The road to energy conservation By Allen E. Smith

[YankeyMCC]

(snip)
THE UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change documented that we are changing our climate and life on Earth as we know it. In arresting climate change and solving related energy issues, we should follow the physicians' oath - first, do no harm - and avoid alternatives with equal or greater impacts than our present energy supply.
more stories like this

Consider the example of ethanol. Production requires large amounts of petroleum, farmland, corn, and water, yet it has questionable alternative energy value, has its own emissions and siting problems, directly competes with food supply, and its transport requires special vehicles instead of pipelines. Market-driven production capacity has raced ahead of available delivery infrastructure. This has caused the price of ethanol to crash from overproduction, while at the same time increased demand for corn to produce ethanol has raised corn prices and reduced the availability of corn for food, raising food prices.

Our preoccupation with letting the free market determine our national energy policy is wasteful folly and not in the public interest. Our margin of error to make catastrophic energy policy mistakes with impunity is shrinking as fast as the window to tackle climate change is closing. Reliance on markets alone cannot solve this and doing so will bankrupt our future. We need sustainable national energy policy legislated now. Energy conservation should be first.

The most abundant low-hanging fruit of energy conservation is rotting on the vine because we are mired in political gridlock over improving fuel efficiency in vehicles. Detroit manufacturers brag about achieving greater efficiency in cutting the energy costs of producing an automobile, then pass on inefficient fuel costs to the environment and consumers. Green-washing themselves about the efficiency of their hybrids, they lobby successfully against any policy change to improve fleet mileage standards.
(snip)

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/19/the_road_to_energy_conservation/

[luckyleftyme2]

1. thats opinion

your thread is opinion not fact,corn is not the only source, their are many sources for ethanol including all those vacant potato farms in the county.
we can't all ride bikes or walk to work, especially states like ours that the average person has a 35 min drive to work.
alternative fuel as well as increased fuel efficiency will be the only alternative.
common sense has told us this for years,only greed and territorial rights has prevented
us from achieving it.

[YankeyMCC]

2. Which is why it is posted in Ed&Op

But the facts about corn derived ethanol are correct. Cellulose derived bio-feuls probably have a role to play but it just isn't going to happen, the capacity isn't there, the problems of production in terms of efficiency and competition with food production remain. The main point of the piece is that first and foremost we need to change our expectations and demands, that is the way we will get the most benefit and in the quickest manner. This is a matter of urgency and ethanol is not going to come to the rescue in time, it's not likely it could rescue us even in the longer term.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/11/13/opinion/guest/guest90.txt
The report referenced in that article: http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/BiofuelsFinal.pdf

[MikeDunlavey]

4. why we use ethanol

Ethanol replaces MTBE, which had health effects, I believe. 
It does not save oil.  You can burn pure ethanol, but it will
only save oil if much better ways are found to make and
distribute it.
That 35 minute commute could be done with less oil if part of
it is spent inching along in traffic.  When hybrids are not
moving, they are not idling (except maybe to run the heater).
By the way, when we eat a pound of meat, we're eating several
pounds of cereal grain, which took lots of oil to grow.  Then
there's all the plastic packaging we buy, which takes oil to
make.  Our present oil consumption level would not be hard to
reduce.

[MikeDunlavey]

3. one more point

Great article. I didn't see the one immediate benefit of trying to use less oil - lower prices.