Brazil Celebrates Energy Independence…

• October 30, 2006

…but not because of ethanol.

Energy: Bill Clinton’s back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to California voters. “If Brazil can do it, so can we,” he said, claiming an ethanol switch ended Brazil’s need for foreign oil. Once again, he’s telling whoppers.
Brazil did achieve independence from foreign oil all right. It happened this past April. But Clinton, true to form, doesn’t quite recall the critical point showing how it was done.
Here’s a clue for the semi-retired former president and policy wonk: Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva didn’t celebrate the oil independence milestone out in an Amazon sugar field.
No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of Brazil’s vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil’s oil independence had virtually nothing to do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.

We could do that here in America too, except that the Democrats won’t let the “evil” oil industry exploit our domestic oil reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge or other areas.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Politics

http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

We’ve been being lied to. I shouldn’t be surprised but it makes me mad.
carrick

There are health reasons for wanting to go away from petroleum based fuels, just as there are health reasons for the prohibition of public smoking. In fact, studies suggest that the cost to society of air pollution in big cities from car & truck exhaust is much greater than the effects of second-hand smoke. There are also effects on our environment that affect tree growth, in turn affecting lumber prices and hence the cost of new houses. This doesn’t even factor in the devaluation of our natural resources from the damage caused by automotive exhaust.

My only point here is you have to factor in indirect costs of the alternative choices. What makes this more difficult is that corn kernel ethanol is unlikely to ever provide than about 20% of our total energy needs, so other technologies are needed. Until the technologies become “ripe” it will be impossible to determine land usage impact from these alternative fuel sources. It’s unlikely in any case that they will approach the harm routinely done to the environment through petroleum production and refinement processes.
robert108

He also lies when he says that “…ethanol is 33% cheaper than gasoline”.
robert108

Rob: I know. You probably also didn’t factor in the extra cost of the modifications to run E85 over regular gasoline. I’m sure you paid a “premium” for that vehicle over an unmodified one that is otherwise identical. This commie concept that we “should” all want to buy things that adhere to the enviro-extremist worldview is the problem here. We should “choose” to pay extra for that, and if we don’t, they will “mandate” that we do. Vehicle costs will then spiral out of control, just like medical costs and the cost of SS.
carrick

Gregdn, I guess this is what makes you a Democrat. You think that a central government “one size fits all” solution works better than trusting local communities to decide what is in their own best interests.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

Bill Clinton’s back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to California voters. “If Brazil can do it, so can we,” he said, claiming an ethanol switch ended Brazil’s need for foreign oil. Once again, he’s telling whoppers.

You can tell this one doomed from the start by touting tax hikes for ethanol, can dems do anything with out first suggesting they are going to confiscate more of our money.
Sick. Not to Washington, you already take 20% plus every pay check how much more do you think you need?
robert108

gregdn: I think we should leave it up to market forces; no subsidies or mandates.
robert108

And they picked the Liar In Chief to do it. As a Californian, I am subjected to his lying face quite often on TV.
gregdn

Even if ethanol is the greatest thing since peanut butter I don’t think states should be setting their own energy policies. It should be handled at the federal level if, for no other reason the Interstate Commerce Clause.
robert108

Even if the studies are accurate, the damage from fossil fuel is decreasing over time, and will continue to do so. It has to be a cost/benefit decision of free people.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Right, robert.

A while back I did a little experiment burning E-85 fuel and regular fuel in the same vehicle.

It turns out that the ethanol, in terms of cost per mile, is actually more expensive than gasoline and isn’t as good in terms of vehicle performance. And that’s before calculating in the expense in tax dollars of the subsidies handed out to prop up the production and sale of the fuel.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Well, right now the government isn’t mandating the manufacture of flex-fuel vehicles or the sale of ethanol (except in certain states like Minnesota)…but they certainly aren’t against using our tax dollars to lead car manufacturers and fuel producers in the direction they want.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Brazil Celebrates Energy Independence…

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments