The global warming "debate" baffles me.  I don't know what to believe.  Dems only site sources that support their position and Cons only site sources that support theirs.  As far as I know, there is no concrete proof either way.
But...
Let's say the country, and perhaps, other parts of the world do their part to conserve energy, use less oil, use alternate "clean" energy sources etc... What's the harm in that?  I understand the argument that liberals use this issue to put forth more governmental control.  But what if the controls are mild and have minimal effect on our daily lives and economy?

My point is this; Conserve and find/use feasible alternative sources of energy
If global warming is real, then we've helped make our planet better for future generations.
If it's a complete fabrication, then we're less dependent on foreign oil.  And basically, we're no worse off.

I think that'd be great if we can get something worked so we didn't have to depend on the middle east for oil, infact that would be an ideal thing. We need to be more dependent on ourselfs, but we can't do it the way liberals want.

Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.
Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.
Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.
Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.
There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.
Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.
It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.
The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A friend of mine has come up with an idea if you are talking about Ethanol.  It won't rise the price of food any more.  Of course the Ethanol lobby and our farmers wouldn't like it, but it would provide other benefits.

He suggests we should buy the entire poppy (opium) crop in Afghanistan and use it for ethanol and medicinal purposes (morphines) in the world.  #1 Afghanistan is the largest dealer of opium in the world.  It would substantially shorten the heroine supply.  #2 It would provide farmers in Afghanistan a living that is not rife with the crime of the drug cartels.  #3  It would not be causing the prices of our animal feed and our foods to rise as it is now due in part to the rising price of corn on the market.  

Of course, this would never happen because our Congress will not even allow the production of hemp (too close to cannabus/pot) to make ethanol much less the purchase of poppies.

JMcKlane wrote:The global warming "debate" baffles me.  I don't know what to believe.  Dems only site sources that support their position and Cons only site sources that support theirs.  As far as I know, there is no concrete proof either way.
But...
Let's say the country, and perhaps, other parts of the world do their part to conserve energy, use less oil, use alternate "clean" energy sources etc... What's the harm in that?  I understand the argument that liberals use this issue to put forth more governmental control.  But what if the controls are mild and have minimal effect on our daily lives and economy?

My point is this; Conserve and find/use feasible alternative sources of energy
If global warming is real, then we've helped make our planet better for future generations.
If it's a complete fabrication, then we're less dependent on foreign oil.  And basically, we're no worse off.

Well, aside from the fact that conservation never works on a national scale; there's nothing to prevent you from conserving energy.

For instance, is it absolutely necessary for you to be on the internet right now?  Are there any lights on in your home at the moment?  Do you drive a Toyota Prius? How much do you drive it?  Why don't you bike to work? What is your thermostat set at right now?  Do you take only cold showers?  Do you use air conditioning in the summer?  Does your home have a dishwasher? A garbage disposal? How often do you flush your toilet each day? Does your home use solar cells to generate electricity? A windmill? A heat pump? Passive solar heating? The best possible insulation?  Do you own a television? If so, why?

You asked: "what if the (governmental) controls are mild and have minimal effect on our daily lives and economy?"

What if clouds are made of cotton candy?  What if I rode to work on a Unicorn?  What if Saruman gained control of the One Ring?

Eyas wrote:

JMcKlane wrote:The global warming "debate" baffles me.  I don't know what to believe.  Dems only site sources that support their position and Cons only site sources that support theirs.  As far as I know, there is no concrete proof either way.
But...
Let's say the country, and perhaps, other parts of the world do their part to conserve energy, use less oil, use alternate "clean" energy sources etc... What's the harm in that?  I understand the argument that liberals use this issue to put forth more governmental control.  But what if the controls are mild and have minimal effect on our daily lives and economy?

My point is this; Conserve and find/use feasible alternative sources of energy
If global warming is real, then we've helped make our planet better for future generations.
If it's a complete fabrication, then we're less dependent on foreign oil.  And basically, we're no worse off.

