Buying biofuel for your car could be more devastating to the planet than traditional fossil fuels.

[billvon 3,063]

>as the numbers i posted earlier in this thread show ethanol is doing
>nothing to reduce our dependance on oil.

Provably untrue. We're using 6.2 billion gallons of ethanol a year. That's 5 billion gallons of gasoline we didn't have to import in the form of crude oil. A small percentage of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline we use every year, but it's still a 4% reduction.

And we're currently increasing our supply by 50% a year. At that rate of increase we will be creating more than 140 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2016. We won't maintain that rate of increase - we likely won't exceed 25% of our current demand, which we will reach in about five years at this rate.

>the bottom line is that all these by-products used to make biofuels are
>great but can't be scaled up to make a significant dent in oil consumption.

I am afraid that it is _already_ being scaled up, that's provably false as well. That 6.2 billion gallons of fuel is indeed making a dent in our gasoline consumption, and that number is increasing.

>with a negative to dismal 1.3% eroei . . .

You got that number wrong again.

But all of this is sort of beside the point again. If you have an FFV (which millions of americans have) and your choice is to fill it with $3 a gallon E85 or $6 a gallon gasoline, which one will you choose? Or would you rather not have that choice?

>like a strung out crack head being denied his crack so he reaches for
>some glue instead of facing his problem.

More like a fat person reaching for an ear of corn instead of a Big Mac. (After all, going "cold turkey" and using no energy is not an option.) Can you feed every fat guy in the world with ears of corn? No. But you can start solving their obesity problem and feed a lot of them at the same time. The rest may be eating Big Macs; you can't solve all the world's problems instantly. But you can start.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>as the numbers i posted earlier in this thread show ethanol is doing
>nothing to reduce our dependance on oil.

Provably untrue. We're using 6.2 billion gallons of ethanol a year. That's 5 billion gallons of gasoline we didn't have to import in the form of crude oil.

Doesn't this ignore the amount of gasoline/crude/energy required to produce ethanol?

Quote

And we're currently increasing our supply by 50% a year. At that rate of increase we will be creating more than 140 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2016. We won't maintain that rate of increase - we likely won't exceed 25% of our current demand, which we will reach in about five years at this rate.

Is this like that question "if you start with a penny and double your amount every day, for 30 days, how much money will you end up with?"

In other words - where will we get the corn to produce 140 billion gallons of ethanol each year?

Quote

>the bottom line is that all these by-products used to make biofuels are
>great but can't be scaled up to make a significant dent in oil consumption.

I am afraid that it is _already_ being scaled up, that's provably false as well. That 6.2 billion gallons of fuel is indeed making a dent in our gasoline consumption, and that number is increasing.

Meanwhile the price of corn has risen 75% in the last two years.

Quote

But all of this is sort of beside the point again. If you have an FFV (which millions of americans have) and your choice is to fill it with $3 a gallon E85 or $6 a gallon gasoline, which one will you choose? Or would you rather not have that choice?

So the price of E85 is going to be 1/2 of the price of gasoline? With what kind of subsidies?

[skinnyflyer 0]

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2615 "
We are currently using 20% of the corn produced in the United States to produce ethanol. Under the most optimistic scenarios, this amount could be tripled, to the equivalent of 60% of our 2006 corn production. At this production level, corn-based ethanol would replace about 10% of the volume (or about 7.2% of the energy content) of the US gasoline supply. This is still not very much, and there are serious questions whether this optimistic production level can in fact be reached."
of course this isn't factoring in the demand growth of gasoline. if we factor in demand growth those percentages befome impossible.

so in a fantasy dreamworld we'll be able to replace 7.2% of us gasoline supply. so i'll stick with my original statement that biofuels will never even come close to being a substantiall replacement for fossil fuels.

eventually transportation fuels will become so expensive that we'll have to actually change our behaviour; buying smaller more efficient cars, using them less, living closer to work, buying food more locally, switching to real alternatives like solar etc. of course some of these things are already beginning but apparantly not enough to stop demand growth. by pushing highly subsidized biofuels like ethanol and pretending that they are solutions instead of just new tricks to make the rich richer we delay the inevitable withdrawl from our addiction.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[billvon 3,063]

>Doesn't this ignore the amount of gasoline/crude/energy required to
>produce ethanol?

It ignores both the energy needed to create the ethanol _and_ the energy needed to create the gasoline.

>In other words - where will we get the corn to produce 140 billion gallons of
>ethanol each year?

