The biofuels alternative, btw, is a horrifying prospect. The idea with this, as with all alternatives, is to postpone the time when consumers are more thrifty with their consumption of fuels. The thought of croplands, pastures, or rainforests being turned over to the mass production of biofuel crops makes my skin crawl. Food prices will rise. The land will be destroyed. Global warming will accelerate. Energy usage will increase to keep up with global warming. It’s a catastrophe waiting to happen because it solves nothing important enough to warrant it above conservation.

Can you spell “Diesel”?

And,

Is it just a childish reaction to being told what to do, when all auto makers have to abide by the same rules, that you threaten to “hold your breath until your faces turn blue”, or is there a real reason?

These standards do not even attempt to slow down the pace at which we pollute the air and consume natural resources, let alone reverse the damage. Instead, they ensure that we will continue to consume and pollute at ever increasing levels, and only limit the rate of increase minimally. This bill is evidence that the Democrats have neither the intent nor the ability to address the environmental and economic problems they helped create, and are in fact only slightly less beholden to corporate interests than are Republicans.

We need zero emission vehicles. We need a solar grid. We need public transit. Cars that get 35 miles to the gallon are worse than an empty gesture; they are a false comfort in a time of emergency.

I call upon our representatives to reject this meaningless bill and go back to the drawing board, this time listening not to centrists, appeasers, and lobbyists, but instead to technological innovators and real environmental advocates.

As a member of the House of Representatives, I vow to craft legislation that offers real, sustainable solutions to the severe crises we face. I encourage our current Congressional legislators and all Americans to learn about my proposed “New Deal for sustainability,” which provides a model for sustainable energy production and transportation in the 21st century. And I encourage voters in the 37th district to consider which candidate will provide real leadership on issues related to the environment, energy prices, and transportation when they vote this Tuesday”

Americans are in denial. Why aren’t they asking questions like:
- How much energy does it take to make one gallon of gasoline?
- How much energy does it take to make one gallon of ethanol?
- How much energy does it take to make one gallon of hydrogen?
- How much energy does it take to transport one person one mile?
Etc., etc.

And
how much energy does it take to walk or bike one mile?
We could solve the energy and fat problems at the same time.

Good morning from L.A. EPUville here, but just wanted to share an important website regarding all environmental issues:

Union of Concerned Scientists- Citizens & Scientists for Environmental Solutions

second that one. i have belonged for many years. as far as i can tell, a very, very good organization.

Good Morning Scarecrow.

probably gonna be epu’d pdq, but just had to thank you.

I tried to watch the energy bill’s “progress” yesterday on C-Span, and just ended up more & more and more confused.

The bigger the bill, the bigger the stakes for powerful lobbyists and assorted scoundrels, the more likely it contains hidden loopholes and perks we can only guess at.

A monumental task, it is, to boil any discussion of that humungous bill into readable prose. Still, it is critically important to do so, and then haul out the magnifying glasses and red pencils.

Thank you much!

agreed. i can’t even find the text of the bill that was voted on yesterday… just a long list of amendments to an amendment that (i think) replaced the original bill.

I agree that corn-based ethanol is NOT the one answer, and I agree with building windmills–but not all farmers’ field are appropriate sites. Basically, there has to be enough wind to justify the cost (which is still substantial). In Wisconsin, some areas have “good wind levels” that can justify construction, and many do not. And, is this turbine only going to support the energy needs of one farm, or do we want it to support a broader population? If more than the one farm, the transmission grid must be able to support this, which it may or may not currently do (a hot problem right now in parts of WI).

I don’t mean to be difficult, it’s just that it’s not as easy as we all want it to be. Which goes back to my original comment about needing an integrated solution. (I think I’d better get back to work before I really tick somebody off.)

But, I’m going to end again with my standard lecture to clients: energy efficiency (or conservation, pick the term you prefer) is the most important step that we should be taking every single day. But we all find excuses not to do it. Big mistake.

We must (and can, quite painlessly) reduce our energy use. We’re just lazy. And have no leadership. Duh.

i just meant building windmills as an example of a good way to help farmers – instead of bad ways (corn ethanol). i’d like to think there are many other things that can be done that are helpful to farmers – and the rest of us.

completely agree about conservation.

p.s. i don’t think you’re being difficult! please don’t stop expressing your views.