Backtracking with Barack — Corn Ethanol
By Charles Lemos on July 10, 2008 at 4:19 AM in Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Economy, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Environment, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, John McCain, Lobbyists
Unexpectedly or perhaps surprising to me anyway, energy policy is actually getting debated. That’s a good thing even though I don’t really expected it to lead to the tough choices we need to make in the time frame we need to make them. To be honest, we are past the tipping point. We’re doomed. The only question left is when does it all unravel. A few wise investments and we might push out the end line a few decades but unless some new technology arrives on the scene in the next twenty years, our way of life will come to a sudden and crashing end.
I have never liked Barack Obama. In fact, I can’t stand Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois either. The reason? They voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy, the worst piece of legislation ever to pass the Congress. Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as “the sum of all lobbies.” U.S. PIRG noted that the bill’s “heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC.” The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a “piñata of perks for energy industries.”
Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry through 2015. Past that, the sum is likely to approach $30 billion.
Although Sen. Obama voted for the legislation, he speaks as if he opposed it on the campaign trail, criticizing it repeatedly. At a presidential debate he said “You can look at how Dick Cheney did his energy policy…he met with oil and gas companies forty times, and that’s how they put together our energy policy.” He’s attributed the failure of our current energy policy to Congress’s “failure to stand up to the lobbyists.” In Pennsylvania he ran this deceptive ad.
Here’s Brit Hume debunking the Obama ad:
That’s Obama, one big deception. But Obama probably owes his presumptive nominee status to corn ethanol. Without his support for corn ethanol, it is unlikely that he would have won the Iowa caucuses and without that victory I think it fair to say his candidacy would have been finished by Super Tuesday. Winning Iowa gave him a boost. To win Iowa, Obama touted corn ethanol. From the New York Times:
When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer (2007) in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama.
Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.
Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.
In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”
Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”
Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland.
Not long after arriving in the Senate, Mr. Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation’s largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.
Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s economic policy director, said Mr. Obama’s stance on ethanol was based on its merits. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Mr. Furman said.
Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, “He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.”
Mr. Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his role advising the Obama campaign on energy matters was limited. He said he was not a lobbyist for ethanol companies, but did speak publicly about renewable energy options and worked “with a number of associations and groups to orchestrate and coordinate their activities,” including the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition.
Of Mr. Obama, Mr. Daschle said, “He has a terrific policy staff and relies primarily on those key people to advise him on key issues, whether energy or climate change or other things.”
Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve “energy security” while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.
Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.
“We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.”
Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.
Corn ethanol only nets 1.3 times the fossil fuel energy required to produce it, sugar-based ethanol can return 8 times the fossil fuel energy. And corn ethanol, while cleaner, than octane, pales in comparison to sugar ethanol.
So how green is Barack Obama really? Not very. In terms of energy policy, Obama is a third term for Bush-Cheney. From the Washington Post:
Given that energy appears likely to be a dominant issue in this election season, Barack Obama’s campaign may want to settle on a more consistent message when it comes to subsidies for ethanol, the corn-based alternative fuel that is hailed by some as a key resource in weaning America off foreign oil and forestalling global warming but lambasted by others as a wasteful boondoggle that is driving up food prices.
Since entering the Senate in 2005, Obama has been a staunch supporter of ethanol — he justified his vote for for the Bush Administration’s 2005 energy bill, which was favorable to the oil industry, on the grounds that it also contained subsidies for ethanol and other forms of alternative energy, and he has sought earmarks for research projects on ethanol and other biofuels in his home state of Illinois, the second-highest corn-producing state after Iowa. Obama’s support for ethanol is shared by many farm state senators (even Hillary Clinton came around after an ethanol industry took root in upstate New York) but it contrasts sharply with John McCain, who has for years been so critical of the subsidies that he decided not to compete in the 2000 Iowa caucuses.
Today, in a New York Times article on Obama’s support for ethanol, Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s new economic policy director, is quoted saying that Obama’s stance on the issue was based on the merits, a determination that ethanol subsidies are in the national interest. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Furman said. The article continues: “Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, ‘He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.’”
It was the expected answer during a presidential campaign — except that it flies in the face of what Obama himself said on the issue a few months ago. Asked about his support for ethanol during a press conference at a gas station in Indianapolis in April, Obama was remarkably candid in explaining why he backed the subsidies: “Look, I’ve been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said. He went on to say that he was concerned about reports that ethanol was helping drive up food prices, and that he saw ethanol as merely a transitional option that would eventually give way to biofuels that were more efficient and has less of an impact on food prices, such as ones made out of switchgrass.
