Welcome to Fantasy Land
Every election year they resurface: the same big promises.
My favorite one from the left's standard repertoire is:
"We can shake our dependence on foreign oil in X number of years."
Everytime I hear this, it reminds me of when people tell me that their New Year's Resolution is to quit smoking 'as soon as they finish this here pack.' There is no hope to wean yourself from this slick nipple I always thought. Let's just be content to 'try to cut-back.'
How wrong I was.
Read these excerpts from this L.A. Times article (15 June 2005):
Homegrown Fuel Supply Helps Brazil Breathe Easy
SAO PAULO, Brazil
While Americans fume at high gasoline prices, Carolina Rossini is the essence of Brazilian cool at the pump. Like tens of thousands of her countrymen, she is running her zippy red Fiat on pure ethanol extracted from Brazilian sugar cane. On a recent morning in Brazil's largest city, the clear liquid was selling for less than half the price of gasoline...
Three decades after the first oil shock rocked its economy, Brazil has nearly shaken its dependence on foreign oil. More vulnerable than even the United States when the 1973 Middle East oil embargo sent gas prices soaring, Brazil vowed to kick its import habit. Now the country that once relied on outsiders to supply
80% of its crude is projected to be self-sufficient within a few years....
Today about 40% of all the fuel that Brazilians pump into their vehicles is ethanol, known here as alcohol, compared with about 3% in the United States. No other nation is using ethanol on such a vast scale. The change wasn't easy or cheap. But 30 years later, Brazil is reaping the return on its investment in energy security while the U.S. writes checks for $50-a-barrel foreign oil....
What most can agree on is that Brazil is an example of what might have been if America had seriously committed itself 30 years ago to renewable energy.
"If we would have spent one-hundredth of the money that we have spent to send tanks around the world to protect our oil supplies ... we would already be using cellulosic ethanol," said Michael Bryan, chief executive of BBI International...
I don't mean to over simplify things. I'm not implying that we should/could be running our cars on sugar by now. As the rest of the article points out...our situation is very different from Brazil's...but it just goes to show what could be if our politicians put the future of the nation above the profits of their campaign-financing corporate buddies. (sigh)
My favorite one from the left's standard repertoire is:
"We can shake our dependence on foreign oil in X number of years."
Everytime I hear this, it reminds me of when people tell me that their New Year's Resolution is to quit smoking 'as soon as they finish this here pack.' There is no hope to wean yourself from this slick nipple I always thought. Let's just be content to 'try to cut-back.'
How wrong I was.
Read these excerpts from this L.A. Times article (15 June 2005):
Homegrown Fuel Supply Helps Brazil Breathe Easy
SAO PAULO, Brazil
While Americans fume at high gasoline prices, Carolina Rossini is the essence of Brazilian cool at the pump. Like tens of thousands of her countrymen, she is running her zippy red Fiat on pure ethanol extracted from Brazilian sugar cane. On a recent morning in Brazil's largest city, the clear liquid was selling for less than half the price of gasoline...
Three decades after the first oil shock rocked its economy, Brazil has nearly shaken its dependence on foreign oil. More vulnerable than even the United States when the 1973 Middle East oil embargo sent gas prices soaring, Brazil vowed to kick its import habit. Now the country that once relied on outsiders to supply80% of its crude is projected to be self-sufficient within a few years....
Today about 40% of all the fuel that Brazilians pump into their vehicles is ethanol, known here as alcohol, compared with about 3% in the United States. No other nation is using ethanol on such a vast scale. The change wasn't easy or cheap. But 30 years later, Brazil is reaping the return on its investment in energy security while the U.S. writes checks for $50-a-barrel foreign oil....What most can agree on is that Brazil is an example of what might have been if America had seriously committed itself 30 years ago to renewable energy.
