Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Has Opportunity to Reverse Mistake on Offshore Drilling
Campaigning in Florida last June as a presidential candidate, then-Senator Barack Obama blasted the proposal of his opponent, Senator John McCain, to open coastal areas of the United States to offshore drilling. Declaring that it "makes no sense at all," Obama correctly stated that such drilling would make very little difference in the price of gasoline, and supported a reduction of fossil fuel use through a stimulus program that would create "green jobs."
But as gasoline prices soared past $4 a gallon and the Republicans campaigned on the issue of "drill here, drill now," the Democratic leadership softened its position. The end result was that a 27-year ban on drilling in coastal areas off the United States was allowed to expire.
President Obama now has an opportunity to reverse this mistake by re-instituting the prior protection of our coastal environment.
Offshore drilling has resulted in millions of gallons of oil spills and other forms of pollution. The expansion of offshore drilling is widely seen as a threat to the coastal environment, as well as tourism and fishing industries. It is also a misplaced priority, given the need for the development of renewable energy, increased energy efficiency, and other solutions that will slow the pace of global climate change.
The way in which the ban on offshore drilling was allowed to expire offers a remarkable case study in the techniques of modern political manipulation. Perhaps even more striking is the way in which the major media outlets enabled this mass deception to succeed, by shirking their fundamental responsibility to report the most relevant facts.
The McCain campaign took advantage of voters' anger over rising gasoline prices with attack ads directly blaming Obama. "Gas prices - $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America," blared one influential McCain TV ad.
McCain made offshore drilling a major issue in the campaign at the time. But there was no empirical basis for the idea that lifting the ban on offshore drilling would significantly affect gasoline prices. Projections from the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that such drilling would increase world production by about one-fifth of one percent - twenty years from now. The EIA concluded that this was too small to have any significant effect on oil prices.
But most Americans would never get this information. Of 267 major television programs that mentioned the proposed drilling between June 16 and August 9, 2008, only one cited the EIA finding.
As a result, the McCain effort succeeded in shaping public opinion. By the end of July, 69 percent of respondents favored such expanded drilling, and 51 percent said that they believed that "federal laws that prohibit increased drilling for oil offshore or in wilderness areas" were a "major cause of the recent increase in gasoline prices." The response of political candidates to the election-year pressure of misinformed public opinion then led to the change in policy.
But Barack Obama emerged as the winner, and he now has the bully pulpit as president and approval ratings over 80 percent. Gasoline prices are back down to $2.07 a gallon. It shouldn't be too difficult for him, together with the Democratic Congressional leadership, to simply explain the truth of the matter and re-institute the ban on offshore drilling.
If President Obama is to deliver on his promise of change, he will have to correct a number of major mistakes that were based on the mass dissemination of lies - including most obviously the Iraq war. Restoring the protection of our coastal areas is an easy one. He should do it immediately.
- Posted in
47 Comments so far
Show AllIf I'm Obama, I let this lay. No oil company in their right mind is about to drill off either coast, not now and not in the foreseeable future. Too many other areas to look at where they are presently operating in the Gulf of Mexico.
Besides, the resources (financial and material) for additional exploration/drilling off the two coasts are unavailable and will be for a long, long time.
Exactly. I tried to spread awareness of a NYT article last year about the unavailability of offshore drilling ships for at least five years...obviously Republicans never got the message.
Yes, but they will apply for all necessary permits for the regions and whatever else they have to do under the regulatory framework to have "rights" to that oil, and then it will be a lot harder to stop them 20 years from now.
You know, when we have Prez Jeb.
The horror... the horror...
"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow"
Following is a video with Judge Andrew Napolitano, the subjects of the video, The Patriot Act and the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 2004 are things that need to be taken as seriously as anything else by the President. He needs to restore the Constitution.
http://reason.tv/video/show/178.html
I recommend listening to the whole video, these are things which need to be redressed, immediately. If you want to hear the great kicker to the Patriot Act that Bush gave us on the day Saddam was captured, listen from minute 28.
The President has a lot of things he needs to do, but this is one of the most pressing.
While restoring our civil liberties IS important this topic is about off shore oil drilling, please stay on topic, and don't just randomly spam all threads, THANKS!
Thanks.
zmann: The Republicans pushing offshore drilling was pure a pure partisan dog and pony show. At the time, the Democrats were getting all of the attention with the new record breaking profits for that quarter made by ExxonMobile. They wanted something to use against the Democrats. McCain flip flopped at that time and endorsed offshore drilling and immediately got millions of dollars donated to his campaign by oil executives.
