WoooOoOO!!
eet meens how many beers two how many Quails averagd by da number of Lawyers Shot!!
Fool Effeicient.
KablaMMMm!

Kevin,

You're becoming pathetic.

"Now let's see if anyone bothers talking about it."

Interesting idea, it might actually be able to fly. I often find myself perplexed/frustrated that the political arena is so polarized that moderate solutions get excoriated from both sides. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Obama catches flak from both the environmentalists for not reaching far enough) and from the auto makers since any encroachment on there industry is construted as "regulation" that will adversely affect their ability to compete on the world market.

S Brennan, I don't understand your comment suggesting Kevin is becoming pathetic. I think his comment had a bit of a defeated tone, but frankly many of us have felt a bit defeated for the last 5 years or so. Is is your habit to kick a guy when he's down?

I'm not impressed. 40 mpg is not particularly remarkable fuel economy today. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute established the potential of the hypercar — ultra-streamlined, ultra-strong cars made of ceramic materials, with an on-board electric generator and flywheel breaking — which could get several times the fuel economy of today's Prius. The problem is to break free of (literally) iron-age thinking and redesign the car from the wheels up.

There is no need to wait until 2023 to require lower fuel economy than what is already available, let alone what could be available with some investment in the technology.

S Brennan: I'm not sure what you're upset about this time, but then, I rarely am. You seem to get upset about nearly everything I write.

In any case, my closing sentence was exactly what it sounded like: I'm wondering if a wonky proposal like Obama's will actually spark any interest in the blogosphere and elsewhere. I hope it does, which is why I highlighted it. My hopes are not high, however.

Now let's see if anyone bothers talking about it.

Well, you're doing your part Kevin, and I respect that. Thanks for putting this in the spotlight. Though I'm more in the school of David Orr and Lester Brown on these issues, in terms of ecological design and economics, we obviously need to start making some real world progress on this issue, if only to get some momentum and critical mass.

Bravo to Obama for stepping out on this.

Also, your reminder about the tradeable credits is an excellent one, as obviously we need to start making some progress, which 40mpg would be, and then if we had tradeable credits too, there would be great incentive to go way beyond 40mpg. In this case, it would do a lot of good, synergistically, to move the baseline from 23mpg to 40mpg, even though it seems small.

Amory Lovins is the man, too, for the record.

I see. Let's do nothing and call it something, so maybe later we can do something. This is becoming Obama's trademark.

And it's a damn sight more than President Bush has put on the table, that's for sure.

I don't know Kevin. Bush's plan has some pretty good proposals.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/index.html

Now granted due to fundamental structural problems inherent in the Republican party, any good idea is certain to be filtered through the corporate lobby industry, but I'm not sure you should dismiss the initial proposal.

The average GM retiree isn't in the bottom 20% of American poor any more. So why does he get $670 million per annum, 10% of 6.7 billion other than the need for union votes?

The bio-fuels bit is sexy. Especially if they don't restrict it to domestic production (which violates WTO). Why not just do the bio-fuels bit by law anyway...?

I'm a liberal democrat, and that's the kind of overcomplicated dumb liberal democratic program I hate. How about this:

Raise the f***ing gas tax.

Really, raise the price and people will consume less gas. Substitutes become relatively cheaper. Let the market figure out if E85 is a good idea or not. Credits for gas stations?! Health care for two car companies? This is just ridiculous. Looks like Obama is trying to win the Iowa caucus.

Obama's idea is interesting. Trading Federal support for better fuel standards is not a bad idea, especially if signing up is voluntary.

Ethanol is not quite energy-effective yet, but they're working on it. Cellulosic fuel is even further off, but that would be a major breakthrough, since plant material that is not usable as food, or grows in marginal soil, could be used.

Remember, CO2 from burning plant-derived fuels is part of the short-term cycle, unlike CO2 from fossil fuels.

Mandating flex-fuel modificiations to cars (about $800 last time I looked) might encourage more work on the fuel production end. I'm not happy about such mandates, but given the huge number of mandated "improvements" to cars, like air bags, I'd say that horse left the barn a long time ago.

The "hypercar" is interesting, if it can be made so someone besides millionaires can buy one. Hydrogen fuel is clean, but still requires another source of energy to create it. The good news about hydrogen fuel for the long term is that it is one vehicle fuel that can be manufactured by nuclear, solar, wind, or other forms of electrical generation.

The average GM retiree isn't in the bottom 20% of American poor any more. So why does he get $670 million per annum, 10% of 6.7 billion other than the need for union votes?

The 670 million gets paid to the car companies. In effect, "we'll pay you 670 million a year if you adopt this program". In effect, it's like a tax credit.

Why not just do the bio-fuels bit by law anyway...?

I suspect the car companies (and their lobbyists) would fight it. Thus the 670 million a year payoff.

Raise the f***ing gas tax.

Progressives don't like this because:
1. It's regressive in that it directly affects poor people more (as a percentage of income) than rich people.
2. It's regressive because it will cause an increase in the price of almost everything, which also affects poor people more than rich people.

Kara:

It's amazing how many people who claim to care about the minimum wage workers, the poor, and people who can't afford new, high-tech cars, have no problems at all making gasoline unaffordable for them as long as the government gets the cash.

If there's one tax that's as regressive as payroll taxes, it's the gas tax.

Thus the 670 million a year payoff.

Posted by: rkimball on March 2, 2006 at 2:43 AM | PERMALINK

Why not pay off all car companies including non-union ones?

By the way, Malaysia doesn't do much but they have some great palm-oil based bio-diesel.

http://www.happynews.com/news/11162005/report-malaysia-to-switch-to-bio-diesel.htm

one tax that's as regressive as payroll taxes, it's the gas tax.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 2, 2006 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

Yah, well since everyone has only one body, the benefits of environmentalism are pretty dispersed too.

But you prove my point. American Liberal whiners all stop when it comes to their pockets.

Even if by any statistic (average income, property price) they ain't average, they still think the 'rich' doesn't mean them.

Them inner city blacks are living in houses worth US$100,000 or less.... you are all 'rich' relative to them.

Why not pay off all car companies including non-union ones?

It's more politically palatable to give tax breaks to U.S. companies, not to foreign automakers (who don't have as much clout). And the big three U.S. companies are all unionized.