"If we would have spent one-hundredth of the money that we have spent to send tanks around the world to protect our oil supplies ... we would already be using cellulosic ethanol," said Michael Bryan, chief executive of BBI International...I don't mean to over simplify things. I'm not implying that we should/could be running our cars on sugar by now. As the rest of the article points out...our situation is very different from Brazil's...but it just goes to show what could be if our politicians put the future of the nation above the profits of their campaign-financing corporate buddies. (sigh)
By Robert - 6/20/2005
16 Comments:
We should also pump our big sweetener (corn) into our cars instead of our kids.
I'd like the thank Michael Cohen for sending me this article...sorry to cut and paste so much, but it is just so damn interesting.
If you're even remotely interested, I recommend clickin the link and reading the entire article.
(also Kyle, your comment is as intriguing as it is confusing...please clarify.)
Nice post Bob.
The advancement of our energy sources is such an obvious, overdue step forward- it's amazing how little has been done.
Number of noninstitutionalized adults with diagnosed diabetes: 13.4 million (2002) - CDC
"One study shows that youth who drink 9 ounces or more of soda a day consume almost 200 calories more each day than those who skip these beverages. If this amount of calories is consistently added to a youth's normal daily food intake, it can cause gradual weight gain. A small study of children 6 to 13 years old showed that they gained a quarter- to a half-pound per week over four to eight weeks when they drank more than 12 ounces a day of soft drinks." - MSNBC
Soft Drink Sweetener Blamed for Obesity
"Obesity has more than doubled in the U.S. from 1960 to 2000, with much of the increase occurring within the latter two decades, according to government figures. In the last decade, the percentage of adults 20 years and older that are classified as obese or overweight increased to 55%. An estimated 97 million adults in the U.S. are overweight or obese."
"In an effort to identify dietary trends, Bray and colleagues examined food and beverage consumption records from the Department of Agriculture for the period between 1967 and 2000. They estimated that Americans eat 132 calories each day of high fructose corn syrup, and that the figure is closer to 300 calories for the top 20% of Americans..."
"HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) is sweeter than most other caloric sweeteners like sucrose, found in table sugar, and Bray and Popkin contend that the added sweetness may actually stimulate the appetite rather than sating it. But while HFCS is used to sweeten some cereals and other processed foods, Bray says he believes HFCS-sweetened beverages, not foods, are causing Americans to consume more calories." - WebMD.com
Ethanol is corn based fuel:
"Retailers expect the cost of E-85, which is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, to be 70 cents a gallon cheaper than regular unleaded gas when the subsidy takes effect July 1." - - article from today's Montana Standard
its not amazing. just look at where bush money comes from.
nice post bob
I think Bush will indirectly do what no democrat could have in the next 20 years. His policies have made the problem more obvious to the average American. Raise the gas prices, hit people in their wallets -then you'll get some reform. Thank You Mr. President ;)
This is a great post, but I think it is crazy to blame bush, republicans, or lack of government programs for our reluctance to switch to ethanol.
The fact is ethanol can be derived most efficiently from sugar cain, and only 4 states in the USA can produce it (TX, FL, HI, and CA). The U.S. sugar industry has successfully lobbied congress to keep trade tariffs on sugar imports, which is why sugar in the U.S. is so expensive compared to other countries. Brazil commits half of its sugar cain yeild to ethanol production, and they are the largest sugar producer in the world. The US also has tarriffs on ethanol, yet another protectionist raod block enacted for the sake of a bunch of corn growing whiners in the mid-west.
The U.S. doesn't need any government research or funding to make ethanol a reality. We need protectionists to stand out of the way of capitalism. Clearly, if it is such a wonderful, clean-burning, cheap, fuel, then the market forces could take over.
A good first step would be to enact CAFTA, this would open us up to Central American sugar producers. Free trade and free markets are the key here.
Jeff is exactly right, this needs to be an economic transition. Free markets need to embrace this change. Consumers and producers alike need viable economic reasons to shift from a deeply rooted oil burning society.
