Posted on 02/01/2006 9:31:45 AM PST by cogitator
Three decades after the first oil shocks -- and a quarter-century after the humiliating capture of U.S. diplomats in Tehran -- the world community remains hostage to its continuing dependence on Mideast oil. Tough-talking leaders are unable to match words with action because the hard work of reducing our oil dependence remains undone.
... We are taking a foolish and unnecessary risk by remaining so dependent on every drop of oil pumped that the global economy shudders and political leaders tremble the moment any major source is threatened. ...
(1) We have a model of success: Brazil. ... Starting in the 1970s, vast sugar plantations were devoted to producing ethanol, a homegrown liquid fuel. The Brazil stuck with the program through several setbacks and today is essentially independent of foreign oil. ...
Building on the Brazilian experience, the U.S. government should immediately launch a crash program to develop advanced or "cellulosic" ethanol made from switchgrass, poplar and other nonfood crops. ...
Starting in the next few model years, all cars sold in the United States should be "flex-fuel," giving consumers the choice between gasoline or ethanol. GM and Ford already make such cars in Brazil, where they're the hottest-sellers. ...
A grand bargain with Detroit agreeing to put many such [energy-saving] vehicles on the road and Washington agreeing to help support health and pension costs would strongly serve the national interest. ...
... the United States could in a generation cut in half its need for oil, reducing the importance of any one supplier. Strategic implications would be profound -- strengthening the U.S. and our allies in all manner of dealings in the Persian Gulf and around the world. The challenge is fundamentally not one of technology, but political will.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
One word: ANWR
One additional word: Nuclear.
Not to sound negative or anything.... but I wouldn't hold my breath.....
Nuclear has the potential to cure many ills, even some of the thinking Greens are jumping on the bandwagon. It remains to be seen if the rest of them climb on board. Its a shame this power supply has been all but killed here in the USA.
I disagree with ANWR but agree with nuclear. Drilling ANWR "enables" the underlying problem of oil addiction to continue. It needs to be emphasized strongly, repeatedly, and programmatically that the U.S. economy needs to "get off" oil and fossil fuels. Drilling ANWR perpetuates the old paradigm, which needs to change.
Much easier to do with an economic engine that is 1/8th the size of that of the United States.
By all means, let's realign our agricultural output and plant 8 times as much sugar as they do in Brazil so we can convert it to ethanol ... that'll solve all our problems.
Well said......
The sky is falling, the sky is falling
In 1914, the U.S. Bureau of Mines declared that the United States would run out of oil in 10 years.
In 1939, the Department of the Interior predicted that oil reserves would last only 13 more years.
In 1950, when the world's estimated reserves were thought to be 600 billion barrels, the Department of Interior again projected the end of the age of oil by 1963.
Move forward to the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which prompted the highly respected journal Foreign Affairs to publish an article on "The Oil Crisis: This Time the Wolf is Here."
In 1981, a respected textbook on economic geology predicted that the United States was entering a 125-year-long energy gap, expected to be at its worst in the year 2000 with dire consequences to our standard of living.
In 1995, a prominent geologist predicted that petroleum production would peak in 1996 and that after 1999 many of the developed world's societies would look like Third World countries.
In 1998, a Scientific American article titled "End of the Age of Oil" predicted that world oil production would peak in 2002 and that we would soon face the "end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all nations depend." from a Chris Bennet article 11/26/2004
In March 2004 the U.S. Department of Energy reported oil shale reserves in the United States of more than 2,000 billion barrels, enough for consumption at our current rate for over 200 years. While we do need expand alternatives, we also need to kick the lie spewing enviro-crazies to the curb and beging developing our own resources.
beging = begin
But ANWR is a viable short term solution. We will always make use of petroleum for the value added products that are derived from it (e.g., plastics, petrochemicals, etc.)
We need to be going in many directions:
-biodiesel
-methane reforming
-ethanol
-dimethyl ether
We're way behind with nukes, only 20% of our electricity...
Words fail me
The problem I have with Bush and his energy policy is that he won't push any of his initiatives. He just raises the issue, then lets the enviro-wackos shoot'em down. Kinda like what he did with SS.
If he isn't going to fight for an issue, I'd just as soon he not bring it up. The end result makes him look extremely weak.
Just as a marginal cut in social security payments NOW would fix that system long term, a marginal cut in oil consumption would greatly improve our strategic position.
There's no silver bullet here, but we need to work on nukes, soydiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen. There's a lot of rich agricultural land in Indiana that isn't being planted based on my daily observation, I assume that's true many other places.
A novel idea: let's let the market decide. If we are really running out of oil (as has been incorrectly predicted since we first started pumping it), then prices will rise until alternatives become economic without government fiat or subsidies.
I basically agree with raising the gas tax and cutting other taxes to compensate. I wouldn't support immediately raising it by $1/gallon, but something like 10 cents each year for the next 10 years would be workable. Taxes of some form are a necessary evil, and gas taxes have the virtue of correcting negative externalities.
While it would require some changes, planting cellulosic ethanol feedstocks like switchgrass doesn't require a total agricultural realignment. Switchgrass can grow in in poor soils and with minimal fertilzation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.