Well, aside from the fact that conservation never works on a national scale; there's nothing to prevent you from conserving energy.

For instance, is it absolutely necessary for you to be on the internet right now?  Are there any lights on in your home at the moment?  Do you drive a Toyota Prius? How much do you drive it?  Why don't you bike to work? What is your thermostat set at right now?  Do you take only cold showers?  Do you use air conditioning in the summer?  Does your home have a dishwasher? A garbage disposal? How often do you flush your toilet each day? Does your home use solar cells to generate electricity? A windmill? A heat pump? Passive solar heating? The best possible insulation?  Do you own a television? If so, why?

You asked: "what if the (governmental) controls are mild and have minimal effect on our daily lives and economy?"

What if clouds are made of cotton candy?  What if I rode to work on a Unicorn?  What if Saruman gained control of the One Ring?

There is no concrete evidence to prove that the sun won't go supernova tomorrow and destroy the inner-most 4 planets in our solar system.  Does that mean we should implement a global plan to mitigate the disaster?  

There are several problems with "mild or minimal government controls."  First, there is absolutely NO provision for this kind of power and control in the Constitution.  Secondly, name one government program that is "minimal" 5 years after inception?  Thirdly, implementing the Kyoto treaty would cripple the US economy.  Fourthly, even the most staunch proponents of Kyoto admit that it won't stop any alleged global warming but is merely a symbolic effort!  Look it up if you doubt me.  

But, you are absolutely correct to state there is no harm in voluntary conservation.  Why waste your money to power lightbulbs, computers and TVs in your home that you are not using?  Isn't that called "freedom?"  

It is a totally different proposition when the government starts telling you what kind of lightbulbs you can buy.  What will you say when the government imposes a "power quota" on each household and simply disconnects the power at your home when you have exceedly your daily ration?  It would save some money and reduce oil imports.  It would be better for the nation.  

And, frankly, I live in abject fear of Saruman finding the ring but I suppose that would be better than Sauron finding it...

Quinn's Law #1:  Liberalism always generates the opposite of its stated intent.

Congress mandates the new lightbulbs.  The new lightbulbs contain enough mercury that if they are broken require a hazmat team to clean them up.  Where do the new lightbulbs go after they burn out?  Why..they go into the trash where their mercury seeps its way into the ground water.  Consequently, we will be poisoning ourselves with our lightbulbs.  Thank you, Congress.

Congress mandates ethanol.  US ethanol is made of corn.  What are the farmers growing to feed us and the animals we eat?  Corn.  Which corn gets more per bushel, food or ethanol?  Ethanol.  Consequently, what are the farmers growing more of?  Corn for ethanol.  What is happening to the price of food?  Up..up..up..  Thank you, Congress.

SoldiersMum wrote:Congress mandates ethanol.  US ethanol is made of corn.  What are the farmers growing to feed us and the animals we eat?  Corn.  Which corn gets more per bushel, food or ethanol?  Corn.  

  I think you meant to say ethanol here.


The amazing thing to me is that pretty much anyone with a brain, and without any special knowledge of corn, ethanol, agriculture, prices, etc, etc, would have immediately recognized how stupid this policy was before it was ever passed by Congress.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the obvious negative consequences of this subsidy; yet, apparently no one in Congress could grasp the utter ridiculousness of the ethanol subsidy.  Forget motives, lust for power, failing to consider the will of the People, corruption, and all the other flaws of these people -- what kind of total idiots are we electing?

When has Congress ever stopped and thought twice about increasing subsidies to those getting them already!  Frankly, when has Congress every stopped and thought!  

If an alternative fuel worked in the marketplace it wouldn't need a subsidy!

Congressional motto: "If it ain't broke, fix it until it is."

McCain Corrollary: "A bad law is better than no law!"

John McCain:  An unconstitutional law is best of all!