I drove an electric hybrid the other day, and it was awful. 85 horsepower or some shit. Im not a muscle car guy or anything, but until these things have enough upside no way is the average American switching.
Another thing regarding Brazilian sugar- aren’t we just trading dependencies? The environmental reasoning is there, but clean combined with vastly available should be the goal. Not just for the US but for everyone.
For future generations alternative energy is a must (and not just for transportation), it is only a matter of timing on its creation and institution.
Nug, good point on Bush raising awareness, but sort of ironic way to defend Bush-bashing. "he is so bad, he is helping us"
Nug, the Prius drives just as nice as my Corolla, which you complemented as having great pickup. It might not match the muscle of your new truck, but it is pretty good.
Jeff, its not crazy to blame republicans/bush.
Otherwise, i don't know a great deal on the tariffs we have, but I generally agree that we protect our farmers too much.
However, I cannot be for CAFTA because we refuse to include human rights standards.
(note: CAFTA isn't going happen, because a bunch of the current republicans are going to vote against it. they want to keep jobs in their crappy states.
just another sign of how current republicans are not what they appear to be. They are for big government and blocking free trade.)
I stand corrected by chuck
I will blame republicans, I'll just blame democrats equally, if not more.
Nug, I agree it does shift our dependeny, but allowing other nations to develope ethanol industries would force opec, and other oil rich nations to compete.
About CAFTA: I find it very odd that leftists will not trade with countries that have poor working conditions. I cannot think of a better way to improve working conditions than trade. The conditions are bad because there are no jobs, start trading with them, give them some incentive to become productive. Eventually the job market will force companies to provide better working conditions.
Denying these countries trade only makes them depend on aid and tourism. These economies need industrial and service sector jobs.
It isn't like CAFTA will force central american workers into slavery. These people will be given a choice, and as an american, I don't see how I am better equipped to make that choice for them.
Toyota, Honda get green light for fuel-cell cars without limitation.
I'm paraphrasing here but I saw this in the Korea Hereld yesterday.
The 2 Japanese carmakers aim to lease friendly no-mission compact behicles while stepping up efforts to lower costs for mass produciton in the future...cars using compressed hydrogen gas...leaves water as its only by-product.
Suger cane is a good idea, with half the emmissions, but isn't that kind of like Camel filters vs. Camel lights?
Nuge, last time I checked the Model T wasn't burning up the road. I'm sure people said, "Yea, but my horse can go much faster on the straightaways." Once production is in full effect the technology to make them faster will surely follow.
Jeff, I would argue that the work conditions that come from these trade agreements are tantamount to slave-like conditions (and inhumane, at best).
If such conditions were just imaginary, then why would CAFTA proponents refuse to add a simple provision on human rights?
I studied labor conditions in Mexico after NAFTA, and it is unacceptable.
Most common unacceptable scenario: a worker gets their hand cut off in a defective machine. Worker is fired for filing a complaint.
There are dozens of other scenarios, like that.
And just to clarify, I am personally opposed to current free trade agreements because of things like the low wages, inability to organize, and environmental exploitation. But I think those are areas where compromise may be had, and the market may even correct such things. So I might be stubbornly wrong in objected on those grounds. But I am right to object on simple arguments, such as the right to not get your hand cut off without recourse.
BJ, excellent point on the power of hybrids
Not sure if the post was triggered by this at all, but yesterday the Senate voted on an amendment to the energy bill aimed to: "improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40 percent by 2025."
The bill was rejected 47-53, pretty much along party lines. Meaning almost all Republicans rejected this proposal for reducing reduction. almost all dems voted for it. enough said
i meant to say "last week", not "yesterday"
Chuck, poor working conditions are not imaginary, and I never said they were. I said CAFTA would not create slaves out of these people because no one would be forced to work in a factory where machines cut off hands.
When american capital is invested in these countries, and in their labor, it is a blessing for their people, that's why capital is invested their; the people are lining up for the jobs.
Post a Comment
<< Home