Furman came on board the campaign only this month, so it is understandable if he is not entirely on the same page yet with the candidate. The fact is, though, that Obama’s record in the Senate has been very clearly influenced by what he viewed as the needs of his Illinois constituents, particularly those in “downstate” Illinois, where Obama has pointed to his popularity as proof that he can win over voters in more rural and conservative areas. Obama is supporting the new farm bill, which McCain also derides as wasteful, because he believes it will help farmers in his state; he backed last year’s $14 billion Water Resources Development Act (also opposed by McCain) after making sure it included money to upgrade locks on the Illinois and Mississippi rivers) and he backed huge subsidies last year for liquified coal — a highly controversial technology that would be a boon for Southern Illinois mines — before backing away from the idea under fire from environmentalists.
If there is a single issue to care about or to vote on, it is energy. Our lifestyle depends on it and we have wean ourselves off oil as a transportation fuel within 15 years or 20 years tops. If I vote for John McCain it will be because the election is close and because of McCain’s better energy plans and the fact that he didn’t vote for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy, unlike Barack Obama.
From my blog, By The Fault.
Amazing post. Thanks so much Charles! So many reasons not to vote for Obama.
Hey, what about the war? McCain wants permanent American bases, troops to stay for decades. Meanwhile, the American people (including Obama) want us out and so do the Iraqis. McCain in ‘04 said if the Iraqis want us to leave, then we should abide by their wishes.
He’s flip-flopped on that one. He doesn’t care what they say. Oil is too important. He’s Bush’s third term with a bad temper and a hatred for Iran.
I am not even going to dignify this with an answer except to say that McCain looks like a saint next to Obama, who would prefer to just help blow Israel away. I wish to point out that Israel is the ONLY democracy in the middle east. I find it astounding that anyone in America has a problem with that.
Wait. “For decades” and not 100 years now? Did the Obama camp realize saying US troops would occupy Iraq for a century guaranteed just sounds stupid and reactionary? Obama says US troops will leave when Iraqis can govern themselves and violence has calmed down. There’s probably not an Iraqi who doesn’t wish the war was over, but Maliki’s life depends on our presence there.
Obama’s Iraq war position after much “refining” now clings to a very ideological commitment. At the same time, he has geared up the War On Terror talk. Obama says we must pull US troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan. McCain opposes that. McCain thinks we should finish our commitment in Iraq and bring our troops home. And of course, Obama’s Iraq strategy might change after he visits the country for the first time in almost 3 years. Same with Afghanistan as he is visiting that country for his first time.
And yet, as the chairman of a subcommittee on oversight of the war in Afghanistan, he has not held a single meeting of that committee, his excuse being that he has been too busy campaigning.
A year and a half as chairman and still no meetings, because he’s had to do more important things like dance on the Ellen show, bowl in Pennsylvania, etc. I’m sure the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who he’s so concerned about probably understand… priorities, ya know.
so in a nutshell…
mccain’s energy stance is more environmentally, economically and morally friendly than Baracktracks?
hmm… yes, another reason to vote for mccain…
a. hillary
b. mccain
america first!
I didn’t know McCain voted no on the Bush Cheney energy bill! So Obama the Democrat voted for it and McCain the Republican didn’t.
It’s my understanding Clinton also voted against it!
Also, she is talking about cellulosic ethanol which from the graphic above gives the most reduction in greenhouse gases. Half of the party woke up to the sham this primary was and voted for the right candidate, Clinton and now the other dumb half has put us all in jeopardy. They believe him when he says he does not take lobbyists money but why can’t those buffoons read articles like this and find out for themselves what a fraud he is. Much of his campaign is financed by these rich energy companies (and the mortgage companies).
yes Hill and Big MAC both voted against it
that is part of the incredible irony of the GORE endorsement of Uhhbama and the left wing energy crowd loving him……its unbelievable to me, what was Oregon thinking? Uhhbama voted to allow the LNG pipeline thru its coast….and he didnt know what Yucca Mtn was either, unbelievable
I was shocked Oregon voted the way it did, too.
No surprise here - looks like McCain actually reads the bills before he votes on them. Obama votes according to whichever group he’s pandering to at the time. He changed six votes made in the Illinois State Senate after various interest groups hounded him about his orginal votes. Barack claimed he “pushed the wrong button.” Liar.
