<DrumBeat: August 7, 2007 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: August 8, 2007>

191 comments on Mythbusters: Ethanol and Foreign Oil Displacement

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Sterling on August 7, 2007 - 3:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

so you can bet your bottom dollar that if elected President [Hillary] we'll see more and more of our tax dollars flushed down the toilet

I am not sure that is true. I have seen Bill Clinton talk about imminent peak oil. One thing everyone says about Hillary Clinton is that she does her homework and knows the facts. Ethanol is a farm subsidy that also seems to many to have environmental and national security values. Winning farm state support is essential to win a national election.

Politicians like Clinton know that fossil fuels are limited and that they are going to have to do something about it. The media, oil companies and business in general do not want to have the population scared by talk of severe shortages and the economic downturn they imply. This denial cannot be taken on in a national politic campaign until there is wider acceptance of it in society. People vote for the politicians who give them the most optimistic view of the future. Some people, like Matt Simmons, need to get way out in front and change people's minds but a political candidate cannot do it unless they have no chance of winning and are not really trying to win (although sometimes they throw a desperation long bomb). Perhaps it would be better if that were not the case but we need to deal with the world as it is.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wizofaus on August 8, 2007 - 12:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And yet it does demonstrate a certain lack of imagination, that no politician can think of a way to sell to the public the need to move away from fossil fuels. If Bush can get up there and admit "America is addicted to oil", and even the most optimistic estimates show that America will be gradually become utterly reliant on the Middle East for its oil supplies over the next decade or so, then surely there has to be way to tap into America's touted patriotic sense of independence and self-reliance.

In war times, governments have been able to rally the public on the need to conserve and become more self-reliant (e.g. victory gardens). We already have government-sponsored ads here in Australia encouraging us and suggesting ways to use less water and less electricity or natural gas. "Use less petrol" is the next logical step. It's not an impossible message to sell. Sounds like the U.S. candidates are simply throwing it in the "too hard" basket. Or, more cynically, they have too much vested interest in the fossil-fuel industries, and are sufficiently selfish and short-sighted to put that ahead of the country's (and planet's) long term needs.
But again, if Roscoe Bartlett can make a stand, so can others.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Sterling on August 8, 2007 - 2:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well they do all talk about energy independance but that is not a realistic possibility in the short term given the US has only 2% of world oil reserves. What they cannot say is that the world may well have passed peak oil, peak gas will come in only a few years at most and that we will pass peak coal in less than twenty years. That we will face an overwhelming crisis comparable to the World Wars. People would view that as too pessimistic because they do not have the foundation to believe it yet. But I think the most thoughtful candidates, among whom I include Clinton, know what we really face.

Roscoe Bartlett is not running for president with a reasonable chance of winning which is why he has the freedom to say what he does. When people start to listen to him then main stream politicians will also be able to say what he does.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wizofaus on August 8, 2007 - 2:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

A "crisis comparable to the World Wars" is most almost a given, if Americans start doing nothing to reduce their oil and gas usage.

Of course that's not the way you sell it. Get a crack team of propagandists, marketeers and advertisers in a room together, and I bet they could come up with a campaign to convince Americans that driving big cars is uncool, public transport is "in", and wasting oil is as bad as littering or smoking. And it would cost a fraction of what the alternatives imply, even if you had to pay off compensation to big oil and big auto companies.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Noizette on August 8, 2007 - 11:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Right on. No problem at all. Done in 6 months.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wizofaus on August 8, 2007 - 3:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Or a decade.

Actively attempting to sway public opinion takes time, but I don't think there's any question that it can be done.

Mind you, last night I couldn't help noticing that one of our government-sponsored ads for cutting back on electricity usage "to help prevent climate change" was wedged between an ad for a plasma TV and an ad for a 4WD/SUV-type vehicle. The sad thing is that there will be viewers that will buy a new plasma TV and a new SUV, then think that switching off unused lights, or turning the A/C down a little will somehow compensate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
reno on August 9, 2007 - 10:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Its taken two decades of constant marketing to get us to being good consumers so I doubt they could come up with something that would convince us otherwise in less time..

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

191 comments on Mythbusters: Ethanol and Foreign Oil Displacement

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version