Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.
RECENT POSTS
- Mars Rover: Stuck in the Mud
- Tranquility Base
- NASA's Ares 1-X Test: The View From Above
- The Yes Men
- The Missing Link -- Not
- Moon Crash Kicked Up Plume After All
- Moon Crash: Where's the Water?
- Green Apple: Firm is Latest to Leave U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Recovery.gov: Your Tax Dollars at Work
- Climate: Power Companies Quit U.S Chamber of Commerce
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
"Bold Concepts," or, Why I'm Glad I'm not President
January 24, 2007 2:29 PM
Let's give Mr. Bush credit for one thing--whatever you think of his energy proposals, and his harping on ethanol, it is not simply a sop to some corn-state Senators.
A few hours ago the President was at DuPont in Delaware, where they're experimenting with cellulosic ethanol. That's alcohol fuel that can be distilled from all sorts of plant material, not just corn--wood chips, farm waste, even the now-infamous switch grass that he mentioned in last year's State of the Union...and avoided this time around.
One line from his DuPont talk: "I came wondering whether or not cellulosic was, ethanol, was, you know, one of these things down the road, maybe happening, may not, could end up being science, or science fiction--it's going to be science. It's working." (He stumbled on "cellulosic," but you or I might have too.)
So he's talking ethanol, he's talking some change on auto fuel-economy standards, he's talking market forces--and he's getting it from all sides.
From Steve Cochran of Environmental Defense:
"His prescription for action – calling on America to produce upwards of 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017 and to improve auto fuel efficiency – is significant.... However, President Bush is missing a huge opportunity to support an economy-wide national cap on America's global warming pollution. Without a cap, his proposal falls well short of comprehensive and effective global warming action."
From Carl Pope of the Sierra Club:
"Replacing a gallon of gasoline with ethanol requires about 2/3 of a gallon of oil to make the ethanol, so the real impact on the growth of oil consumption would, at best, be a 5 percent reduction. And Bush never spells out where the ethanol comes from -- he actually promises that the increased standard will be about as watertight as cheese cloth. It will contain "multiple safety valves" and Bush guarantees that the price of ethanol will not go up. This is beyond smoke and mirrors, this is magic wand stuff."
From Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute:
"According to the president, ethanol is the magical elixir that will solve virtually every economic, environmental and foreign policy problem on the horizon. In reality, ethanol is enormously expensive and wasteful.... If ethanol has commercial merit, it will not need government subsidies. If it doesn't no amount of subsidies will help."
Whaddya think?
January 24, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (3)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
We've been warming globally since the last ice age formed Long Island 10000 yrs age. Oil, nuclear and all academic research is subsidized by the government (the biggest user of taxpayer money next the government itself). It seems to me that no matter what Bush says- even proposing so-called green solutions (I thought that meant liberal)- the haters will deride him. What ever happened to the American spirit of progressing scientifically, further than any country in history- for the common good?
Posted by: Keith S. | Jan 24, 2007 10:55:10 PM
Considering the President's background (oil industry) and interests (unsympathetic to signs of climate change/global warming), I'd say his proposals are a good start if, and only if, he also supports greenhouse gas initiatives and increased CAFE standards for auto manufacturers. Since the problem of reducing our dependence on fossil-based fuels is a complex one, it deserves "bold concepts" on more than one front.
Posted by: chuck | Jan 25, 2007 10:08:17 AM
The nay-sayers are coming out of the walls big time, which is no surprise. At this point, nothing Gee Dub could say on any subject would be greeted without major opposition. (The one possible ovation would be if he announced pulling all our troops out of Iraq.) But, where is the grasp of history in all this? Missing, that's where.
Since the time of this country's founding, the majority of all break-through progress has been with the assistance of the federal government, in some form or another. Mass production? Interchangeable parts? Eli Whitney wanted to grab a contract to sell rifles to the government. Computers? The Navy needed a better way to figure ballistics for their big guns. The list goes on and on. Sure, there were purely civilian developments, but they are a much smaller number than those which involved government support in one form. Why should we be surprised if research into ethanol is getting such support? History has shown that basic research always pays off, big time -- ALWAYS!
Let's fund the development of this resource to the fullest. It can't "solve" our energy problems, not by itself, but it can ease our dependence on foreign oil while we work to find a permanent solution. Once the kinks are worked out we can get the government out, and let market forces go to work.
My first personal computer came with an entire 16k of RAM (Wow!!), saved programs to tape, took up almost all of my desk-top, and sold for the low, low price of only $1,100.00! The one I use now has 100 megs of RAM, saves things to a hard-drive with a capacity over 100,000 times greater than the RAM of that first one, can be taken anywhere, and cost me over $300.00 less! Basic research, much of it funded by federal dollars, let loose in the private sector.
It works.
Posted by: Walker Evans | Jan 25, 2007 1:05:02 PM
Post a comment