He really thinks the voters are fools who will fall for his phony claims about energy policy, that we’ll miss the fact that he voted for the archaic and pork-filled Bush energy bill.
Obama supporters say there is only 5% difference between McCain and Bush, but what a difference that 5% makes when compared to Obama and Bush.
McCain’s policies are, indeed, far more progressive than Obama’s when it comes to energy. He’s also hitting the mark with public opinion on off-shore drilling. See news today for an update on yet another Democratic cave-in on that issue.
As a CA resident, I’m opposed to off-shore drilling. It’s environmentally dangerous and questionable as to production value. However, that’s the CA stance, with good reason, obviously.
They are welcome to drill off of FL. *haha
However, it’s clear that McCain has a much more compelling message than Obama on this all-important issue.
here are some more interesting notes about Baracktrack’s presidential campaign being supported by investment banks tied to the market speculation of oil prices.
no wonder he was against the gas tax break…
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Summer08/BushThirdTerm.html
a. hillary
b. mccain
america first!
Everyone knows ethanol just raises the petroleum use. It’s nothing but an easy and a hypocrite way to show “we’re doing something”. There will be very hard time ahead of us, that’s a fact. There will be wars, recession, unemployment, poverty etc just because the politicians don’t have the balls to make hard decisions when we still have options. Soon we won’t have any. Oil lasts about 70 years, gas about 200 years. Also the minerals we use the most (copper, lead etc) are used up in 50 years, even iron is gone in 200 years. And no one dares to talk about this. I guess the blame is on regular citizens who keep chanting “offshore drilling” as some solution and thinking all these facts are nothing but Al Gore’s propaganda. After all it is they who keep voting for the same “everything’s alright” -politicians time and time again. Truth is that a crisis is coming and we already should be building wind power plants etc. Hell, at least I won’t be making babies and acting like I actually love them by allowing this to happen.
I would be afraid to bring any children into the world we live in now.
I passed a field with wind turbines in it and it was a sight to see-AWESOME! I didn’t see one thing wrong w it. People don’t want these because they think they are screwing up the scenery of their state but they don’t mind all of the nasty pollution from carbon emissions. Another example of stupidity.
I’m with you. Wind turbines don’t mess up the scenery nearly as much as those rusted hulks of oil machinery littering the landscape of “oil states” like Oklahoma. And neither do solar panels although some housing developments ban them in Arizona. I think both methods are clean and neat and have a beauty that oil refineries just can’t match.
I think those wind towers are neat also. There’s a bunch going up down the road from me on Lempster Mountain in NH (near Unity). I’d rather look at those wind turbines than all the cell phone towers, especially the fake tree ones.
Then why did Al Gore endorse the candidate that voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill instead of the one that voted against it? i.e. Senator Clinton.
IMHO that makes Gore just another party whore that puts party before country and evidently party before the environment too.
He has some bitterness towards the Clinton’s? Tough crap Al. Someone that really cared about their country and the environment wouldn’t be so petty.
At this point in time I really truly hate, loathe and despise nearly every politician in the country. If honesty was money not a damn one of them could find the price of a cup of coffee.
Oh Yeah got to love those ethanol plants. They spew waste into the air. Is the waste they are spewing into the air clean waste or more pollutants? Just a question. Does anyone know how clean these plants are?
Check asthma cases in the vicinity. That will tell you something.
Great post. It is always good to see environmental-driven articles.
Using food crops to try and solve energy problems is another expensive catastrophe.
OT: “Orange Bot” says ACLU is going to sue over FISA!
I don’t see how the FISA bill can survive a Constitutional challenge. Good on the ACLU.
I don’t either. This one is like the hand-gun law that just got soundly shot down.
Those strict constitutional judges DO have their uses, eh?
I agree-I am big on the environment and using corn to fuel gas guzzling vehicles is not the answer. For one thing soil gets worn out if you plant too much. There is not enough soil in the US to fuel all of our vehicles anyway. We need to keep advancing renewable energy. Honda is one of the companies making great advances with vehicles that use no gas.
I just heard on cspan that there’s a clause that if the US is in crisis the standing president (Bush) could cancel the elction and stay in power another 4 years. Is this true anyone??
At any rate this whole election cycle has been the most bizarre, strident, fiasco that I have ever witnessed and Obama the most inexperienced and phony candidate that I can ever recall.
