current price pressures. The speculators, whatever their portion of the current price run up,know that a Congressional mandate will take years to have any practical effect.

I don't question that the auto manufacturers should continue and expand efforts to get the collective American fleet to run on a wider variety of options; but they should be pursuing that in their own selfish interests, not by mandate.

Drill here, drill now.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.