And the big three U.S. companies are all unionized.

Posted by: rkimball on March 2, 2006 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

Why is this not considered 'corporate welfare'?

If all Americans know the goverment largess process is in proportion to political clout
it loses legetimacy, explaining the resistance to higher taxes?

Affirmitive action looked like racism to me when I realised that Vietnamese refugees who don't speak English were not 'disadvantaged'.

Yah, well since everyone has only one body, the benefits of environmentalism are pretty dispersed too.

Well, not really. Environmentalists are all up in arms about sprawl in the bay area, and preserving the quality of life there. But poor people don't benefit that much, because poor people can't afford to live there. They'd rather have more development, which would drive down the cost of housing.

Poor people can't afford to drive/fly hundreds of miles to a national park -- but they care very much if the amount they have to spend on gas & groceries goes up.

But you prove my point. American Liberal whiners all stop when it comes to their pockets.

Well, lots of liberals advocate higher taxes, even for themselves, as long as the taxes for "rich people" are raised a lot higher than theirs are. But you also have the CA liberals who don't want to touch Prop 13, because they don't want their property taxes going up.

There are lots of different types of liberals.

Why is this not considered 'corporate welfare'?

I'm sure it will be. Especially 10 years down the line, if this thing passes, and people start to forget the reason that the govt is handing out hundreds of millions a year to the car companies.

it has pork appeal

I don't know if the Suidae out there would agree. You can't feed corn to pigs and turn it into alcohol too.

You know, as I read that bullet list of points, something kicked in my head. I seem to remember a post here called something like "A Modest Proposal" that was almost exactly like this that Obama had endorsed before.

Thank you, tbrosz, for your contribution to this discussion. You wrote: "The 'hypercar' is interesting, if it can be made so someone besides millionaires can buy one. Hydrogen fuel is clean, but still requires another source of energy to create it."

True enough, but the whole point is that, just as computers that now cost a few hundred dollars are more powerful than computers that once cost millions of dollars, a similar unit cost reduction can happen to hypercars once they become mass-produced and go through a couple of "Moore's Law" cycles of innovation.

Hypercars don't have to be hydrogen-powered. Once you have a vehicle that gets over 100 mpg, the cost of fuel becomes a relatively minor consideration, and you could burn soybean oil and not worry about the cost.

The nice part about a gasoline tax is that it's a free market solution, as opposed a centrally planned solution like raising fuel economy standards. It gives everyone a choice between driving less or buying a more economical vehicle.

In the short term a gas tax presents a Hobson's choice (which is to say no choice at all), since most Americans can't simply switch to public transportation, buy a more efficient car, or move to a more environmentally friendly neighborhood. However, until energy costs rise substantially, there will be no demand for public transportation, efficient vehicles or sustainable lifestyles.

However much we'd prefer a technological fix which lets us stay fat and happy, we need to work the problem from both ends, reducing energy use as well as developing sustainable energy sources.

Don't forget that raising crops conventionally uses an awful lot of....fuel...chemicals etc.

Biofuels that are crop based are not a panacea. Some have speculated they may use as much fuel to produce as they provide.

Investment in alternative transport like trains while weaning people off their cars would do more than Bios. Problem is how do you pay for that with Billions spent in Iraq. (you don't) Our aspirations for domestic infrastructure got flushed down the toilet with the Iraq war.

really, the national environmental movement is up in arms about bay area sprawl? I'm calling Bullshit, can you be so kind as to supply some cites?

Prop 13 is not a creation of CA liberals, you need to learn something about CA politics if you want to do anything other than discredit yourself with your lame-ass broadstrokes.

In the short term a gas tax presents a Hobson's choice (which is to say no choice at all), since most Americans can't .....

Posted by: bad Jim on March 2, 2006 at 4:13 AM | PERMALINK

Transport economics is one of those areas where lots of externalities exist that inhibit conventional free market economics. Due to 'free rider' issues and sunken costs to switching without a clear standard... (its more expensive to support both electrical charging, hydrogen dispensing and bio-fuel of various types than just gas and one alternative).

I can't see trains or buses as a solution in your culture. These benefit inner city and near inner city residents. Too many suburban homeowners have vested interests (their homes, their preferred lifestyle) and won't vote for it (although they'll talk avout it). It might work in urban areas but you don't have the population density of Asia.

Whatever the trade offs of bio-fuel, its got to beat a finite resource with security issues attached. Although palm oil (imported) is most efficient and not the corn/soy stuff ...

This is becoming Obama's trademark.

Why, it's almost as though he's a politician in the minority Party!

Can't we start out by simply ending all subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies, same effect as a gas tax really, and it will let the free market bozos put thier money where their mouth is...

the free market bozos put thier money where their mouth is...

Posted by: Rick DeMent on March 2, 2006 at 7:11 AM | PERMALINK

That's cool with most free marketeers - although you have to do it slowly 'cos microeconomics says that it can come as a 'shock'.

The point is that proposals are being put on the table, thereby preventing the other side (including Fred Hyatt) from constantly saying otherwise.

Decent, conservative, tentative, but forward looking proposal that is heading in the right direction.

Sadly, given the current situation in the oil industry (peak is close- may have already hit us), too little, too late, too slow.

McA,

You would be shocked at the push back I hear from supposedly free market advocates when it comes to ending government handouts to industry. And you also need to understand that to me a free market Bozo is essentially a pro business type who wants markets that they buy in to be free and competitive, but markets that they sell in to be closed and dominated by them. Oh and the have rationalization a mile wide and deep why government handouts for them is a good thing.

You mean we're going to keep the same expensive, inefficient health insurance system we have now, only the government is going to pay the premiums for General Motors? And this is reform?

This will never fly nor even talked about much. Markets work if given time. Consumers are demanding and will get high mileage vehicles.

Lovins is more than a bit of a dreamer but one of his predictions is coming true. One of the steel companies is building a new plant in Mississippi to produce flat rolled steel for car bodies at 1/2 the thickness of current bodies but the same strength. The weight savings will be significant. If the flip side of this call, that composite manufactures have as much or more to offer we'll get even more weight savings in other areas as well.