I an article at that time that laid out the facts. It would be at least a decade before we saw new offshore oil at the pumps, it would address a small percentage of our total need for oil, it might bring prices down a few cents, the supply would run out within a few years, and a substantial amount of the oil would not be the easy to refine crude everyone wants due to the profits.
As for California and Florida, multi billion dollar tourist industries would be put at risk. McCain lost in both California and Florida, as there is no local support for drilling. California sits on the edge of land plates colliding and has numerous earthquake faults. Florida is prone to hurricanes.
And what if we took this Republican fixation on benefitting one of their biggest campaign money donors, Big Oil, and turn our attention to a very promising new direction in biofuel, ALGAE. There are DAILY harvests of biofuel with algae in contrast to yearly or bi yearly harvests of all other sources.
Algae does not require crop land and therefore will not increase the price of food, such as corn ethanol does. There is a pilot program in Arizona where they have algae greenhouses attached to traditional power plants. The pump their carbon dioxide rich emissions into the greenhouses and the algae feeds on it (photosynthesis) resulting in oxygen as a waste product. There could be algae farm floating barges on the ocean. And if algae bloom is what you want, why not skim it out of the Mississippi River just before it reaches the Gulf of Mexico. You would be resolving a huge problem, the fertilizer run off from crop fields stimulating massive algae growth, the algae dying off when it hits salt water and creating a dead zone where no sea life survives the size of the state of Massachusetts.
PatriotisVeritas: The Patriot Act is off topic here, but I wholeheartedly agree. There are a number of issues left by Bush that require correction. His violating the constitution with warrantless wiretaps should be high on the agenda as well as addressing the fact that Bush has had one of the very worst track records on the environment.
Sorry for going off the topic of this piece, I agree with you wholeheartedly as well. If the algae for biofuel works, then stimulating that sector would deem it non viable to start drilling offshore at all. That is a great idea about piping in the CO2 into greenhouses to grow the algae, though if you think about it, you would still be releasing the CO2 from the underground coal into the air when you burn the biofuel, just recycling it once and then releasing it into the atmosphere when using it for fuel. This CO2 problem is something I have put a lot of thought into and yes, one would expect vegetation to grow at much faster rates with a rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder if this is being observed.
"As for California and Florida, multi billion dollar tourist industries would be put at risk."
What about their responsibility to contribute to our overall energy needs? Are you suggesting that they. like Senator Kennedy shouldn't have to be inconvienced with wind turbines or rigs? NIMBY isn't a good policy.
I see no need at the moment for drilling offshore, but the oil there will last far longer than a "few years" and undoutedly the Chinese will be drilling off the Florida coast in Cuban waters.
Biofuels are not cost effective as far as can be determined.
But I also know that moving from an oil based economy to a sustainable energy one is decades away and more than a few with our present technology.
(it will take more than a decade to restore and repair the damage done under Bush)
Biofuels such as corn such. However, why not try switchgrass? That's a decent biofuel.
"I see no need at the moment for drilling offshore, but the oil there will last far longer than a "few years" and undoutedly the Chinese will be drilling off the Florida coast in Cuban waters."
That's assuming that what you're getting is light sweet crude oil and not sour heavy type. If the Chinese drill, well it's our fault that we gave them our consent on that bloody China PNTR agreement. How about we cancel that trade pact and cut down their demand before they can even think about drilling in our own back yard which they have no chance of doing anyway since they'll get easier access to the oil reserves in Iran, Russia, and even Iraq anyway?
"But I also know that moving from an oil based economy to a sustainable energy one is decades away and more than a few with our present technology."
How can you say that? The only reason that claim is floating is government is subsidizing fossil fuels as WASTEFUL PORK rather than giving those green alternatives much to begin with. Lower the fossil fuel subsidies to the level of the green ones and please tell me that we'll still be decades away from sustainable energy and prove it.
"it will take more than a decade to restore and repair the damage done under Bush"
As long as we're stuck with status quo pols, yeah. We could just have President Palin in 2012 (even though I'd much prefer Nader or Mckinney but have no hope that we'll get such folks into office) and she'll listen to the American people as a woman and she'll bulldoze everything away. Now there's a huge break from the status quo.
Dennis Duncan
"Biofuels such as corn such. However, why not try switchgrass? That's a decent biofuel."