?? I said we would NOT reach 140 billion gallons of ethanol each year. We will level out at about 1/4 of that for environmental, demand and diversification reasons. That's about 5-6X what we're making now - which means approximately doubling the current area of land growing corn (since most of our corn goes for cattle feed and human consumption now.)

However, before that happens cellulosic ethanol will begin to dominate, and we will be using the cornstalks from existing fields instead of new corn grown in new fields.

>Meanwhile the price of corn has risen 75% in the last two years.

Supply and demand.

>So the price of E85 is going to be 1/2 of the price of gasoline? With what
>kind of subsidies?

Same subsidies we have now. The supply of ethanol is increasing; the oil reserves are decreasing. Natural market forces will then drive the prices of those two commodities in the expected directions.

[billvon 3,063]

> At this production level, corn-based ethanol would replace about 10%
>of the volume (or about 7.2% of the energy content) of the US gasoline
>supply.

Now add cellulosic ethanol to the mix, and you're at 25% - WITHOUT increasing the amount of cropland you need.

As I've said before, ethanol is one answer to our energy problems, one we can implement immediately, will work with current vehicles AND one that is making a dent right now. It's the only alternative fuel that currently IS working to reduce our oil dependence.

Our future 'energy mix' for vehicles should look something like this:

20% ethanol, broken down into E10 (for today's cars) and E85 (for flex-fuel cars.)

20% biodiesel, primarily for trucking and heavy-load vehicles.

20% methane/biogas/natural gas for buses, trucks and cars.

20% petroleum based products (which will diminish with time)

20% electric, primarily pluggable hybrids.

>that we'll have to actually change our behaviour; buying smaller
>more efficient cars . . .

That will be a definitely factor as well, and will allow us to stretch our remaining oil further. That, along with the above alternates, will greatly lessen the impact of any oil shortage due to war/embargo/currency problems/Hubbert limit. The problem is that if we wait until the oil crunch really starts, we won't have the time or money to make the changes needed; we'll be struggling just to survive.

Thus the money invested now in biofuels/EV's/PHEV's will put us in a much better position when that crunch comes, and may turn an economic disaster into an economic downturn.

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

> At this production level, corn-based ethanol would replace about 10%
>of the volume (or about 7.2% of the energy content) of the US gasoline
>supply.

Now add cellulosic ethanol to the mix, and you're at 25% - WITHOUT increasing the amount of cropland you need.

where'd you get that number from? it still takes energy to make cellulosic ethanol. and let's not make any assumptions about a technology that does't commercially exist yet. you sound like those people who were saying that we'd all be driving hydrogen cars by now.

Quote

As I've said before, ethanol is one answer to our energy problems, one we can implement immediately, will work with current vehicles AND one that is making a dent right now. It's the only alternative fuel that currently IS working to reduce our oil dependence.

if you consider rising gasoline demand part of the solution then ok it's helping us to afford driving more miles each year.

Quote

Thus the money invested now in biofuels/EV's/PHEV's will put us in a much better position when that crunch comes, and may turn an economic disaster into an economic downturn.

i agree with the ev and phev. but the money invested in ethanol is wasted just to keep us in denial a little longer and will make facing the reality worse. .

once again the numbers are: in the last 7 years annual ethanol production grew by 3 billion gallons, while annual gasoline demand grew by 14 billion gallons.

what would happen if we didn't have access to the 3 billion gallons of gas? maybe the price would be higher and we'd drive less. i think they said the land used to keep 1 person motoring for a year would feed 7-8 people

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[skinnyflyer 0]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5158162.html

Ethanol runs out of gas when you tote up true cost


By MARK J. PERRY
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


In the politically motivated rush to replace gasoline with corn ethanol, we may be doing ourselves real economic harm.

The government-supported push for ethanol will not only increase taxes and damage the environment, but will add to Americans' burden of high fuel and food costs and especially hurt people on fixed incomes. And it will do almost nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil — all of the ethanol production this year will replace less than 5 percent of the gasoline sold.

Clearly, there is a limit to how much of the U.S. corn crop can be gobbled up for ethanol without pushing food prices higher and higher. Increased production of corn-based ethanol during just the past 12 months has raised food prices by $47 per person, according to a study by Iowa State University. Before the summer is over, the price of milk is expected to jump 40 cents a gallon, and up to 60 cents more for a pound of cheese.

Nevertheless, a Senate energy bill is coming up for final approval next month that would require a sevenfold increase in ethanol from 5 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022. The measure also provides loan guarantees, biofuels research and development grants, and grants for ethanol plant construction for the politically powerful ethanol industry.