Just repeal the so-called "safety standards", which are actually a trade barrier preventing the importation of small cars, and Americans will leap at the chance to buy cars that get 50-60 mpg. There are already lots of them being built.

Even in America today a careful buyer can easily buy a car that gets over 45 mpg.

Ironically, real free trade and real marketplace competition would solve this problem without any government subsidies.

> have no problems at all making g
> asoline unaffordable for them

Post-Katrina gas spiked up to $3/gal in the Midwest ($3.50 in California I think). That didn't affect the working class and poor? And that spike was the result of one _minor_ disruption to the US supply and processing infrastructure.

A serious disruption, or peak oil arriving sooner than expected, could easily push the price up to $6/gal. Will that hurt the poor and working classs when it comes (not if)?

So - how about we start getting people ready for that NOW. Using that beloved "market". By increasing the price of gas in a slow, steady process now, so the shock doesn't kill us later. Say a gas tax increase of $0.05 every other month for two years.

To keep tbrosz happy, the money from this tax can be sent straight to the missle defense and airborne laser contractors so no actual markets will be harmed by the revenue. Or it could be used to pay off the debt incurred in the Excellent Iraq Adventure - the one that ISN'T about oil.

Cranky

Policy, Obama is talking policy. Wow, I haven't heard anybody talk actual policy for 5 years. I am impressed.

rdw, look at it this way, what Obama seems to be proposing is not a mandate but an out right purchase of services. The market at work.

This would be an actionable subsidy under the WTO Agreement and could be attacked, justifiably, by our trading partners.

Better to raise the gasoline tax and offset it with an increase in the personal exemption or standard deduction on income tax, to avoid regressivity.

Next, require at least a 90/10 gasoline/ethanol mix (which can be used by current vehicles without modification)and go to free trade on ethanol. We presently have a tariff of more than 50 cents per gallon on ethanol, which is crazy. We don't have such a tariff on gasoline. That's a major reason why ethanol has not been successful here, as it has been in countries like Brazil.

rdw, look at it this way, what Obama seems to be proposing is not a mandate but an out right purchase of services. The market at work.

It's not the market at work although this isn't horrible for a liberal. It shows how far we've come when the far left isn't that far left.

What's with a yellow gas cap? Not on my car and I don't care if it's hidden.

I am nervous about ethanol. A number of magazines have looked at this and said it's expensive, potentially very expensive, and many of the expected pollution advantages are a fraud. The energy used to create the ethanol makes it a net loser both energy wise AND pollution wise.

It's when we get into these gray areas when we need the Govt to step back.

Obama is a mid-west guy with a lot of farmers in his state. He has a vested interest. When I see someone from a non-corn growing state tout ethanol I'll feel better.

That's a little cryptic, though. What exactly does "more fuel-efficient cars" mean?

Cryptic? Are you losing your grip on the English language, Kevin?

I was bemused by Kevin's bullet point:

• Put yellow gas caps on all flex fuel vehicles.

Which seems amusingly silly, taken out of context.

So here's the context:
Fourth, there are already millions of people driving flexible-fuel vehicles who don't know it. The auto companies shouldn't get CAF'E credit for making these cars if they don't let buyers know about them, so I'd like to ask the industry to follow GM's lead and put a yellow gas cap on all flexible fuel vehicles starting today. Also, they should send a letter to those people who already have flexible-fuel vehicles so they can start filling up their tank at the closest E85 station.

Finally, since there are only around 500 fueling stations that pump E85 in the country, we recently passed legislation that would provide tax credits of up to $30,000 for those who want to install E85 pumps at their station. But we should do even more - we should make sure that in the coming years, E85 stations are as easy to find as your gas station is now.

That's really something. To keep within the CAFE standards, the automakers are producing these cars, but since there are so few gas stations which offer the alternative fuel, not only do the automakers not list it as a selling point, they don't even make a point of letting their customers know about it.

Is your car a flexible fuel car? Find out! If you own one of the cars on that list, produced post 1997, check your owner's manual and/or the inside of your fuel filler-cap door.

And then wonder if you are anywhere near one of those 500 filling stations.

Ah, here we are: the Alternative Fuels Data Center. Find that filling station! Learn if your own car harbors secret desires for ethanol!

rdw,

I was just having a little fun with you. It isn't really the market at work. It is sort of like the market at work. Kind of reminds me of the VP saying that he earned his millions while working in the private sector, when in fact he was working to secure government contracts for Halliburton.

The fuel efficiency portions of Obama's proposal don't seem to have a mandate. A proposal "the government will pay X if the auto industry does Y" is a contractual arrangement. If industry doesn't do Y, it isn't paid. Your problem is?

Twenty years ago, one gallon of biofuel (ethanol) cost 1.3 gallon of petro to make. If still the wrong side of the ratio, encouraging biofuel would deplete petro sooner.

and, I agree about the 40 mpg. Not near aggressive enough. Drivers of the BMW diesel over in Europe are claiming 60 mpg. Prius is getting some 40 and 50 mpg. Even a hybrid SUV claims 35 mpg.

I guess it is a step in the right direction ........ just could he use bigger steps already? :-)

Sheeeesh. How many times does Obama's plan use the word "mandate"?

Call me unimpressed.

OT, we now have more evidence that Bush lied about what the administration knew and when it knew it . . .

CNN: . . . the August 29 transcript -- and one from the previous day -- show that National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield was worried Katrina might push water over the levees.

"I don't think anyone can tell you with confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not, but that's obviously a very, very great concern," Mayfield said.

After the storm, Bush said, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," and Chertoff agreed.

And yet again we see the White House attempting to divorce itself from any responsibility and mislead the nation by cherry-picking facts from the record in order to blame others . . .

In an apparent effort to deflect criticism from the Bush administration, Homeland Security officials highlighted in yellow parts of the transcript that showed any weakness by local officials.

What about the personal responsibility that conservatives clamored about for years before they achieved dominance in Washington?

AWOL.

Just like Bush.

No highlighting their own mistakes and incompetence; no acceptance of responsibility for those mistakes and incompetence.

No, personal responsibility has been replaced in the GOP strategy with:

(1) blaming the victim;

(2) blaming local officials;

(3) denial;

(4) deceipt; and

(5) defamation.

