Comment:visions: The future of biofuels
As part of my ongoing participation in Comment:visions, a European web site sponsored by Shell oil and two European news organizations to bring together opinions about a range of energy-related issues, I have offered my comment in response to the question “What role should biofuels play in our future energy mix?”
You can find my answer and read other opinions here:
http://www.commentvisions.com/month/march/2009/visions_from#7
Or, if you realize that mine is the only opinion you need, here’s the text of my comment:
Biofuels should have only a modest role in our energy mix over the next several years while research is done on how to create them in a way which can compete with fossil fuels in a free market, without the need for government subsidies.
Furthermore, biofuels made from food crops should be ended as an energy source. Here in America, people are slowly learning that corn ethanol is an inefficient energy source and is no better – and arguably worse – for the environment than gasoline. Furthermore, it results in massive transfers of wealth…
from taxpayers around the nation to a relatively small number of farmers, mostly large agribusiness corporations, in the form of subsidies.
There’s a reason that when George Bush mentioned expanding corn ethanol production in a State of the Union speech a few years ago, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley was shown on the TV, smiling like the cat that ate the canary.
Much of the push for biofuels is a result of environmentalists, anti-capitalists, and politicians and scientists seeking grants and contributions, working to convince people that human activity is leading to destructive climate change. It has become nearly a religion, and one that demands a tithe from every person in every developed economy in the world.
At some point, and perhaps it is the silver lining to this incredibly dark cloud surrounding these economic times, people will realize that the current rush into “alternative energy”, including biofuels, is counter-productive and irrational – unless your real motivations are to help you raise money from donors or governments, or to win a Nobel Prize with lies.
Eventually, biofuels will make sense, especially if cellulosic ethanol production can be made more efficient. But it’s time for our leaders to admit that they can’t save the world by burning our food.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 03/08/09 at 03:16:06 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
03/08/09 @ 04:47:09 pm
Ross,
regarding your biofuels discussion link, all I can say is I think we are doomed to a much poorer existence. There are a few exceptions, but from reading most of the comments I think one could conclude, to paraphrase from Dwight Eisenhower, that the eco-alt-energy-global-warming-alarmist-religion industrial complex is already way to powerful a vested interest to ever be dislodged and thus should be greatly feared. This (alternative energy movement) is no Jimmy Carter synfuel mini-billion dollar boondoggle. This thing is already huge and they haven't even got their hands on The One's new trillions or passed his industry killing carbon taxes yet.
If a person wants a future life like what used to be available in America, I think one needs to seriously consider doing a John Galt and head east - Singapore or China maybe - were people still believe in capitalism. China is now lecturing us on free trade and is busy signing oil leases around the world for their future low cost energy needs. Their recession will most likely be short. Ours is another matter. They must be sitting around the politburo at night toasting themselves and laughing at us for doing to ourselves what they could have only dreamed of doing to us in their wildest pre-capitalistic fantasies. I am too old to make the move, but I sadly told my soon to graduate from college daughter that the future is most likely not here. I said "go east young woman".
I very much appreciate your strenuous efforts to counter the vast onslaught of the eco-energy nuts with your logical and lucid arguments but I think you are wasting your time. Ethanol may fall on its overwhelming and obvious inappropriateness as a major energy source, but it appears most governments of the world are going full speed ahead with many other equally stupid and vastly more expensive and socialized alternatives, windmills, and you name it.
Below is a link to another guy (and another lonely voice) I much admire with intelligent views on this subject who seemed more than a bit discouraged last week. Seeing him this way doubly discourages me. It does not matter what anyone says, it seems very few are listening.
video: http://online.wsj.com/video/economics-czech-perspective/A206A167-10A3-4A45-949A-2D9659C3302E.html
text: http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=mbjBqLuA8THt
No doubt Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, Ludwig Mises and Adam Smith & Co. are all turning in their graves.