As far as I can tell, the end result of using biofuels when all factors are consdidered, the extra were and tear on engines, the lessening of fuel economy and the water and power to conveert them, they are not economically feasible and do not lessen emissions.
"How about we cancel that trade pact and cut down their demand before they can even think about drilling in our own back yard which they have no chance of doing anyway since they'll get easier access to the oil reserves in Iran, Russia, and even Iraq anyway?"
Works for me, but China has made a deal with Cuba to drill in her costal waters which overlap ours. For the moment you are correct, but who knows what the future brings.
"Lower the fossil fuel subsidies to the level of the green ones and please tell me that we'll still be decades away from sustainable energy and prove it."
Happily. I don't see any reason at all to subsidize big oil. I'd say how can you prove your claim? Green? Water, biofuels, wind, geothermal? Solar?
Most green technologies are not cost effective and if they are not, they cannot replace what is. We have been building wind farms as fast as we can, lead the country by miles in wind produced enegy and it still provides only 5% of our energy needs.
("We could just have President Palin in 2012"...bite your tongue! She won't be anything by 2012)
Electric cars are the rage, but they aren't that green. Its front hype. The electricity they use doesn't spring from the trees, those batteries must be disposed of, the energy and materials to build these cars is not impact neutral and their cost is prohibitive.
I suggest that you look at Californias budget to see the result of "good intentions" with no thought to paying for them or if they are effective or perhaps have a negative impact.
I'm suggesting that we do everything we can in every way to get off an oil based economy and it seems obvious that means more oil and coal use, not less. A breakthrough in technology could make my decades opinion obosolete though.
Just remember, enviornmental laws are a luxury only rich countries can afford, developing countries and poor countries cannot afford those luxuries, so its hard to get them to sign on to help.
California? Yuck, the cost of living would put me homeless in a flash with the income I'm making!
As for environmental laws, I don't understand one thing. Why is it that up until the mid 20th century, there were fewer environmental laws and yet no environmental damage? Are there not a lot of good old ways and things that can be adopted such as switching back from milk based on corn-fed cows to milk based on cows who freely roam the pastures and never had to be forced grains down their throats? In my state, people show their anger on environmental laws as the reason unemployment keeps going up. I don't fully agree with that argument since some environmental protection is needed to slow down the rising healthcare costs and in turn keep some jobs from being washed aside.
On the note about Palin, if Obama keeps doing status quo, won't it be too easy for Palin to get it in 2012? Don't get me wrong. I don't support her nasty policies but if things don't get better, it could get depressing and then I and who knows how many more would be easily seduced into having a woman like her who'll keep guys like me hooked on to seeing her because there's nothing to gain from these same old pro status quo pols. Maybe I'm losing my mind by getting too pessimistic. Unfortunately, even last year, she was known as the "hottie queen" in my miserable state and most notably so among the white men while detested by most blacks and even some white women.
"Why is it that up until the mid 20th century, there were fewer environmental laws and yet no environmental damage?"
That is just plain not true, before environmental regulations you had disasters like the Cuyahoga river catching on fire,
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642
unregulated pesticides reducing bird populations, soot from unfiltered diesel trucks and coal plants causing lung disease, etc. Regulation has caused these factors to get better, but now we are faced we other problems like C02, and deforestation causing an entirely different set of problems that must be addressed soon.
As an anarchist sympathizer I do understand where you are coming from being wary of government bureaucracy, but we have to do something about these new problems, just letting industries self regulate doesn't work, Love Canal ring a bell?
That's sad and yet here you have Sherrod Brown, a guy who campaigned as a progressive populist, known also known as a big coal puppet. Why does Ohio continue to send such pols to Washington despite all the devastation? How do they balance between jobs and the environment?
And Illinois is the biggest coal state so I have every reason to mistrust Obama on this issue.
Hoot
"but we have to do something about these new problems, just letting industries self regulate doesn't work"
Boy, thats the living truth!
The real problem is that we really can't do much about the real problems till some of it is scientifically proven. Its like that last report that came out that everyone was quoting an it turned out the whole thing was based on a computer model.
Dennis Duncan
"In my state, people show their anger on environmental laws as the reason unemployment keeps going up."
That can be a problem I know. And its caused from an overeager enviornmental lobby pushing to hard.
"won't it be too easy for Palin to get it in 2012"
I doubt Palin could be elected dog catcher nationally. The media assault on her saved her from looking like a fool. It was a mistake by progressives. She doesn't
appeal to that many conservatives is my guess and she isn't very well educated. She does have a nice tush, but that won't get you elected.