You doubters are pathetic. You'd tear down your own mother if you could. No wonder we can't get behind a national candidate...you all squawk and moan and bicker, meanwhile the Republicans kick our asses.

K W good point. It is easy to point out flaws when you don't feel any need to come up with an alternative.

OK all you folks bad mouthing Obama's plan, got something better that has even the remotest chance to succeed? Let's hear it.

Ron,

I read mandate into these 3 things and they're not small.

Ramp up new fuel standards that will result in production of 65 billion gallons of alternative fuels per year by 2025.

Mandate that the federal government buy only flex fuel vehicles.

Within ten years, mandate that every car in America is a flex fuel vehicle. Include a $100 tax credit per vehicle to ease the pain.

The good Senator is pushing Ethanol bigtime for the homeboys. Il is more than Chicago. It's also a farm state.

It makes no sense to mandate Govt buy only ethanol burning cars when it's very likely to only be a regional product. If I don't live in an area accessible to ethanol why should I pay an extra $500 for my car to please Obama?

IF in fact we get a few advances such that there's a reasonable consensus on ethanol I'd be Ok with regional pilot programs boosted with some tax incentives to prove such a system is practical before for a nationwide rollout.

My understanding is these engines are alreay sold in the midwest and pilot programs already been developed. Lets see them work.

It would be fabulous to substitiute American grown ethanol for imported gasoline. But only if it makes economic sense.

Hard to imagine us getting a fair deal out of this with Detroit. They will try to weasel their way out of it somehow. Currently they are getting a break on CAFE standards by producing more flex fuel vehicles that get less miles per gallon on ethanol.

We need to look closely at all the hype on ethanol and ask some important questions:
1. What is the real net energy obtained by producing ethanol from corn? We get different numbers from the corn/ethanol interest groups and from the critics.
2. Is the best scenario, net energy return from corn ethanol, about 25% or 1.25 to 1, worth the huge infrastructural investment cost?
3. Would we not be better off jumping to the more efficient energy returns from cellulosic sources of ethanol rather than investing so much in an inefficient corn/ethanol that is so dependent on subsidies and tax giveaways? Would we not be much better off encouraging more ethanol production from sugar cane that has energy efficiency returns of 11 to 1? (But when we got corn state politicians like Obama toying with the gears, what do you get?)
4. Looking forward to 2025, projecting growing demand, what impact will ethanol have on "lowering" our total demand for oil? Does this have any realistic potential of getting our ass out of the wringer?
5. What will the price of oil be in 2025? It is not difficult to imagine gasoline prices in the area of $10.00 to $20.00 per gallon considering inflation, increasing demand, and lower supplies. Do we really need to subsidize detroit and an ethanol industry to produce what the market will demand?
6. Is the hype of "driving on corn forever" (ADM commercial), blinding us the folly of attempting to replace gasoline as a liquid fuel, with the real urgent need to drastically reduce our dependence on all liquid fuels regardless of source? There is not one iota of evidence that any of it is sustainable in the long term.
7. Should we be rewarding Detroit for continuing to manufacture demand for inefficient vehicles? Just look at their advertising and what sits on their sales lots. If Toyota is kicking their ass, so be it. My Camrys have been getting 34 mpg highway since at least 1990. Thirty five years later, in 2025, we are supposed to be satisfied if the US standard is 40? Jesus freaking Christ.

rdw: It makes no sense to mandate Govt buy only ethanol burning cars . . .

This is not what he is proposing you lying assh*le.

A flex-fuel vehicle runs on either gasoline or ethanol, so it's not buying "only ethanol burning cars."

Of course, maybe your grammer is correct this time, in which case you aren't lying in the first part of your diatribe, but then you are in the second, since clearly gasoline is not a "regional product."

Boy there sure aren't any farm boys writing comments for this...they're all busy laughing because they know how much fuel and water energy it takes to grow corn for ethanol. For #@%& sakes' THINK. This is flat out assinine.

rdw: The good Senator is pushing Ethanol bigtime for the homeboys.

And Bush is pushing oil bigtime for his homeboys, the Saudis and Sen. Stevens.

BTW, why do you have to stoop to racist terms when talking about Obama, eh?

got something better that has even the remotest chance to succeed? Let's hear it.

Read the Lovins article in the 09/05 Scientific American. Give the market time to react. Hybrid sales are ramping up bigtime. The major automakers are scrambling to meet customer demand for better mileage. There are a thousand different suppliers looking to meet the demands and get the business. It takes time to reengineer and retool.

One of his key themes was that manufacturers have not been incented to produce high mileage vehicles in about 15 years. Yet in that time science and manufcturing has advanced. It's a matter of looking at and applying these advances as practical. The example of rolled steel at 1/2 the weight is 1 of 1000 possibilities.

GE and a number of businesses have pledged to their shareholders 30% reductions in energy use by 2010. Intel has announced plans to refocus it's chip design to minimize power demand as well as increase speed.

The market works.

Great idea Obama.
I applaud your vision:

We can use tax dollars to prop up a failure of a healthcare system...
And we can use tax dollars to prop up a failure of a transportation system...

That way, we can keep the whole thing wheezing along for a few more years.

That's the good news.

The bad news:

Your transportation system will still continue to kill 40,000 Americans a year, maime thousands more, and decimate wild animals and domestic pets...

Shit.

That's a far higher kill rate than Osama ever managed Obama...

Suggestion--
Perhaps we should call our transportation system: Self-assisted suicide.

Within ten years, mandate that every car in America is a flex fuel vehicle. Include a $100 tax credit per vehicle to ease the pain.

wow! i'll get $200 when i have to replace my two cars! excellent! that's so awesome! what a bargain! that might not pay for even one month's car payment, but wow! that rules!

(or am i missing something here? in which case, nevermind)

The great American Liberal Whiner.

Yes, McAsshole has indeed defined TBrosz - So very astute - and we all thought he was a rock ribbed Libertarian.

Prop 13 - Watch one of the many reruns of Airplane - the guy waiting in the Yellow Cab is Jarvis - the Co-Father of Prop 13 - He and Gann headed an apartment owner's group - very conservative - Prop 13 was only passed by the voters because the legislature, both Dems and Repugs, would not bite the bullet and pass meaningful tax reform legislation to bring more of a balance and not force the elderly to lose their homes - Prop 13 was Draconian - But my ex-wife loved it when she was tied into the 1978 level and prices exploded in the 80s and later in the 00s.

christine: This is flat out assinine.