As if that's not enough, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, are co-sponsoring a bill that would raise the ethanol mandate to 60 billion gallons by 2030.

Ethanol cannot be justified on a scientific or economic basis, and the only reason the industry has survived and profited is that the government gives corn farmers and ethanol producers very generous subsidies. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out, ethanol is produced by mixing corn with our tax dollars, currently $5.5 billion annually in more than 200 ethanol tax breaks and subsidies.

If extended through 2022, as the Senate energy bill provides, the ethanol subsidies will cost taxpayers an estimated $131 billion, according to the Tax Foundation. Subsidies under the Lugar-Harkin measure would cost as much as $205 billion over the next 15 years.

The scientific problem with corn ethanol is that it contains one-third less energy than gasoline. So a motorist has to purchase one-third more fuel to go the same distance. If you total up all of the fossil fuel that goes into making and transporting ethanol — nitrogen-based fertilizer and herbicides, fuel to run farm machinery and delivery trucks, natural gas for the distilling process at ethanol plants — it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the fuel provides.

Furthermore, the rush to produce ethanol is adversely impacting the environment. In many parts of the corn belt, water tables are dropping, in some places 10 feet or more in the past decade, because it takes so much water to grow corn and produce ethanol. For that matter, if the government keeps mandating unreasonably high levels of ethanol production, a prolonged drought that devastates the corn crop could cause fuel shortages in the future.

In addition, heavy corn production exacerbates soil erosion, pollutes groundwater supplies from chemical runoff, and increases the level of greenhouse gas emissions from the conversion of grassland to corn production.

The United States has an estimated 131 billion barrels of oil and 1,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available domestically, but currently off-limits, in and around the United States. If Congress wants to moderate fuel prices and help consumers and the economy, it ought to open up these potentially oil-rich areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and in Alaska, to oil and natural gas production.

But there is a real danger that Congress will remain oblivious to the economic and scientific realities of ethanol and take us down the wrong path by mandating a huge increase in ethanol production. Washington might have a love affair with ethanol for political reasons, but increasing ethanol production will only lead to higher taxes, higher prices for both food and fuel, and damage to the environment, making us all worse off in the process. Congress needs to say no to the ethanol hustlers and end their political addiction to corn.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[billvon 3,063]

>it still takes energy to make cellulosic ethanol.

Yes, specifically the fermentation/distillation. But the feedstock is now free; it is currently discarded.

>and let's not make any assumptions about a technology that does't
>commercially exist yet.

SunOpta in China is operating a cellulosic ethanol plant, and half a dozen new plants - totalling about 150 million gallons a year capacity - are currently under construction.

>what would happen if we didn't have access to the 3 billion gallons of gas?
>maybe the price would be higher and we'd drive less.

Yes - and a much higher percentage of our fuel usage would be ethanol. Which is why we're producing it, so we DO have an alternative. Much better to have a small supply of expensive, hard to produce fuel than no fuel at all.

>i think they said the land used to keep 1 person motoring for a year would
>feed 7-8 people

Yep. There are no free lunches.

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

>it still takes energy to make cellulosic ethanol.

Yes, specifically the fermentation/distillation. But the feedstock is now free; it is currently discarded.

and collection and transportation of feedstock. i still don't believ the numbers you mentioned earlier.

Quote

>and let's not make any assumptions about a technology that does't
>commercially exist yet.

SunOpta in China is operating a cellulosic ethanol plant, and half a dozen new plants - totalling about 150 million gallons a year capacity - are currently under construction.

they are all still in the experimental stage and require massive subsidies. i believe there are still some very significant technological barriers to overcome. it sounds great but don't forget there were plenty of flashy hydrogen prototypes that worked too.

Quote

>what would happen if we didn't have access to the 3 billion gallons of gas?
>maybe the price would be higher and we'd drive less.

Yes - and a much higher percentage of our fuel usage would be ethanol. Which is why we're producing it, so we DO have an alternative. Much better to have a small supply of expensive, hard to produce fuel than no fuel at all.

no. without the massive subsidies even if gasoline were much more expensive corn ethanol would probably still be uneconomic. we choose as a society which alternatives to pursue and how much land to allocate to said alternatives. chosing to keep the unsustainable fantasyland of evermore motoring going for just a short while longer doesn't help at all in the longterm.

Quote

>i think they said the land used to keep 1 person motoring for a year would
>feed 7-8 people

Yep. There are no free lunches.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[billvon 3,063]

>they are all still in the experimental stage and require massive subsidies.