I've heard that algae can grow in all sorts of environments, even in toxic ones, and yet yield the chemical equivalent of light sweet crude oil. We wouldn't have to drill or go to war for oil I heard. Unfortunately, we would need to decentralize the operation and spread the operation out to various places, an idea that government hates since they're for centralization. If government would quit subsidizing fossil fuels and contribute to constructive ideas such as algae for oil which I find interesting, we wouldn't be held economically hostage. Unfortunately, there are too many naysayer idiots on this forum who are no different from the Repugs.
"There is a pilot program in Arizona where they have algae greenhouses attached to traditional power plants. The pump their carbon dioxide rich emissions into the greenhouses and the algae feeds on it (photosynthesis) resulting in oxygen as a waste product."
I've heard of this, but of course the big problem with it would mean keeping traditional power plants...and while the CO2 emitted by them might be absorbed by the algae and turned into biofuel, the destructive coal, gas, and oil mining would not change
"There could be algae farm floating barges on the ocean."
There was an idea to seed the oceans with iron oxide powder I believe, to create gigantic plankton blooms which could then be harvested. As far as I am aware the trial never happened.
"There could be algae farm floating barges on the ocean. And if algae bloom is what you want, why not skim it out of the Mississippi River just before it reaches the Gulf of Mexico."
Damn, that is a good idea. At the very least it could provide biofuel locally, I have no idea how much biofuel you can extract this way. Did you think of this yourself?
I've noticed that even on this forum, every time someone puts forth better ideas such as better biofuels such as switchgrass, hemp, or even algae and cutting down on big government fossil fuel subsidies and directing them towards improvements in solar and wind, they get trashed at. Anyone who dares tell me that only crude oil is the best source and the only source and that somehow nothing can substitute all that dangerous oil drilling had better prove to me that they're not a big oil hack and better offer real hard proof and evidence because frankly, I am sick and tired of being told that without oil, it's all doom and gloom.
Let me say to you that it is not all gloom and doom, but you can't change an economy overnight.
Biofuels have a downside, simple as that.
And of course we can transform our energy use away from oil, but it simoply isn't as easy as its been promoted nor are the short time frames claimed anything but hyperbole.
I dunno much about oil drilling but it looks to complicated and dangerous to me while growing biofuels doesn't look so bad. That said, it just doesn't make sense that getting one source of fuel the dangerous way should somehow be cheaper than getting it the safe way. Isn't getting something the dangerous and riskier way supposed to cost more than getting it safe and easy?
The problem I see with biofuels in the long term is they still involve C02 output and the current biofuels like soy and corn compete for food. Algae, hemp, and switchgrass are better in that regard, and perhaps good as interim fuels, but in the long term I think we are better off with more efficient all electric vehicles charged from individual houses so we aren't so dependent on an electricity grid. That is my opinion, it is by no means fixed, and I'm open to new ideas on the subject.
I like the idea of fuel efficiency and conservation myself. I hear that one of the NASCAR drivers, forgot his name, is trying out ways to tune up his car to make it as fuel efficient as possible and if successful he plans to promote it to the auto giants. I wouldn't want to miss watching race car driving just because the oil's all out. I hope that NASCAR is successful in getting their cars more fuel efficient and yet not have to sacrifice too much so that those of us who are into race-car driving as a spectator's sport can keep our entertainment up.
By the way, how come the Arab world never does race car driving despite all that oil they got?
I just realized a lot of you are talking about biofuels. I really doubt biofuels are a solution to an addiction on oil. Why rely on 100+ year old internal combustion engines? Don't they waste 90% of the energy they get from gasoline? A switch to all-electric cars would be far better...it may not work for huge vehicles like cargo trucks or buses, but hey, I'm sure we can produce enough biofuel/biodiesel just for that part of the transportation sector.
But then the question is how do you produce all that electricity? And the emissions from electric cars and the electric producers?
I don't know all I need to know about this myself, hopefully some of the brighter folks here do.
That's why we need national-scale clean and renewable energy infrastructure built, ASAP. It's been said that there is enough energy to meet all our current needs right now, separately, by wind in the Dakotas, sun in the Southwest deserts, geothermal around Yellowstone...now, if we do *all* of that, plus offshore wind where it is most effective, river and coastal tidal power generation, rooftop solar units, renovate buildings to make them energy efficient, cut way down on energy waste, etc, we'd have far more than enough clean electricity to power hundreds of millions of electric vehicles in the US...plus close down all coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power plants for good.
