We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Remarkable tennis today. Much more interesting than the men's tennis during the Sampras years. Today's match will be long-remembered. The Spanish are celebrating tonight, for sure. But to get to my main point -
Besides possibly helping to provide a minor degree of economic independence from the big oil nations, is there any logic behind biofuel?
This question came up in conversation last night, when it was mentioned that the demand for biofuel may be driving up the cost of food, and even causing third-world starvation.
One person mentioned the notion that biofuels are somehow greener and less polluting because they come from plants. Of course, the current geological consensus is that oil comes from plants too, but that's another topic.
How much do biofuels pollute? I took a quick unscientific glance around the 'nets during the rain delay:
According to researchers at Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy, almost all the biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels, if the full environmental cost of producing them is factored in.
I think the message is that, even if you consider CO2 a "pollutant" (which I do not), and even if you consider global warming a planetary crisis (which I do not), the only convincing rationale for subsidizing biofuels with our taxes and with our higher food prices (a hidden tax) is a geopolitical one.
Barrister ... glad you posted this. The Left continues to sidle around the elephant in the tent. I've been watching this tap-dance ever since 1971, when I married my husband, who made his living as an oil company executive. The Left doesn't want to face the fact that oil is a non-renewable asset. When it's gone -- it's gone. If other folks have it, and we don't, it gets real expensive real fast.
The Left doesn't want oil production offshore. I've been watching careful and skillful production of oil in the Gulf of Mexico ever since I came down here. The oil industry has been extremely careful and extremely skilled in finding it, producing it and marketing it, at minimum damage to the environment -- and to the fun sparetime sports of sailing, fishing and swimming for our Gulf Coast population.
But oil is a limited resource and we're beginning to run out, despite the best efforts of the industry. Unless we drill offshore, and allow production of the vast oil-shale find in the upper Midwest, our gasoline prices will go nowhere but up.
And we'll deserve it. Thanks Pelosi, Reid et al, for robbing our pocketbooks in still another way.
Steve at Hogs on Ice put global warming into the best perspective I've seen so far: "The threat of global warming is a fantasy, and liberals are willing to drive working people into poverty in order to stave it off. The threat of Muslim terrorism is as real as dirt, and liberals tell us it's an alarmist scam we ought to ignore."