In 2005, Farm Bureau reported that the cost of ethanol was between $1.20 and $1.75 per gallon, which the cost of gasoline was approximately $2.27 per gallon.

Unless ethanol producers were operating at a huge loss, which can't happen in a free market according to conservatives, even taking into account governmenta incentives which appear to be relatively quite small, ethanol has become cheaper to produce than gasoline.

rdw: The market works.

The market has been in place for over 200 years in this country.

We should be living in a paradise, if your theory were correct.

Oops.

We've needed energy independence for 50 years, plenty of time for the market to have worked.

Oops.

I think this an risiably bad idea.

It parallels the billions in corporate welfare contained in the egregious Medicare Bill which funnels billions to corporations to subsidise their retirees phramacuticals coverage.

It's a bastard first cousin to the horrible beggar your neighbor 'tax incentives' into which states are coercised. Not to mention the misuse of bond issues.

But I digress.

There's a principle in tax practice know as the 'greater pig theory'.

A tiny loophole is tailored by a grateful legistlator (whore) to benefit one and only one importunate contributor. Next thing you know some eagle-eyed tax attorney realizes that, though his facts on the ground don't pecisely match those for which the loophole were intended, he can force his little piglet through the hole, too.

The little piglet slides through without triggering any untoward attention from the Service. Next thing you know somebody finds another slightly large shoat - pushes the shoat through with a little lubrication, widening the hole further.

Eventually, usually doesn't take long either, someone is going to try to push through the biggest, meanest boar anybody's ever seen in all their lives.

If the suto industry gets anything even remotely resembling this bribe, you assuredly *will* see a stampede of greater pigs.

The best mileage flex fuel vehicle advertized by the Alternative Fuels Data Center gets 16/24 mpg. What's wrong with this picture?

Maybe they should make all farm vehicles ethanol friendly for a few years and see if there is any ethanol left over to ship to the cities. This might make any ethanol/gasoline slight of hand evident to the pipe dreamers out there.

Dear Kevin:

Based on the fact that the posters from the left and the right are hating on this idea already, I assume two things: 1) it's probabaly not that bad an idea; and 2) it will never get passed.

And I think the liberals' claim that it doesn't go far enough is laughable. To borrow the right wing trolls hat for a moment, no wonder you people can't win elections.

RedDan,

Decent, conservative, tentative, but forward looking proposal that is heading in the right direction.

Sadly, given the current situation in the oil industry (peak is close- may have already hit us), too little, too late, too slow.

Yup. Sad but true.

And to those whining "Do you have something better?" my answer is "no".

Learn a little history. Our standard of living has risen by harnessing better and better forms of energy - wood to coal to oil. Now you think going back to, essentially, burning wood will solve anything?

Clear away the high-tech veneer of "cellulose and ethanol" and understand that what biofuel proponents are really saying is we should burn food in our cars. If we are really lucky maybe we can, in the future, burn corn stalks and weeds.

Imagine, for a minute, all the commuters in LA and Chicago and every other big city every day burning corn stalks (or, as a nod to McA, palm oil) and maybe you'll get the idea that there are not enough weeds or palm trees in the world to supply those cars.

We'd have a third world situation like Brazil where only the richest 10% can drive sugar-cars and the rest cannot drive.

There are some good components of Obama's plan but having the taxpayers subsidize the Big 3 to the tune of $600 million dollars is not one of them. "Mandating" that the federal gov't buy only flex fuel vehicles is another problem waiting to happen. A $30,000 tax credit to gas station owners is not an incentive in light of the fact that a single pump can cost upwards of $50,000. This sounds a lot like Obama pandering to his regional constituency and passing a lot of the costs on to the back of the taxpayers.

Let the market adjust, hybrid cars are gaining market share quickly and as the technology becomes more available and cheaper and options to the consumer become more appealing, the Big 3 will adjust out of necessity.

B: The best mileage flex fuel vehicle advertized by the Alternative Fuels Data Center gets 16/24 mpg. What's wrong with this picture?

Maybe because you aren't looking at all the studies, some of which prove your picture to be inaccurate . . .

. . . such as this one, showing a 2005 Camry 4-cylinder getting over 30 MPG on various ethanol blends, outperforming gasoline in some instances.

brewmn,

I'd be interested in hearing why you think the claim that "this proposal does not go far enough" is laughable.

Jay: . . . pandering to his regional constituency and passing a lot of the costs on to the back of the taxpayers.

Something Bush and the GOP would certainly know a lot about.

Jay: . . . passing a lot of the costs on to the back of the taxpayers.

Yep, taxpayers aren't paying any of the costs of high gas prices right now. Those costs are all being absorbed by the mysterious ether.

And taxpayers won't have to pick up the tab for the boondoggle in Iraq (because Iraqi oil is going to pay for the war!).

Nor will they have to pick up the costs for recovery in New Orleans, exacerbated by Bush incompetence.

Advocate for God,

Even you must admit that 30 MPG is really not all that great. Certainly not great enough to solve any fuel crisis.

My Ford Focus recently got 30 MPG highway driving 70-75 MPH using 85/15 gas/ethanol. I don't consider that all that great.

What does 'commit' mean? Does it mean they're required to, or we'd really like it if they did that?

"In 2005, Farm Bureau reported that the cost of ethanol was between $1.20 and $1.75 per gallon, which the cost of gasoline was approximately $2.27 per gallon. Unless ethanol producers were operating at a huge loss, which can't happen in a free market according to conservatives, even taking into account governmenta incentives which appear to be relatively quite small, ethanol has become cheaper to produce than gasoline."

Well, I'm not a conservative, but I *do* know a bit about agriculture. Corn is one of the most heavily subsidized crops in the US; at the moment, corn prices are below the cost of US production. So I would take any cost estimate that doesn't include the subsidy costs with a very, very large grain of salt.

the high gas prices are being absorbed by the end consumer with every gallon they put into their vehicle. I don't see the guy next to me at the pump helping me pay my bill.

