were not living like we should

theres a lot of hubub about the price of oil and gas lately. no one should be surprised. but in looking for a solution, ive heard everything from absurd pandering to actual plans. the one thing that should be evident here is that we need to reduce our dependance on oil. not just foreign oil, but oil in general. its harming the economy and the environment.

there is a myth that there lies a wealth of US owned oil in US coastal areas that envirnomentalits have padlocked. thing is, most of the domestic oil is open to drilling. in Aleska, the Gulf of Mexico, and beneath the Rockies. and many of these places have existing leases that oil companies are not even using. they are attempting to grab as many leases and permits as possible before the oild friendly bush admin leaves office.

the reality is that even if we opened up the small amounts of oil reserves on the coasts and began developing them, they wouldnt impact the market for 20 years. and its wholly unrealistic to think that the US, with 3% of the worlds oil, can increase production to a point where it has any significant effect on global prices. the reality is that we control a minority interest in a asset that we consume 50% of. the way to change for the better is to lessen our dependence on oil through research in to biofuels, fuel cells, plug in cars, hybrids and other technology we havent even thought of.

McCain's backing of absurd plans to have a gas tax holiday, open up coastal drilling, and open 30 nes nuclear reactors shows that hes interested in now, and not protecting our future. more and more it seems like he will do anything to get in the whitehouse. whether its good policy or an obvious blunder, whatever garners a vote, and really, dont we, and future Americans deserve better. it becomes more and more clear to me that McCain realizes that he wont be around much longer and wont have to suffer tha consiquences of his own actions. just about every day the idea of President McCain makes me ever more sick.

Obama is not perfect, but he realizes that our problems cant be solved by quick fixes. at some point you have to face the music. we cant keep passing the buck. we need a president, a government, who will tackle these tough issues. someone to look at the reality and the options and make the tough decision to do the right thing, not the patch.

a stitch in time saves nine. had we come up with a viable energy policy after the 70's crisis, the current fossil fuel pinch would be much less acute. maybe we can learn this time around that a quick fix isnt the right way to go. maybe we can elect a government that will help America become the great country it once was. it wont happen over night. i cant happen overnight. it will take time, but it can happen if we all open our eyes and make the right choices.

NYTimes

the ethanol scam

ethanol is hurting America and the world. government subsidies and mandates are propping up ethanol production. this production is extremely inefficient and takes food from the global marketplace driving up prices.

the idea of using domestically produced sources of readily renewable resources to fuel up our cars sounds great. except when you look at the reality of the situation. ethanol uses up a quarter of our corn production. that only has resulted in a drop of 1% of oil imports.

that one quarter also represents another competitor for food. with food riots in Haiti and Egypt, should we be diverting a food source into a fuel source? lower income families here at home are feeling the squeeze as food prices rise and the value of the dollar falls. domestically and internationally this food to fuel policy is hurting people.

ethanol production in its current state is highly inefficient. depending on which source you beleive, US ethanol has a rate of return of 1.1 to 1.8. (some sources) in Brazil, where ethanol production was govt mandated in the 70's they use sugar cane to produce ethanol at a rate of 8 to 1. that is, it takes 1 Btu to produce 8 Btus worth of ethanol. in comparison the corn exchange rate sucks. its financially inviable, which is why it is propped up by govt subsidies. that doesnt even take into account the byproducts of production that must be disposed of in way or another.

ethanol is a nice idea. it is worth researching. the current mode of production is inneficient and takes crops out of food production where there is ever growing demand. we need to look into new technology in all forms from cellulostic ethanol to using bacteria to make the process more efficient. we should not prop up the current wasteful process with subsidies, we should fund research to find new processes and sources.

of current technology, biodiesel is way better. you can go to just about any restaurant and get used cooking oil for FREE. some modified engines can use this oil without modification, but you can run it in any diesel through a simple process you can do at home. this removes a waste product, doesnt take food from the market, doesnt require imports from often hostile nations, is more efficient in already more efficient diesel engines, is at least twice as energy efficient as corn based ethanol, and reduces harmful emissions that traditional diesels produce, and your exhaust will smell like french fries! (or freedom fries, if you like.)

at any rate, we still have a long way to go. the current gamble on corn ethanol is not paying off, in fact its harmful. lets cut the funding from ethanol production and put it into further biofuels research. Brown and Lewis agree.

crude behavior

for my generation, many folks' first recollection of an oil company or environmental tragedy, which are all over the news these days, was the wreck of the Exxon-Valdez. back in '89 the tanker ran aground in Alaska and dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into a relatively pristine area of the pacific shore line. back in the day 'A jury initially awarded $287 million to compensate for economic losses and $5 billion in punitive damages.' of which Exxon paid the compensatory damages, but has been fighting, ever since the initial ruling, the the punitive damages.

punitive damages a put in place in incidents of all sorts of a rather negligent or heinous nature and to act as a deterrent for similar deeds in the future. well Exxon has fought those damages all the way to the supreme court where the case arrived today.

Exxon argues that long-standing maritime law and the 1970s-era Clean Water Act should bar any punitive damages, which are intended both to punish behavior and deter a repeat. The company says it should not be held accountable for Hazelwood's reckless conduct.

The plaintiffs say the judgment, representing three weeks of Exxon's 2006 profit, is rational and proportionate. It takes account of Exxon's decision to allow Hazelwood to command the ship, despite knowing he had an ongoing drinking problem, the plaintiffs contend.

to me it is clear that Exxon should have paid this fine before i reached my 10th birthday. they fucked up. they fucked up royally. they should be punished, and in my opinion, the fine isnt enough. i sincerely hope that with Alito abstaining from the case because he owns stock in Exxon, that the court will at least slap an oil company's hand. maybe just once??? please.

thanks to the Detroit News for this one.