News-Record.com

"The United States needs to take the same path as Brazil by developing ethanol-based fuel and keeping the oil companies out of that market. This is the best way to prevent oil companies from rewarding record profits."

I disagree. Ethanol-based fuels, as usually framed, take food and swap it for fuel, depleating the land and adding water-poisoning fertilizer at the same time. It is short term thinking.

Now if we mine our mountains of garbage dumps for carbon based stuff (more than just the methane, although that's a good start), then I'll support it.

The easy sort term solution is Conservation, but Cheney has already declared that is for loosers. Of course Gale Norton was waiting for the Rapure to save both her and America. I guess she tired of waiting, and we'll have to see what Dirk Kempthorne does.

Uh-oh. Satan might want to check his thermometer. I think it's reading 32F. I'm with JDR on this one, at least until he starts the nastiness. I read a recent report that said if all the corn produced in the US was used for ethanol, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to our gas consumption - and we wouldn't have any corn-on-the-cob for roasting! (JDR, I'd much rather roast the corn than the politicians.)

I will take exception to the letter writer's assertion that no refineries have been built in the US for the past 20 years as a way for oil companies to control supply. No refineries have been built because the "environmentalists" have made the approval process so long and expensive, it is not cost effective to try and get one built. The writer's suggestion that oil companies be somehow disallowed from being involved in the produciton of any alternative fuel is very strange indeed. It'd be like starting a football league and making the first rule be that no one who has every played or coached football is eligible!

No refineries have been built because the "environmentalists" have made the approval process so long and expensive ... " and they have argued - sometimes irrationally and wrongly - because refineries are nasty factories that have a long history of not installing the expensive stuff needed to keep from mucking up the local environment. Ever been in one? I have. Heck just drive downwind, expecially if they're processing high sulfur crude.

"... it is not cost effective to try and get one built". There's some truth to that - it does cost more to install and maintain both the equipment and the standard job proceedures needed to assure we don't mucking up the local environment. It's just a choice - pay an extra 3 cents per gallon for long term clean air and water or don't. If you're Exxon, don't tell anyone this realiuty, and blame the People who won't pay the extra three cents. When push comes to shove, pay lobbyist to get an exemption.

It's freaking game, and deep pockets always win.

Nic - I don't think I get into too much nastiness - I do express anger, but try (hope?) to stay out of the gutter - If I go there, lemme know. I may not retract, but at least I'll know.

I'll leave the discussion about refineries to James and Nic, as I am not as knowledgeable. But I think the LTE makes excellent points about the excuses for prices rising at the pumps. We've been fed lines about Asian demand, Katrina, unrest at points of supply, environmental regulations (that have been coming for over ten years), etc. And all the while, the diminishing number of oil companies continue to set records for profit. Whenever anyone questions it in this forum, they are belittled as not understanding supply and demand or other economic theory. Yet I have never heard a satisfactory answer to my two main questions: 1) Why is what the oil companies are doing not considerd gouging? and 2) Why in h**l did our government give ten billion dollars to the oil companies in last year's "landmark" energy bill? And before Tom Delay left office, he was trying to find ways to give them more money! Can anyone explain that to me?

"Why in h**l did our government give ten billion dollars to the oil companies in last year's "landmark" energy bill?"

Be careful who you vote for .. a "Conservative Moral Fiscally Responsible" might be elected.

GOP administrations have given us some real jewels---James Watt, Gale Norton etc.
The current administration thinks "conservation" would hurt their base--big oil companies, so they do nothing to encourage cutting consumption. Until we get the wackos out of the congress and White House, we will never make meaningful progress. We can't stop global warming but we can dang sure slow its wrath for the next generation.
Do the Dems have any answers? Not that I've seen, but the path would be much better than the current one, as evidenced by the current situation we find ourselves in. We are more dependent upon foreign oil. We are in a quagmire in Iraq--disputed of course by Mr. Produce. And we have very few friends left in the world due to the callous treatment received from Bush/Cheney.

More of the same bull Ditto Dummy. "disputed by Mr Produce". You eveidently have only a selective memory ditto dummy. I have stated on more than one occassion that I felt this war was not being persued in the correct fashion due to an incompenent named Rumsfeld being at the helm and not listening to his generals on the ground. I stand by that statement.
Get your facts straight ditto or shut up.

Mr. Produce,

Must have been a short trip to Bristol,

judging from the time on your above

post......oh, that's right, you take a

trip and never leave the farm. (LOL)