What the hell does Katrina have to do with subsidizing the Big 3 to transition to alternative fuel......oh wait, I guess you can't go a minute without finding something to blame Bush on. You are so transparent it's laughable and you (the very small minority of the minority party) are THE reason why the Dems will lose again in '08.

Tripp: Even you must admit that 30 MPG is really not all that great.

I'm not advocating for ethanol or Obama's plan (I don't know enough about either), but merely accurate analysis.

The testing at issue showed ethanol MPG to be only slighly lower than gasoline MPG with lower costs per mile for the ethanol.

Getting 31 MPG from gasoline isn't great either.

So, if the choice is between cheaper-per-mile ethanol at 30 MPG or 31-MPG gasoline, available primarily through dependency on the countries of the Middle East, are you saying that burning ethanol is economically and politically unsound?

The assumptions (some of them apparently false) here seems to be:

(1) gasoline MPG can be increased, but ethanol MPG cannot;

(2) cars of the same make and modelthat burn gasoline get way higher MPG on gasoline; and

(2) ethanol performance that is as economical as gasoline performance, even though ethanol is more energy independent, should nevertheless be rejected because of some undefined or dishonest reasons that have nothing to do with the actual facts of ethanol performance (at least performance found by some studies) or beause Obama's constituents might benefit also.

Well, I'm not a conservative, but I *do* know a bit about agriculture. Corn is one of the most heavily subsidized crops in the US; at the moment, corn prices are below the cost of US production. So I would take any cost estimate that doesn't include the subsidy costs with a very, very large grain of salt.
Posted by: MJ Memphis

Damn straight, honey. (Please, tell me you aren't offended to be so addressed. ;-))

Take that large grain of salt and multiply by a couple of orders of maginitude, apply it to claims that costs for oil from Canada's oil sands are $10/barrel.

Why would the car companies do this when they can just get rid of their pension obligations by declaring bankruptcy, without having to change anything else?

MJ Memphis: Well, I'm not a conservative, but I *do* know a bit about agriculture. Corn is one of the most heavily subsidized crops in the US; at the moment, corn prices are below the cost of US production. So I would take any cost estimate that doesn't include the subsidy costs with a very, very large grain of salt.

We subsidize Big Oil too, through things such as tax credits, tax breaks, and below-market leases on government lands.

Are you counting the costs of those subsidies, including the indirect ones, when comparing corn versus crude oil?

regarding Advocates response to christine:

"In 2005, Farm Bureau reported that the cost of ethanol was between $1.20 and $1.75 per gallon, which the cost of gasoline was approximately $2.27 per gallon.

Unless ethanol producers were operating at a huge loss, which can't happen in a free market according to conservatives, even taking into account governmenta incentives which appear to be relatively quite small, ethanol has become cheaper to produce than gasoline."

from Biomass Energy: Cost of Production
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/Cost.shtml
"Because a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline, the production cost of ethanol must be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to make an energy-cost comparison with gasoline. This means that if ethanol costs $1.10 per gallon to produce, then the effective cost per gallon to equal the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is $1.65. In contrast, the current wholesale price of gasoline is about 90 cents per gallon.

The federal motor fuel excise tax on gasohol, a blended fuel of 10-percent ethanol and 90-percent gasoline, is 5.4 cents less per gallon than the tax on straight gasoline. In other words, the federal subsidy is 54 cents per gallon of ethanol when the ethanol is blended with gasoline. The subsidy makes ethanol-blended fuel competitive in the marketplace and stimulates the growth of an ethanol production and distribution infrastructure."

Advocate for Farm Bureau: You make the mistake of comparing the cost to produce ethanol with the actual market price of gasoline. When gas was about $3.00 per gallon last summer, our local E-85 was selling at about $2.60 per gallon. But, I recall that the ethanol producers were complaining that they were not making enough profit on it to justify their investments.

I might also add that many corn farmers in the Midwest will be producing corn this year at a loss. Government subsidies will probably account for the majority of their "net" incomes for 2006. How much ethanol from corn would get into the market without the "clean air" mandates from government, the 54 cent tax subsidy per gallon of ethanol, and all the hype and bullshit from the Farm Bureau, ADM and the corn state politicos, and now GM jumping on the band wagon with their flex fuel (don't mess with my CAFE ratings) vehicles?

And a note to Christine, Some of us do actually live in the corn and soybean factory, AKA the Midwest. I'll be breathing herbicide drift for about the next 3 month. Read my previous comments and you see that we don't all walk the talk of the Farm Bureau and ADM.

Bingo.

Are you counting the costs of those subsidies, including the indirect ones, when comparing corn versus crude oil?
Posted by: Advocate for God

The biggest by far is, of course, water. 100,000 gallons of water to produce a ton of corn. Then there's the fact that farmers don't pay gas taxes...uh huh...they're exempt.

Ethanol fuels, though, are not really the oil saver that's claimed---the "oil based" system of modern agriculture runs on oil--tractors that cultivate/harvest, chemicals derived from oil, etc. Right now ethanol looks somewhat good, but it is supported by big farm subsidies. The rise of ave MPG rates (to include SUVs as well) is the ticket.

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

On the energy balance issue, here is a USDA Economic Research Service report. Their study concluded that ethanol has a positive energy balance; however, they also include information on several other studies, with about half showing positive and half showing negative. The difference comes from the assumptions used in the individual studies; essentially, the positive energy balance studies use more optimistic assumptions, the negative energy balance studies use more pessimistic assumptions. Additionally, the authors note that the negative studies also include additional energy inputs not counted in the more optimistic studies.

Jay: the high gas prices are being absorbed by the end consumer with every gallon they put into their vehicle. I don't see the guy next to me at the pump helping me pay my bill.

And yet, he is. High gas prices are the result of poor Katrina planning for one thing; Bush's policy on the oil reserve; Bush's invasion of Iraq; and any other numerous governmental policies funded by taxpayers.

In any event, a taxpayer absorbs additional market costs in ways other than by paying taxes to fuel (no pun intended) subsidies.

Your analytical focus is predictably narrow-minded.

What the hell does Katrina have to do with subsidizing the Big 3 to transition to alternative fuel

See above.

Taxpayers absorb all kinds of costs associated with the government making payments to others.