Once again, you are talking decades before its done. We've been working on a power grid to get wind generated power from West Teaxs to the DFW area for years. ASnd once again, all the wind generated power we have...and we have far more than anyone...only provides 5% of our energy needs.
As Napoleon reportedly said, after telling his generals that he wanted to plant trees along his roads to shade his troops as they marched and was told that would be at least 10 years before they reached that stage: Exactly. So we must get started right now! (or close enough)
It might not take as long as you think. It took about a century for our fossil fuel infrastructure to reach this stage...first, gas-powered cars, then paved city streets, then roads connecting cities, then interstate highways, then gas stations and motels at rest stops along those highways, then a gas station on nearly every street corner, etc...but to do this we can make use of much of the infrastructure already build for fossil fuels. You can put solar panels on the sides of lonely stretches of highway, turn gas stations into battery changing stations, etc. The only limit to accomplishing these things relatively quickly is political will.
"The only limit to accomplishing these things relatively quickly is political will."
You mean Big Government pimping for Big Oil.
Great quote on Napolean!
It's not the getting started I talk about, its the absurd expectation that this will be accomplished next year or in 5 years. I doubt it will be accomplished before 2040.
Salazar came out today and claimed more off-shore drilling areas will be opened.
So much for change.
But I could be wrong !
Unless you can convince me that these alternative sources of energy will appease those guzzlers out there, I'm not holding out any hope. Until we can cut down the fuel inefficiencies so that demand can actually go down harmlessly, biofuels will be rendered worthless and petro will still have its way until we run out really bad.
"Unless you can convince me that these alternative sources of energy will appease those guzzlers out there, I'm not holding out any hope. Until we can cut down the fuel inefficiencies so that demand can actually go down harmlessly,"
Don't confuse efficiency with frugality. Given a more efficient car, one might decide to drive it more. It would be frugality that would lead to lower demand, not efficiency.
Most people have pretty set routes in their lives as a whole Jake Newton, you know go to work, pick up the kids at school, groceries, maybe a vacation on the summer. If they do all that in a Corolla that gets an average of 30 mpg as opposed to to an SUV that gets 18 that is 40 percent less gas used. If you switch that to a Prius that gets 50 mpg average then you wind up with a 74% savings in gas consumption, not trivial if everyone did the same. Yes of course we should drive less, but to just sluff off the advantages of smaller cars as we work towards a post fossil fuel economy is disingenuous at best.
"Most people have pretty set routes in their lives as a whole "
I disagree. I think people are not so "set" as you think and instead are very flexible and would in fact tend to drive more if it cost them less, whether from lower fuel prices or from more efficient cars.
If the goal is to use less fuel than it should be taxed or rationed. That of course would hurt the poor more.
Not necessarily. Some of the poor, such as myself, can't afford a car anyway, and take the bus :-)
People for the most part only drive to and from work and it's not bound to change although their routes will change with their employment. The problem is not using it so many times. The problem is the inefficiency which needs to be corrected. I am sick and tired of Big Auto screwing the public with gas guzzlers and then inventing "personal responsibility" baloney to cover up for their crummy manufacturing.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Dude,
Just because you don't set your route doesn't mean most others don't. And unless you live near a metro station, public transportation is pretty much off limits and busing is generally crapshoot at best.
"Just because you don't set your route doesn't mean most others don't."
Just because you do set your route doesn't mean most others do. See how that works? We answer the question perhaps by commisioning studies of driving habits of the population as a whole with gas guzzlers vs. efficient cars, high gas prices vs. low, etc. Do you know of any?
The point is that you can be mislead by focusing to much on efficiency. There is a tendency to change in the face of the new circumstances. Look at efficiencies of computers just as an example. Many more bytes available on a hard disk yet people still fill them up.
Don't ignore human nature when you try to mandate changes top down. We'll have efficient cars without such measures simply as a result of high fuel prices extended periods.
"We answer the question perhaps by commisioning studies of driving habits of the population as a whole with gas guzzlers vs. efficient cars, high gas prices vs. low, etc."
FYI, commission studies are often fudged thanks to Big Oil keeping them that way.
"The point is that you can be mislead by focusing to much on efficiency."
The point is that you can be mislead by focusing to much on accusing others of not having enough of that mythical "personal responsibility" all in the name of defending fuel inefficiency. I for one am taking all factors into consideration but I don't see you doing the same. What are you, a spokesman for the failing auto industries?
