1 - 10 Next
Oops I meant Sun not son of course. Karma of course when you correct someone's spelling or grammar or question his intelligence somehow your own post doing so is much likelier to have an error...
CO2 does not cause warming? Why is Venus warmer than Mercury despite being farther from the son, Einstein? And being essential to all life is irrelevant to the question at hand.
National security is more important than economic non-intervention. Even Adam Smith, the founding father of free market economics, supported subsidies for sail cloth to prevent Britain being dependent on its enemies for that era's source of transportation motive power. Even Friedrich Hayek backed state action against monopolies and cartels, and he was talking about private sector ones, so we should be even less hesitant about taking ACTION instead of being helpless passive victims of a gang of foreign governments like OPEC. "Drill Baby Drill" is a feel good fairy tale. We have less than 2% of the world's commercially recoverable oil reserves, while OPEC has more than 78%. Even if we dropped all green restrictions and drilled all out without any regard to risk, the OPEC giant could smile at the furious mouse attacking at last without one paw tied behind its cute little back. OPEC can easily, casually, counter our maximum output with cutting its own to keep the price as high as it likes. The SMART way to fight the energy battle is to stop fighting on terrain permanently favorable to the enemy and to SHIFT it to ground favorable to us. Instead of oil only, have our cars able to run on fuel made from biomass (not much grows in the Mideast), or made from coal and natural gas (100% domestic, and the Mideast can't control the world price for those commodities the way they can oil). In other words, ethanol adn methanol.
We eventually moved on from leaded gasoline too, because that was not only an environmental disaster but also caused major damage to unborn babies, reducing IQ and causing violent behavior later in life. The handful of antiques that truly need leaded can still get it. The world is not going to come to an end if we move further away from being helplessly dependent on jihad juice and instead use more AMERICAN biofuel.
I meant to say the Pimentel / Patzek "studies" UNDERstate the energy output. Basically any "study" on ethanol that has either one of their names on it should be immediately dismissed and ignored.
The author of this "study", T. Patzek, is a former oil executive. He and his partner, the extreme green David Pimentel, regularly put out junk "studies" falsely claiming a negative energy balance for ethanol. They are shredded in peer review over gross distortions that overstate the energy input necessary and the energy output received, distortions such as using Third World or decades-outdated statistics, wrongly assuming that ethanol corn is irrigated (only about 16% of all corn is and nearly no ethanol corn is), and carefully ignoring an ethanol byproduct's use as high-protein, high-value animal feed that would need to have been grown anyway. Patzek and Pimentel are notorious and isolated in the peer reviewed literature; no other modern-day writer on the topic agrees with their discredited claims on ethanol's energy balance. See the chart on Page 4 of this document, dating from the administration of that well known eco-Marxist, Texas oil-man George W. Bush, showing just how way off in their own imaginary world those two are: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/43835.pdf Back in reality, the most comprehensive study on ethanol's energy balance was done in the most prestigious scientific journal on Earth, ("Science" magazine) in 2006. It looked at the ENTIRE body of scientific literature on the subject and proved that ethanol has at least an energy "profit" of 30%, and in the geostrategically crucial area of OIL (not all energy, just oil) in versus ethanol out, you get at least 10 and even 20 units of ethanol produced per oil put in. Was Ronald Reagan a "watermelon"? He backed ethanol, and to this day senior figures of his Administration, not only his former Secretary of Agriculture but especially his national security men, including two of his National Security Advisors, two of his Secretaries of the Navy, etc. have publcilcy supported it down to this day. All part of the watermelon conspiracy? How about Frank Gaffney, Fox News contributor, head of the Center for Security Policy and author of "Homegrown Defense", regularly called an "Islamaphobe" by Politically Correct types? How about Robert Zubrin, author of "Energy Victory" and National Review and Washington Times contributor? The FACT is, many bona fide national security conservatives back ethanol and for good reason. Wake up and stop being a useful tool of the jihad.
Actually the Obama Administration is not all that enthusiastic about ethanol, nor are most extreme greens, who oppose all large scale modern production agriculture. The EPA for years has banned most upgrade kits that allow ordinary cars to become fully ethanol compatible, calling that "tampering with emissions systems", and EPA until recently stood BANNED willing sellers from selling E15 gasoline (which has 15% ethanol content instead of the usual 10%) to willing buyers of ordinary cars. It took a formal petition process which forced EPA to look at the facts, and for E15 to be the most-tested fuel in history, for the agency to relent and ALLOW Americans to buy E15 but only if their cars were made after the year 2000. As for hysterics, regardless of the reality of global warming, the fact is, as I pointed out below, that this study does not talk about the overall and long term global warming impact of all ethanol, but ONLY the SHORT-TERM impact of a specific, RARE, experimental type of cellulosic ethanol. So even if its data is perfectly correct, it's basically irrelevant to the issue of whether the normal ethanol you get at the pump (which is derived from a variety of corn not used for human food) is a net negative on CO2, especially in the long run.
"Inferior" how? Inferior at funding the jihad and bankrupting the nation, maybe. But ethanol has higher octane providing better acceleration and responsiveness and is cleaner burning. Ethanol corn is not irrigated. We have lots of coal and natural gas, but have you tried pouring them into your fuel tank lately? They can be used to power electric cars via your local power plant, but I suspect you scorn electrics too. They can be used to make methanol, and ethanol-like alcohol fuel, but anything other than jihad juice is to be rejected, according to all those who, like you, are bamboozled by oil-corrupted "think tanks" and the media outlets who regurgitate their propaganda. Sadly, the Right today is like the Left in the Cold War, a domestic parrot of enemy propaganda.
I'm not a "progressive" - but you're the liar for pretending that no one has operated under the assumption that oil is a free market hero and alternatives are to be stigmatized and rejected as interference in the market.
You ignore the crucial reality that plants take in energy from the Sun.
1 - 10 Next