WILL GORE APOLOGIZE FOR THE POOREST'S HUNGER?
He should but I doubt it. Taking responsibility is not the strong point of political experts or advocacy scientists. Why? Because they totally disagree with the Milton Friedman quote with which my favorite vice presidential candidate , Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison starts her essay on"Undoing America's Ethanol Mistake:"
One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.
Indeed, Gore and Company insists that we ignore the consequences of their biofeul advocacy and focus solely on their"good intentions." Unfortunately, they will get away with it just as the anti-Vietnam war advocates have gotten away with taking responsibility for the Vietnamese boat people and the Cambodian killing field and current opponent of the war on terror will seek to get away with the humanitarian disaster which is sure to follow a precipitous retreat from the Iraqi battle field. But let's get back to the issue Time Magazine dubbed The Clean Energy Scam the consequences of which Hutchison describes as follows:
Since February 2006, the price of corn, wheat and soybeans has increased by more than 240%. Rising food prices are hitting the pockets of lower-income Americans and people who live on fixed incomes.
While the blame for higher costs shouldn't rest exclusively with biofuels — drought and rising oil costs are contributing factors — the expansion of biofuels has been a major source of the problem.
The International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that biofuel production accounts for between one-quarter and one-third of the recent spike in global commodity prices. For the first time in 30 years, food riots are breaking out in many parts of the globe, including major countries such as Mexico, Pakistan and Indonesia.
Under such circumstances we must put ideology and partizanship aside, Hutchison seems to say and act
Restraining the dangerous effects of artificially inflated demand for ethanol should be an issue that unites both conservatives and progressives. . . .
The best way to lower energy prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, is to accelerate production of all forms of domestic energy.
Expanding biofuels while refusing to take other measures, such as lifting the ban on oil and natural gas production in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf, is counterproductive. We should be tapping into a broad portfolio of energy options, including clean coal, nuclear power and wave energy. . . .
Congress must take action. I am introducing legislation that will freeze the biofuel mandate at current levels, instead of steadily increasing it through 2022.
She says all this is common sense but since when was that enough?! Common sense would dictate that our coal reserves would lead us to focus on clean coal. Alas, ideologically challenged environmentalists are determined to convince us that there is no such thing as clean coal.
In the meantime, let's stop making the poorest pay for our ruthless"idealists."
comments powered by Disqus
E. Simon - 4/27/2008
right-wing pet plank that you won't load onto your ship?
Now it's those ideological scientists that are preventing us from burning all the coal we want and preventing us from keeping the CO2 permanently sequestered.
I've got no problem with a "Mr. Smith Goes into the Science Lab" attitude, but Mr. (or Mrs.) Smith should have the brains to know what they're talking about and the research to back it up before they do. As it stands, when have amateur critics of science once proposed a feasible hypothesis in the first place before bashing a conspiracy of science for their complaints?
- Steve Fraser says Trump is sui generis
- The Historian Whitewashing Ukraine’s Past
- Andrew Roberts wins $250,000 prize from the conservative Bradley Foundation
- Daniel Aaron, Critic and Historian Who Pioneered American Studies, Dies at 103