"Look at efficiencies of computers just as an example. Many more bytes available on a hard disk yet people still fill them up."
Having worked in programming, I can tell you that often times, programs that are truly efficient and take up less space and even crash less are often forced off the market or the owner ends up getting bought out by Micro$oft. And speaking of M$, like Big Auto, they leave in the worst of the inefficiencies and strip down to try and sell their big fat bloat. I'd have no problem keeping Windows 98 if those software manufacturers taking bribes from M$ grew a spine and stuck to true quality. Like autos, you all thought that because bigger was better, putting in more bloat and fluff and puff was somehow a great idea. If it weren't for Windows VISTA, 40GB hard drives wouldn't be rendered too small. Sure, there's growth but stuffing it with bloatware is nothing but dishonest bullshit and the same goes with autos. Just lie to some soccer mom and delude her into believing that her kid will be safer in an SUV than a regular size but fuel efficient auto and force the demand to go up.
"Don't ignore human nature when you try to mandate changes top down."
Speak for yourself. You're the one making overgeneralizations about how everyone drives. Unless you work from home and most people don't despite improvements in networking to accomodate distance meetings, you don't understand what others go through. Besides, if you had actually studied the history of fuel efficiency, you would have found out that since the 1980s, nothing much has been improved on fuel efficiency or for that matter keeping public transportation up to date so that you wouldn't go out there accusing others of "driving too much".
"Don't ignore human nature when you try to mandate changes top down."
I would like to add here that mandates are usually worthless. People find ways around them or if they are unpopular enough, they are soon changed.
Another thing....there is a vast difference in driving depending on where you are and what you are doing. Try driving a Prius down a country road every day. West Texas is a bit larger that Philadelphia and requires more driving time.
Public transportation is only viable in Urban and some suburban settings. Doesn't work well in rural areas.
"FYI,"
You are going to *inform* me of something.
"commission studies are often fudged thanks to Big Oil keeping them that way."
Please provide your *very best* information regarding a study that you can say was fudged by Big Oil.
We aren't even talking about any particular study, rather a hypothetical one, which could theoretically be commisioned by anyone *you* would be happy with.
"The point is that you can be mislead by focusing to much on accusing others of not having enough of that mythical "personal responsibility" all in the name of defending fuel inefficiency."
Way to beat up that Straw Man! That was pure brutality. Now anyone here reading knows I never said anything like the above. I'll repeat the main point for you: Efficiency, whether mandated or not, is not frugality. Got that? Now if you can somehow make an argument against this point tham please do but stop beating up straw men and pay attention to what your opponent is actually saying instead.
"You're the one making overgeneralizations about how everyone drives."
Again, you should read more carefully and respond to what's actually there. I never even suggested anything like the above. I think perhaps you are "projecting" what you think I mean based on an unfair assessment of who you think I am. You should avoid doing that and just read the words you see. I could be wrong though.
"Besides, if you had actually studied the history of fuel efficiency,"
Very much besides. My case is around frugality, not efficiency. And you will look in vain for anything I have said against the idea of efficiency, I have always had a reasonably efficient car myself. Efficiency doesn't magically fix everything around gasoline use. You have to look at the human element.
Duplicate.
Don't worry - Big agriculture and the food biofuels will win as will offshore drilling off the West Coast.
But I could be wrong !
Hemp is a great biofuel which can also reduce global warming. Obama has shown some signs of his willingness to remove the ban on hemp. It is time to stop being stupid and stand up to big government intrusions. Big government is the biggest polluter for subsidizing Big Oil lopsidedly as well as outlawing a harmless plant that could provide us the fuel needed to save our country and the planet. Without hemp, we will never ever reduce our god-forsaken dependence on foreign oil and we will continue to keep turning more land into sludge buildups.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Suppose the ban on hemp is lifted...where would it be cultivated? Would even more wilderness be converted to farmland? And this would have to be a fricking huge amount of farmland, to grow enough hemp to provide an alternative to petroleum...
zmann,
A simple google search would put those silly fears to rest. It doesn't take a lot of farmland to grow enough of it and like algae it can be grown anywhere. Too bad big government doesn't believe in decentralization. And even if hemp needed some more land than expected to grow, the only reason would be due to a combination of fuel inefficiency and lack of public transportation responsible for the way too high demand. More farmland is already being used for corn and wilderness is already being destroyed for snorting out the last of oil. At this point growing hemp and algae for oil makes perfect sense. Otherwise, we can keep the bloodshed in the Middle East going and put up with more sobbing stories.