Taxpayers will absorb the costs of Katrina in many ways.

Some of those costs are the result of Bush's incompetence, but that wasn't really the point.

The point, for those as dense as you Jay, was that you are subsidizing the recovery costs of Katrina - you are paying for those people's new houses, new infrastructure, etc.

Yet, you bitch about paying subsidies to farmers who provide food and fuel for our economy.

Big Oil gets government subsidies too.

When you start complaining about that, maybe I will take you seriously.

Until then, it is clear you are simply a partisan hack and lackey for the current incumbent, carrying his water no matter what.

Oh, and just to clarify: I am not opposed to ethanol per se. However, I am opposed to corn-based ethanol, which is mainly being pushed by (surprise!) corn-growing-state legislators. Corn is fairly marginal for producing ethanol at positive energy balance. As was noted further up-thread, sugarcane is a much better source, and is in fact being used extensively for ethanol production in Brazil, where all gasoline contains ethanol and 100% ethanol is also available as fuel.

CFShep: The biggest by far is, of course, water. 100,000 gallons of water to produce a ton of corn. Then there's the fact that farmers don't pay gas taxes...uh huh...they're exempt.

I understand that the process of producing ethanol results in the production of H2O.

Are you taking the possible recovery and reuse of that water into account?

I admit it's not a solid case for ethanol, but it is hardly a solid case against it, certainly not the solid case that some have made on this thread.

ALL studies tend to have biases in them.

You'll find the negative ones have biases also.

And you won't be surprised that some of those negative studies were funded or produced by Big Oil or their allies.

With so much uncertainty, wouldn't it be appropriate to fund a real and honest study of Obama's proposition rather than throwing uninformed darts at it?

If right wingers were so concerned about the working poor to begin with, they wouldn't have supported the politicies that caused the working poor to be dependant on cars in the first place.

Conservatives can be compared to drug-pushers in this case. The public was sold development sprawl and dependence on driving instead of public transport under the guise of having more freedom. However, now they're so dependent on their cars that they can't handle any increases in fuel prices without losing their freedom due to their economic vulnerability to increased direct energy costs.

"With so much uncertainty, wouldn't it be appropriate to fund a real and honest study of Obama's proposition rather than throwing uninformed darts at it?"

Well, AfG, it sounds like it is having plenty of informed darts thrown at it. But in the spirit of compromise, can we agree that removing the tariff on imported ethanol would be a good place to start?

lou: You make the mistake of comparing the cost to produce ethanol with the actual market price of gasoline.

The article I looked at compared the retail costs of gasoline to the wholesale costs of ethanol (not a direct comparison to be sure, but the difference in price was substantial enough to indicate that ethanol was likely cheaper at the pump), not production costs.

In any event, as I stated above, no one has definitively identified information that shows Obama's plan to be unworkable.

All I see is speculation about how much worse relying on ethanol would likely be, with much ignoring of evidence to the contrary.

Simply stating "farmers know better" rather than pointing to some actual numbers showing the inputs for ethanol equal, exceed, or as implied far exceed those for gasoline is lame criticism IMHO.

AforG: Are you taking the possible recovery and reuse of that water into account?

Salinization. Contamination with (petroleum based) pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers make this problematic to say the least particularly given wetlands destruction.

I'm merely suggesting that the indirect subsidies, taken together, are very likely to total more than the direct ones.

Tax credits, accelerated depreciation, tax exemptions, agricultural use property tax rates, subsidised insurance...

It's a vast and tangled web indeed.

Raise the f***ing gas tax.

Progressives don't like this because:
1. It's regressive in that it directly affects poor people more (as a percentage of income) than rich people.
2. It's regressive because it will cause an increase in the price of almost everything, which also affects poor people more than rich people.
Posted by: rkimball

First of all, Detroit has it in their power to produce more fuel efficient cars simply by limiting engine displacement. Very few vehicle actually need V-8 engines or more than 250HP, even vans and SUVs. Anything so large that a 6-cylinder engine cannot power it sufficiently is simply too large, i.e. Hummers, Suburbans, Expeditions and their extended cab brethern pick-up trucks, 90% of which are used as passenger vehicles. Remember this as you sit stuck in traffic anywhere in the mostly flat lands of the Sun Belt surrounded by 4-wheel drive vehicles.

Japan, while not completely curbing the market, has had an excise tax on engine displacement of 3,000CC (approximately 200 cubic inch) and greater. Again, while you see nearly as many Benzs, BWM, Land Cruisers and SR5s in the right neighborhoods in Japan, the tax goes to transit and highways. If you don't want to outlaw larger vehicles all together, at least make their foolish owners subsidize transit and the extra stress larger vehicles place on roads and/or excessive fuel they consume.

We've lived through three oil crises (counting the run-up to the first Gulf War), and Americans, who invented "ecology" and Earth Day, still aren't smart enough to understand the problem. Therefore, near Draconian measure are the only way possible to significantly reduce our consumption of oil by automobile.

AfG: "The article I looked at compared the retail costs of gasoline to the wholesale costs of ethanol (not a direct comparison to be sure, but the difference in price was substantial enough to indicate that ethanol was likely cheaper at the pump), not production costs."

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/Cost.shtml

From the article: "The cost of producing ethanol varies with the cost of the feedstock used and the scale of production. Approximately 85 percent of ethanol production capacity in the United States relies on corn feedstock. The cost of producing ethanol from corn is estimated to be about $1.10 per gallon. Although there is currently no commercial production of ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks such as agricultural wastes, grasses and wood, the estimated production cost using these feedstocks is $1.15 to $1.43 per gallon. Because a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline, the production cost of ethanol must be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to make an energy-cost comparison with gasoline. This means that if ethanol costs $1.10 per gallon to produce, then the effective cost per gallon to equal the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is $1.65. In contrast, the current wholesale price of gasoline is about 90 cents per gallon."

MJ: . . . it sounds like it is having plenty of informed darts thrown at it.

". . . ...they're all busy laughing because they know how much fuel and water energy it takes to grow corn for ethanol.

This is neither an informed nor an informative dart.

And neither is "the market will cure all."

Nor "uses an awful lot of".