Yes, just as commercial aviation, solar power and nuclear power did. Be pretty silly, though, to claim that aviation and nuclear power will therefore never amount to anything - and I now generate more power than I use with a solar array.

>we choose as a society which alternatives to pursue and how much
>land to allocate to said alternatives.

Correct. And one of the alternatives we have chosen is ethanol. We like the result (a pretty clean fuel produced here) we like how it's used (in cars we have right now) and we like how we get it (by paying american farmers to grow stuff.)

It will never solve all our energy problems, but it will be one part of the solution.

>chosing to keep the unsustainable fantasyland of evermore motoring
>going for just a short while longer doesn't help at all in the longterm.

If underneath all that overblown rhetoric you mean "we shouldn't be driving as much" I'd tend to agree - but to make that happen you have to provide alternatives, most of which will be (gasp!) massively subsidized. HOV lanes, light rail, commuter rail, bus routes, better bike routes etc are all options.

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

they are all still in the experimental stage and require massive subsidies.

Yes, just as commercial aviation, solar power and nuclear power did. Be pretty silly, though, to claim that aviation and nuclear power will therefore never amount to anything - and I now generate more power than I use with a solar array.

right but for every successful technology i'm sure there are many promissing one's that never lived up to there expectations. lets not count our chickens until they hatch.

Quote

>we choose as a society which alternatives to pursue and how much
>land to allocate to said alternatives.

Correct. And one of the alternatives we have chosen is ethanol. We like the result (a pretty clean fuel produced here) we like how it's used (in cars we have right now) and we like how we get it (by paying american farmers to grow stuff.)

It will never solve all our energy problems, but it will be one part of the solution.

>chosing to keep the unsustainable fantasyland of evermore motoring
>going for just a short while longer doesn't help at all in the longterm.

If underneath all that overblown rhetoric you mean "we shouldn't be driving as much" I'd tend to agree - but to make that happen you have to provide alternatives, most of which will be (gasp!) massively subsidized. HOV lanes, light rail, commuter rail, bus routes, better bike routes etc are all options.

no. to make that happen fuels need to be more expensive. subsidised corn ethonal keeps the price of fuels lower by taxing everyone, poor and non-drivers included. exactly what doesn't make sense. not to mention negative environmental effects and increased food costs.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[billvon 3,063]

>no. to make that happen fuels need to be more expensive.

Making fuel more expensive does ZERO to improve mass transit. Gas could be $1000 a gallon, and if cities/states/the federal government did not push mass transit by siting and building new tracks - no new rail lines would get built where they are needed (for obvious reasons.)

You have to spend the money to build the rail lines - THEN increasing fuel prices will encourage people to use the (now existing) rail lines. And again, if you wait until gas is too expensive to use for commuting, it's too late to start thinking about building rail lines. Hoping "the magic of the free market" will solve your energy problems gives you Enron, not a real solution.

>subsidised corn ethonal keeps the price of fuels lower by taxing everyone,
>poor and non-drivers included.

Correct. Just as subsidized trolley, bus, commuter and long-distance train service is subsidized by taxes on everyone. Just as oil company subsidies (in the billions) are paid for by everyone. Just as nuclear power liability insurance (Price-Anderson) is paid for by the federal government via everyone's taxes.

Why? Because we think those things are worth funding. And if oil companies are worth funding, so is ethanol.

(You can argue that NONE of those should be subsidized, and that's a valid argument - but it's a different argument.)

>not to mention negative environmental effects and increased food costs.

There are no perfect solutions. Ethanol increases food costs and harms the environment. It harms the environment more than solar, less than coal. It increases food costs more than solar, less than natural gas. It has the advantage that is is produced here 100%, plus the other advantages (our cars can use it right now etc.)

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

no. to make that happen fuels need to be more expensive.

Making fuel more expensive does ZERO to improve mass transit. Gas could be $1000 a gallon, and if cities/states/the federal government did not push mass transit by siting and building new tracks - no new rail lines would get built where they are needed (for obvious reasons.)

actually i didn't say anything about mass transit. but if gas is $1000 people will drive much less and use much less energy.

Quote

You have to spend the money to build the rail lines - THEN increasing fuel prices will encourage people to use the (now existing) rail lines. And again, if you wait until gas is too expensive to use for commuting, it's too late to start thinking about building rail lines. Hoping "the magic of the free market" will solve your energy problems gives you Enron, not a real solution.

exactly, we should be spending more money on rail and public transportations instead of wasting it on ethanol dillusions.

Quote

>subsidised corn ethonal keeps the price of fuels lower by taxing everyone,
>poor and non-drivers included.

