[i]The Ethanol Trap: The oil blowout will mean more subsidies for the corn-fuel industry. That’s bad news for consumers.[/i]
“Show me the money.”
What you say is true, but most if not all of the ethanol in US gas stations is corn-derived. If it weren’t for the 52 cent per gallon federal blend tax credit, Ethanol would be significantly more expensive than normal gas, and it gives you worse gas mileage. All while taking more energy (including fossil fuels) to produce than gas does.
Interesting article. While I too believe ethanol to be a scam, it’s hard to fault the industry for using the BP well disaster to their best advantage. They’d be derelict in their responsibility to their stockholders if they didn’t.
Th piece of the spill that everyone is ignoring is that the oil companys have been forced into deep water drilling by the environmental laws banning drilling everywhere else. Personally, I rather see drilling taking place in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), where if a well blows they can readily cap it.
Don’t misunderstand me, I think BP’s performance in all of this is abysmal. They should have to have relieve wells drilled before opening the main line, and clearly they haven’t developed the technology to prevent a disaster. But the treehuggers and their ban 30 years ago of drilling on land and their susbsequent successfull efforts to ban drilling everywhere else have to be recognized as a causal factor in the problem. Had they not done that, deepwater drilling would not be so commmon.
Isn’t blaming conservationists, would would ban offshore drilling all together, like blaming a rape victim for being raped? I can hear Bill O’Reilly now, “If she had lowered her standards in the first place, this never would have happened!”
I don’t think we can drill our way out of this problem. I think reduced consumption is the only answer, whether it be through alternative energy, conservation measures, or a combination of both.
You are perpetrating a great falsehood, that the oil companies only drill off-shore because they are not allowed to drill “everywhere else.” Oil companies decline to exploit their on-shore oil reserves because it will cost more. It’s that simple. They simply want to exhaust their off-shore reserves before they exploit their on-shore reserves because they fear we and our government might finally come to our senses about our addiction to oil and ban all off-shore drilling. You may not be doing it deliberately, but you are spreading the talking points used most by oil companies.
Even though George W. Bush finally admitted we were addicted to oil, I was disappointed to hear his answer to addiction is more product. The answer to a crack addiction isn’t “more crack please,” and the solution to our oil addiction isn’t “drill baby, drill.”
Here is another article you might like.
[i]To BP or Not To BP: Here?s why a spill-inspired boycott doesn?t make sense.[/i]
http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2010/06/07/bp-or-not-bp
Oil companies don’t drill for oil onshore (in those areas they’re allowed to drill) because they already have, there are more wells in the US than in the rest of the world combined. It’s not that it’s more expensive, it’s already been produced. The new areas are either in deep water, in deep wells near shore, or in shales (largely natural gas).
This was and is a terrible disaster, and one that should have been avoided. Basic procedures were ignored. It’s like a jetliner crash because of pilot error. Do we ban flying? No, we correct the error, penalizing the airline if necessary.
As for having relief wells pre-drilled, no can do. Now the relief well is the first well, so do you need a relief well for it? And it’s $100 million per well. That would likely shut down much deepwater drilling. The contemplated liability changes might do that anyway. Which is OK with me, the operator needs to accept the responsibility.
As for ethanol, I think it’s a scam because of the huge per-gallon subsidies (over $0.50/gallon). If we want to reduce our oil use, put $0.50 tax on gasoline, instead of creating a money-wasting industry with all the problems cited in the Slate article.