Posted on 12/02/2007 8:21:12 AM PST by Graybeard58
The biofuels boom is falling on hard times. And no wonder: For all the environmental and supply problems associated with fossil fuels, biodiesel and ethanol may be worse. And even Congress and the United Nations are taking note.
Congressional leaders are increasingly concerned about the future of agriculture in America's breadbasket, in part because water-intensive biofuels production is threatening to suck dry the Ogallala Aquifer. The huge groundwater reservoir's upper levels have dropped about 100 feet since the 1940s, probably because of agricultural practices in the Great Plains.
The House and Senate are at odds over using taxes on oil to subsidize ethanol production, and leaders disagree over ethanol mandates.
The likely result is an energy bill that falls far short of the biofuels goals being spouted daily by presidential candidates prowling the Corn Belt for early advantage in the nomination sweepstakes.
Meanwhile, biofuels skepticism emanated forcefully from an altogether unexpected source: a U.N. official. Jean Ziegler, who represents a U.N. agency studying food issues, said he is "gravely concerned that biofuels will bring sudden hunger in their wake." He called transforming food crops into fuel a "crime against humanity."
Moreover, it has been well documented that rain forests in Latin America and Indonesia have been hacked down, put to the torch and plowed under in favor of fuel-producing crops such as sugar cane and palm oil. The damage already done is incalculable, and worrisome from an environmental standpoint.
Skepticism by some in Congress and the United Nations is welcome and needed. The dubious assumption that "renewable" energy sources are more reliable, cost-effective and better for the environment has taken hold.
Yes, the time will come when civilization's survival will hinge on mankind's ability to produce large amounts of energy in a manner that does not deplete finite resources such as oil, coal and natural gas. But insisting on biofuels development at the expense of research into other alternatives increasingly looks like a faulty and potentially destructive strategy.
Basically, you believe that consumers should buy and maintain two cars per person. One for cross country travel and one for city commutes.
Wow.
Yes some people have two cars.
I have 3 and the wife has 1
If we could buy a nice electric for fairly cheep I would. I’m not sure if I could talk my wife out of the old Jag so we might have 5 cars!
Gas is killing me for some reason, any idea why?
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.