I’m a lawyer. That’s not true. But yes, it almost seems as if anything is possible this crazy election season. The worst thing is I’d rather four more years of Bush than one minute of Obama.
You may be a lawyer but you need to go read a recent bill that was passed by congress giving the president just such power.
Indeed, I read the same that in case of a high alert of national security; the Pres. has such powers–maybe a recent bill or martial law.
Larry J. might know for sure. Larry could you clarify this for us?
What is the bill number?
Here’s an article from Sept 2007 has HR 5122, military commissions act and signing statements… http://wordsforfree.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/martial-law-2008/
A relevant part is Executive Directive 51 [which defines a “national emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” It also allows for the President to personally declare when this state is reached without any congressional oversight..]
So, under this, if Iran plugs up the Straits of Hormus, Bush can declare a national emergency and invoke martial law (the suspension of habeas corpus and military tribunal).
Not one mention about the power to cancel elections in any of the laws or EOs cited.
That really is an Executive Order. It is on Whitehouse.gov from May or June 2007. If you read it in its entirety, it actually does say that elections can be postponed, and the Executive Branch can take control of all gov’t functions at a local, state ,& territorial level, as well as federal. The major problem w/it- beyond the audacious nonsense it represents- is that a “national catastrophe” isn’t specifically described, so that just about anything could be characterized as one if the President says so. I just about had a fit when I read this thing. The way it is worded makes it difficult to read & understand. Gee- that must be a coincidence- ya think???
This is one reason why Hillary pledged to repeal the vast majority of Bush’s Exec. Orders. (Still visualizing a reversal of fortunes in Denver…)
Martial Law–
good God, I hope not…
They had elections during the Civil War and the World Wars.
Honestly I been hearing Leftists say since 2001 how bush was going to start putting people in camps and cancel the 2008 elections.
It’s sad how retarded so many people are these days
No, of course he can’t cancel elections. Is there nothing that can be believed by NQ-ers?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States of America
Great Seal of the United States
This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V
VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X
Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV
XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX
XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV
XXVI ∙ XXVII
Other countries · Law Portal
view • talk • edit
Amendment XXII in the National Archives
Amendment XXII in the National Archives
The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States. The United States Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947.[1] It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served from 1933 to 1945, is the only president elected to more than two terms. Although under the 22nd amendment it would be possible for a president to serve up to ten years (if he succeeded to the presidency of his predecessor with two years or less remaining in that term), in fact no other president besides Roosevelt has ever served more than eight years exactly
Wow….for such complete and stunning ignorance, this article wastes alot of words. Here is the truth of what is going on and what will happen.
1. The price of oil is about to crash. In fact, it’s already started. I make my money tracking the markets and could go on for a good hour as to why oil will crash. But the short answer is its WAY overbought and the large institutionalized investors have been buying up futures contracts preparing to fleece greedy and ignorant investors as the market crashes. They are done doing that and now is the time to start cashing in those chips. A $10 a barrel drop over the last few days is the first sign of this coming trend reversal. When it breaks $130, it will go into free fall.
2. The only viable source of small engine energy is oil. “Alternative” sources are all insufficient to the point of being a scam. It’s the focus on these for the last several decades, at the behest of the democrats, that is the sole cause of the problem. The US has 500 to 1000 years worth of oil within the continental US. If we drill for it, we control the market, not our ENEMIES in the middle east. That is the absolute bottom line.
3. Well….maybe not. We have new technology that can turn coal into gasoline without polluting to do it. It ain’t cheap but it’s alot cheaper than what we pay now. Plus the US has at least 500 years worth of coal within our borders. It costs about $100 per car to convert them so that they can burn this type of fuel as well as gasoline. With a simple stroke of a pen, Congress could immediately break the monopoly on oil and use the free market to force the price back down to under $30 a barrel or so. Why this isn’t done is solely an issue with the democrats not wanting it done….to save the earth, lol. Did I mention that there is no credible evidence that global warming exists?
4. Not that it matters but the US is on the cusp of nuclear fusion. A company named EMC2 Fusion, basically has a working reactor. Although it doesn’t produce a net gain in power, the output of the reactor scales much higher than the input required, as you make it larger. In other words, this proven technology will produce a working 100 megawatt reactor in about 3 years or so. Once that reactor goes live, unlimited, nearly free energy that does not pollute in any way, will become a reality and rapidly replace all other forms of energy. That WILL happen during McCain’s first term…cough. Just as a bonus, this technology can be used to destroy waste from nuclear fission reactors. By 2020, all that nuclear waste they said would last forever and ever, will be destroyed. Y’all can thank one Dr Bussard for spending his last short years on this earth, making that technology work, before dying recently of cancer. The man is the Einstein of our age.