"30 MPG is really not all that great . . ." is also questionable, though I like not to insult Tripp whose comments I thoroughly enjoy, since the issue is how ethanol compares to gasoline, not whether 30 MPG whether by ethanol or gasoline is all that great. No, 30 MPG is not all that great, unless you would get 31 MPG at a higher cost from gasoline or get 28 MPG from gasoline.

Although agricultural runoff is very, very good at nourishing red tide algae and the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Regarding a comment from McAristotle:
"I can't see trains or buses as a solution in your culture. These benefit inner city and near inner city residents. Too many suburban homeowners have vested interests (their homes, their preferred lifestyle) and won't vote for it (although they'll talk avout it). It might work in urban areas but you don't have the population density of Asia."

It might surprise you, but a century ago(and more) we had a marvelous train and trolley system in many parts of the US. Not so much in the rural areas of the Mid-west and Southwest, but definitely in New England. One which generally extended about 75 miles out from metropolitan areas and allowed average people to commute dozens of miles to work for a modest cost. And to reliably and quickly reach metropolitan areas such as Boston and New York.
This was, of course, some time before the mass production of automobiles. Even at the time, not everyone could afford a horse and carriage or even just a horse.
That infrastructure was buried or destroyed as the auto industry grew stonger and more influential.

To suggest that it isn't viable just doesn't make sense.

Tripp:

I maybe should have prefaced that comment with "in this political climate." Any suggestion of raising gas taxes (which I wholeheartedly support, as long as some of that revenue is targeted at subsidizing fuel-efficient programs such as mass transportation) is laughable with the Republicans in charge.

If I could, I'd blow the whole fossil-fuel dependent system up and start over, but we are where we are.

"All I see is speculation about how much worse relying on ethanol would likely be, with much ignoring of evidence to the contrary."

Well, I guess we have two separate issues here. One is the use of ethanol itself; the other is how we go about getting the ethanol. Currently, the US slaps a $0.54 per gallon tariff on most imported ethanol. The reason? Well, because US ethanol is mostly made from corn, which is marginal for ethanol production, whereas much of the foreign ethanol is made from sugarcane, which is very good for ethanol production due to lower production costs and a much higher production of sugar/acre.

Moving towards ethanol is easy- remove the tariff on imported ethanol and let the market sort it out. But mandating a move towards ethanol, while retaining the tariffs put in place to keep foreign ethanol expensive, is just dumb.

Can we 'mandate' that Junior Senators stop using the word 'mandate' ?

kenga: That infrastructure was buried or destroyed as the auto industry grew stonger and more influential.

New Orleans was paid directly by Standard Oil to rip out their street cars.

Just saying...

A for G,

Here are the problems with biofuels few people seem to be addressing:

Current biofuels divert food to fuel.

Biofuels cannot ever come close to providing enough fuel to replace our current oil usage.

Growing biofuels consume massive amounts of water and topsoil, depleting our country's natural resources.

Thus, despite the fact that biofuels appear to be sustainable they simply kick the 'sustainable' ball down the road a bit.

Proponents of biofuel are either looking for a government handout for their district or are blindly hoping for a simple "yellow" fix so they can continue to drive their cars.

Japan, while not completely curbing the market, has had an excise tax on engine displacement of 3,000CC (approximately 200 cubic inch) and greater.

I like this idea. Now that I think about it, I remember that Greece also levies auto taxes on the basis of engine displacement, as well. Has any senator or congressman proposed such a thing?

"30 MPG is really not all that great . . ." is also questionable, though I like not to insult Tripp whose comments I thoroughly enjoy, since the issue is how ethanol compares to gasoline, not whether 30 MPG whether by ethanol or gasoline is all that great. No, 30 MPG is not all that great, unless you would get 31 MPG at a higher cost from gasoline or get 28 MPG from gasoline. Posted by: Advocate for God

There must be some value to it or the Brazilians, who have been running their cars off and on with it for about 15 years, wouldn't be doing it.

As I understand it, corn isn't even the best raw material for ethanol. My guess is that hemp would work great (it's the fiber that's important), but, Jesus, Shrub will put a man on Mars before this country ever gets around that one. Hemp is also a superior raw material for lots of paper products.

LA grows sugar cane. And....um...FL...

uh oh

eeek.

"they're all busy laughing because they know how much fuel and water energy it takes to grow corn for ethanol. This is neither an informed nor an informative dart."

Actually, it is both. You have to know the inputs before you can evaluate whether the outputs are worthwhile.

"And neither is "the market will cure all."

Nor "uses an awful lot of"."

I've cited studies showing that corn-based ethanol is marginal for energy balance- relatively small changes in assumptions can show it either somewhat in positive territory or somewhat in negative. I've also cited figures on wholesale vs. wholesale costs, showing that corn-based ethanol is, at present, more expensive to produce than gasoline. You want to push ethanol, fine- I'm all for it. But do it right- not as a giveaway for corn states.

CFShep- unfortunately, the US doesn't grow a lot of sugarcane due to climatic reasons, and in the places where we do grow it, we grow it at much higher cost than most sugar-producing countries- they just have better climates for producing sugarcane than we do. Nothing wrong with that- it just means that, ideally, we would get our ethanol from the countries that can grow sugarcane cheaply and efficiently. Sadly, thanks largely to corn-state legislators like the former Senate Minority Leader Daschle, the US instead slaps a big fat tax on ethanol produced elsewhere.

You want to push ethanol, fine- I'm all for it. But do it right- not as a giveaway for corn states.
Posted by: MJ Memphis

Exactly. The only advantage to ethanol, and this is important, is that it is low polluting. However, the production costs do not make it a more efficient alternative to oil.

> [quotes from a number of posters above]

> Growing biofuels consume massive amounts of
> water and topsoil, depleting our country's
> natural resources.

Land based biofuel yes. I have seen the soil depletion firsthand and it is ugly; I give the Midwest corn belt 50 more years as a breadbasket. Then - ?

> Biofuels cannot ever come close to providing
> enough fuel to replace our current oil usage.

Soil-based biofuel, yes. But on an input/output basis I have to disagree with your premise. The oil came from a biological process in the first place, and we are putting the carbon into the atmosphere. It doesn't disappear. Biodiesel from sea-farmed alge would seem (again based on i