Big Oil suppressing biofuels? Obama thinks so. 5

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 3:09 pm
   26 Jan 2006

   Oh brotherWouldn't that be like allowing a Starbuck's franchise to sell a competing brand of coffee? I don't think Starbucks would care for that either. Inversely, why can't a biofuel franchise refuse to sell fossil fuels?
   If big oil can make money from biofuels, they will sell it. Then it will be big biofuels turn to be the target of endless conspiracy theories.
   Not to bash your boy, but most politicians are cut from the same cloth. Give them a bandwagon, they will jump on it.
   
   
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

   Permalink

2. 

   Payton Chung Posted 4:05 am
   07 Feb 2006

   Corn beltEthanol is a big vote-getter in Illinois -- the nation's second largest corn producing state, and (I believe) the nation's biggest producer of ethanol.

   Permalink

3. 

   Bo Dela Jesus Posted 9:33 am
   30 Mar 2006

   Step 1This legislation Sen. Obama is proposing could end up shifting the fuel issue instead of resolving it, but I believe there is something more important going on here. Developing ethanol is not the ulitmate solution being offered. The most important thing behind this legislation is that it would create a more effective mechanisms for energy reform within our government.  
   Combatting big oil seems like a logical first step, and not to topple the empire, but rather to begin leveling the playing field and open up an avenue by which better solutions might be realized and implimented.
    

   Permalink

4. 

   Christopher Calder Posted 6:40 am
   10 Feb 2008

   The biofuel bandwagon is a parade to hell!Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain are almost totally ignorant as to the science of biofuel production, and how disastrous our current biofuel policies really are.  The Journal SCIENCE has exposed the biofuel hoax.  The problem is in growing land crops to make biofuels.  Switchgrass will be almost as bad as corn or rapeseed!
   "Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years.  Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products." - Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change (SCIENCE)
   story at:
   http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861
   As making biodiesel out of rapeseed or soybean oil costs the same as making regular diesel fuel out of crude oil that costs between $209 (rapeseed) and $232 (soybean oil) a barrel, the idea that we are achieving "energy independence through biofuels is ridiculous.  Politicians have jumped on the biofuel bandwagon because they want the farm vote, and biofuels sound wholesome superficially, even though biofuels are creating global food price hyperinflation, up 40% in 2007 alone, causing water shortages due to water lost to irrigation, and unleashing many times more greenhouse gases than using Alaskan or Saudi crude oil.
   Please see  - "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
   http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

   Permalink

5. 

   GRLCowan Posted 8:37 am
   10 Feb 2008

   "if ", indeed.The Senator manages not to say anything on the matter. Perhaps he's been around the block before, or at least, halfway around and then back the same way.
   Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room

   Permalink