5. I hear good things from a company called Blacklight Power Inc. Supposedly, they have catalyzed a new type of hydrogen reaction that produces FAR more power than it takes to create hydrogen from water. Highly controversial, I can’t ignore the fact that they have a working 50 megawatt prototype that has been confirmed by various third parties (not to mention 60 million bucks of investment money). They have already contracted to build a bunch of these, which should be completed in about a year. Kinda hard to argue the science of this when they are selling working reactors lol. Anyway, this technology, all by itself, replaces fossil fuels. Suddenly, Arnold Schwarzennegars plan to build hydrogen fuel cell gas stations all over California doesn’t sound so kooky.
Our way of life is hardly over. In fact, we are beginning a new age of economic prosperity, if only the democrats would fucking get out of the way.
I think you’re very ignorant where the environment is concerned. In traffic behind a bus you can smell the carbon emissions coming out of the back of those things. You think this isn’t hurting the air and our environment? That’s probably where alot of people get cancer.
As for alternative fuels, I agree, there is plenty of it but our government and other greedy powers wouldn’t make as much money from it as oil.
Bus emissions? What are you talking about? How is that relevant to the post to which you have replied? Was it the comment concerning the lack of credible evidence in support of the existence of global warming?
I’m just curious why you would call someone ignorant and then start talking about being able to smell carbon emissions… Reminds me of the joke concerning the perspective of a midget in an elevator.
You go on to state that you believe that carbon emissions may cause cancer. Do you believe that carbon causes cancer? Should we ban carbon, then?
And, of course, you would anonymously opine that the recent sabre rattling and long range missle testing in Iran is not recklessly calculated to effectively ratchet the price of oil right back up into the stratosphere. Whenever rationality begins to return to the oil market, we can usually count on Iran, Nigerian militants, or other understandably self-interested miscreants to stoke the fear levels and create price inflating jitters in the world oil markets.
Ha ha ha. Very good point.
In 1998 oil went from $30 a barrel to $10 a barrel. 63.33% drop almost over night. Now that OPEC is being threatened again with bio fuels they (OPEC) are warning the researchers that “they had better be careful because OPEC will drop the price of oil”. Thereby making the cost of bio fuels less attractive. AGAIN!
Well, exactly. I have no doubt that if we were on the verge of a major oil-alternative source of energy breakthrough, the price of gasoline would be collapsing. Then, after we’d abandoned research into that new technology and invested in another fleet of gas guzzlers, the price would shoot up again. Doesn’t take a genius to see that has already happened.
Someone please give me an estimate: what would the price of oil be on the world market if 80% of all the cars in North America and Europe were being run on hydrogen or electricity? What would the price of oil be if all the cars and trucks on the PLANET were being run on something other than gasoline?
Could you GIVE it away?
Can someone tell me how many horns I can collect if we replace all the Zebras in Zoos with unicorns?
I feel sorry for your kids if they’ve inherited your narrow little mind.
I bet your ancestors scoffed at the concept of air travel.
Dumbass.
Ah, the fine art of Making Shit Up. Thanks for your contribution, Mr. I’m So Intelligent and On Top Of Things I Won’t Even Give You My Name. Just Believe Me.
You sound like those morons giving testimonials in Become a Millionaire by Working at Home Commercials- “Joan S. from Kansas says…” “Robert Q. from San Antonio says…”
Anonymous | 2008-07-10 07:06:13
Finally, a voice of reason!
And how about this new high-tech substitute for oil:
Sapphire Energy, uses algae, sunlight, carbon dioxide and non-potable water to make “green crude” that it contends is chemically equivalent to the light, sweet crude oil that has been fetching more than $130 a barrel in New York futures trading.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-greencrude29-2008may29,0,1053218.story
Interesting post. I agree with you about the coming crash in price of oil, but I am not savvy. I just figure anything that skyrockets that fast is due for an adjustment.
The most comprehensive and compelling journalism ANYWHERE Charles. Fabulous!
Thank you for your efforts.
When T. Boone Pickens begins to advertise that we must find new sources of energy….having made Billions selling Oil…then people should realize the Oil gig is up!
http://tinyurl.com/6a7sbk
LONG gas lines were fairly common in the early seventies. We began to run out of oil 40 years ago–today we are still “RUNNING OUT OF OIL” but there are no gas lines. WHY? Because the oil companies have their price where they want it. But the minute they want another increase–we will once again began to RUN OUT OF OIL and we may see long gas lines again.
Pickens stressing the point of transfering our wealth to oil producing nations and thereby undermining our national security is playing BIG with me! We need to produce our own energy at home- wind, solar, nuclear, clean coal and wood, and yes our own oil and natural gas for energy needs that can’t be converted away from petroleum. Keep the money in the US, keep the jobs in the US, and make us free from being held hostage by whack job idiots like Chavez, Putin, and the nutcase in Iran.
I read not long ago that T Boone Pickens was into water speculation these days. Personally, I find the notion that any one person can either own or control water highly objectionable.
Water-energy-food…the basics. I don’t think either candidate knows much about any of them.
LPB (Louisiana) had a program on about five days ago. They were showing a meeting of researchers in the bio fuels and there were OPEC representatives there also. the OPEC people warned the bio fuel researchers that –QUOTE:”They had better be careful because OPEC WOULD LOWER THE PRICE OF OIL”.
I think that the vast majority of Americans are happy to simply look the other way when it comes to issues like Global Warming and World Hunger. They take in right-wing radio hosts and head-in-the-sand politicians who tell us that “the wacky liberals” are blowing things out of proportion or “making things up” as Comfort Food which allows them to ignore the serious problems. “Hey, Jim Inhofe says Global Warming is a scam, and he’s a Senator! So I don’t have to worry!”
It’s a lot more comforting to just pretend problems don’t exist, and there will always be people on the radio and tv and in newspapers to tell people that they don’t and that there’s some massive conspiracy to make them think that they do. Turn on any right-wing radio show and when the subject of Global Warming comes up you get a lot of comforting chuckling about Stupid Scientists and Tree-Hugging Morons and Chicken Littles. Then you can switch off the radio and feel so much better about the world- “I was worried for no reason! Thank goodness Mark Levin and Rusty Humphries and Laura Ingraham set me straight!”
In a large respect, we are a nation of grown children who just don’t want to be told there are problems. And there will always be people there making huge amounts of money telling us to just keep doing what we are doing, We’re Number One, Everything’s Wonderful, Sacrifice is Unpatriotic, etc.
I agree. Like recycling, we have 2 recycling bins, one for paper, one for glass and plastic. It is not a big deal for me to throw stuff in these. City picks it up every 2 weeks. I fill both up in 2 weeks. Alot of my neighbors have 3-4 people in the house and recycle NOTHING. No one can tell me that it is good to bury all that shit in the soil. Not only that alot of fuel is used to make the packaging for things. Every thing like this we can do would help the entire picture-alot of people I think are just plain lazy. You still have to throw stuff in the trash can, why not throw it in the recycling bin instead!?
woodiej:
What is the net energy savings of burying garbage versus having to invent massive industrial processes required to chemically alter the garbage and back into a product?
Manmade Global Warming does not exist. Carbon Dioxide increase in the air FOLLOWS increase in air temp, not the other way around.
CO2 does not cause higher temps in any significant way.
Also Sunspot Cycle 24 has not started. It was supposed to last winter. The sun is extremely inactive right now. Global temps have been falling like a rock the past two years.
Accounting for all of the 2000s (2000-2008), there has been a net decline in Global Temps both air and water.
Those are the facts.
Isn’t time you got back to working on your next Holocaust Denial book?
John: What a piece of work you are.. how easy you abuse and dishonor the deaths of 6 million people.
You’re deranged.
This is what you fucked up Global Warming alarmists are doing to people:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23992448-5007146,00.html
Climate change delusion a real problemby Andrew Bolt
PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of “climate change delusion” - and they haven’t even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.
Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children’s Hospital say this delusion was a “previously unreported phenomenon”.
“A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events.”
(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)
“The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies.”
But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What’s scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this “climate change delusion”, too.
Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: “If we do not begin reducing the nation’s levels of carbon pollution, Australia’s economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands.”
And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd’s guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: “Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . .”
Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd’s next campaign slogan?
Of course, we can laugh at this - and must - but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash.
Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide - the gas they think is heating the world to hell.
The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they’re even planning to tax farting cows, so there’s no end to the ways you can be stung.
[See link for rest of article]
I so agree with you about the lack of willingness to concentrate and solve real problems. That’s why Hillary had a tough time initially selling her candidacy. She’s the pragmatic problem-solver. Nobody wanted to deal with the problems.
Obama doesn’t even like policy discussions. In that regard, I have to admit he’s opposite of Jimmy Carter, though I’m fond of the comparison in other respects. He’s not interested in problems or in solutions.
FISA…not to worry is his attitude. I’ll be good. Well, you voted on a bad law that leaves us wide open to yet more Washington corruption. It’s not about you, Obama. It’s about the country and its protections and the separation of powers.
Obama has no real interest in oversight, which we are sorely in need of bolstering after 8 years of neglect. It’s not a mystery why we’re unable to enjoy peppers and tomatoes. Bush gutted the FDA. The Consumer Protection Agency is nothing but a bullpen of resumes waiting to be hired by the private sector. Ditto for energy. Obama passed a nuclear bill that did NOT demand that the plant inform people of leaks in any way other than the plant’s usual method….which is slow. Are we surprised?
No. His attention to detail is appalling. His expectations that things actually work is nil. He reminds me of bad CEOs I worked for who loved the position and the perks and really drove the company into the ground with bad judgment.
And there are plenty of those turkeys around.
Obama’s corn fuel policy stance needs to change pronto. That’s one flip-flop that would be smart.
Don’t forget those smartypants “scientists” who keep telling us that the Sun is better than the Earth and that’s why WE have to revolve around IT instead of the other way around, like in the good old days!
Not to mention all them Intylecktyalls that tell us that Man has driven some animals extinct- yeah right, I see animals everywhere! And they’re tellin me their extinct!
–Signed, VinceP With His Head Firmly Planted Up His Ass
John: Maybe you like to explain to everyone how it is that you claim to be “scientific” however your response is entirely emotional and immature.. and completely free of any data .
Quite a dishonest approach wouldn’t you say? To pretend you’re objective but in reality a cry-baby shill?
But that is all you Global Warming Enviromarxists have left to do.. the world is cooling. You are a fraud.
More pandering by Obama- He is big with the corn lobby. That’s how he won Iowa and got the ball rolling. Pandering to a horrible- morally and economically- policy of diverting food to fuel.
The most moving political cartoon I saw on the subject was a starving boy with an ear of corn and a wealthy man taking it away saying “Sorry, I need that to run my Hummer”.
Food to fuel! think about how ass-backwards that is! Food prices are climbing. People in this country are hungry. There is a global food crisis with people around the world starving and Nobama is pandering to the corn industry.
I am really glad Charles wrote a piece that pointed this out. Political pundits talk about Iowa as a “hotbed of antiwar sentiment.” The whole state votes according to corn. Every election year, both parties commence their primaries by kissing the asses of these evil old farmers who would see global food riots while they push their whack-job ethanol onto the market. Our children have rampant cases of diabetes. Obama talks about how Americans should eat more sensibly and avoid getting sick - the tradition healthcare plan of the US - meanwhile (corn) agricultural lobbyists fill school lunches with high fructose corn syrup; It’s in just about everything you can think of. The Obama girls go to a fancy private school. Their school lunches aren’t pig food. How can he talk down to American voters about their diets when he’s part of the problem? How can Iowa claim to care so much about the tragedy of war when starving a person to death is as effective as putting a bullet in their head?
Obama has gotten a free pass on the odd fact that the special interest groups he panders to, i.e., corn ethanol, commodities traders and mortgage bankers, have caused great harm to the nation as a whole.
The Jackson/Obama and Obama Family Follies on O’Reilly: I Can’t Believe I’m Seeing What I’m Seeing
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rdxzj
Backtracking galore…a twofer from Obama…Really, this is getting ridiculous….And Obama on energy? EXELON, remember???? Another huge sleight of hand for the folks back home in IL, who were pretty irate about it….
And do check out my series on Obama et al rom April 18-21, with a focus on Part II:
“Part II: Obama’s Adviser David L. Boren–How He Screwed Us Long-term in 1993 re: Energy and More”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rdxzj
You will really enjoy that one… not!!!
SORRY–wrong URL for the Boren story!!!!
Corrected:
“Part II: Obama’s Adviser David L. Boren–How He Screwed Us Long-term in 1993 re: Energy and More”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4ytee2