Correct. Just as subsidized trolley, bus, commuter and long-distance train service is subsidized by taxes on everyone. Just as oil company subsidies (in the billions) are paid for by everyone. Just as nuclear power liability insurance (Price-Anderson) is paid for by the federal government via everyone's taxes.

Why? Because we think those things are worth funding.

i never said those are not worth funding.

Quote

And if oil companies are worth funding, so is ethanol.

that's ridiculous.

Quote

(You can argue that NONE of those should be subsidized, and that's a valid argument - but it's a different argument.)

>not to mention negative environmental effects and increased food costs.

There are no perfect solutions. Ethanol increases food costs and harms the environment. It harms the environment more than solar, less than coal. It increases food costs more than solar, less than natural gas. It has the advantage that is is produced here 100%, plus the other advantages (our cars can use it right now etc.)

the negatives outweigh the positives.

switching some of your surplus grain production into ethanol makes sense. but agressively pursuing it with subsidies and touting it as a solution to displace large portions of oil importation is going to cause much more harm than good.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[Misternatural 0]

>>it still takes energy to make cellulosic ethanol.

True- surprisingly we have not yet been able to defy the laws of thermodynamics.


>>and let's not make any assumptions about a technology that does't commercially exist yet.

So by your logic it does not yet pay to even bother to explore the alternatives.But isn't it curious that OIL companies such as BP, and Chevron are investing in alternative energy technologies, Are they doing it for PR?, I don't think so, they are doing it because they are expert in the fact that petroleum is a finite resource and they they know it will be prohibitively expensive to continue to produce in the near future.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[jumpinfarmer 0]

Thank you Misternatural for bringing some sanity back to this thread.
For everyones knowledge.
In 2007 there was just over 92 million acres of corn planted in the US for all uses, the largest seeded area to corn since 1946. Production of grain corn will probably be in the range of 13.2 to 13.5 billion bushels. Now back in 1946 they only produced a little over 5 billion bushels. The total area used in the US for all crop production is only about 60% of what it was 60 years ago. If people are so worried about land being used for fuel production than they should be worried about the loss of land to urban sprall since this has been a major reason for the reduction in crop land.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Are they doing it for PR?, I don't think so, they are doing it because they are expert in the fact that petroleum is a finite resource and they they know it will be prohibitively expensive to continue to produce in the near future.

Oh my god - energy companies are volunteering to explore potential affordable alternate energy sources?

And they are not being forced to by the government?

And it's not some kind of evil big business scam to drive up oil prices?

They are being driven to do this by market forces they are anticipating?




THE GW crowd can find 7 things wrong with your paragraph.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,063]

>They are being driven to do this by market forces they are anticipating?

Hate to burst the ol' free-market bubble, there, but the "market forces" that inspired Chevron to get in the PV business were the subsidies by Japan and Germany that led to the PV booms in those countries. (Those are still quite real market forces; the governments of those countries simply decided to help drive them.) That's a good way to do it, I think.

[rehmwa 2]

Cool, let Japan and Germany articially stimulate the market. Just not us.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,063]

> Cool, let Japan and Germany articially stimulate the market. Just not us.

"Let someone else do the hard work!" Well, looks like that's happening. China, Japan, Germany etc are taking the lead in medicine, space exploration, alternative energy and computer technology.

For some reason, though, I do not look forward to the day when the US becomes a fully-outsourced follower of others, content to let others make the discoveries, drive the technologies and set the path for the future. But that's just me.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Cool, let Japan and Germany articially stimulate the market. Just not us.

But the US is already "artificially stimulating" the petroleum market. Why not shift the locus from old energy to new energy? And Bill's point about not waiting for someone else to do it is a pretty good one. Just look who took the lead on efficient cars. Japan saw what was coming in the early 90's and started working for it. The US got lazy and made big gas guzzling vehicles and slacked off on the new technology R&D. Now Japan has the lead in the efficiency/technology dept and the US is scrambling to catch up.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Cool, let Japan and Germany articially stimulate the market. Just not us.

But the US is already "artificially stimulating" the petroleum market. Why not shift the locus from old energy to new energy? And Bill's point about not waiting for someone else to do it is a pretty good one. Just look who took the lead on efficient cars. Japan saw what was coming in the early 90's and started working for it. The US got lazy and made big gas guzzling vehicles and slacked off on the new technology R&D. Now Japan has the lead in the efficiency/technology dept and the US is scrambling to catch up.

You guys

a company watching the market and anticipating the future needs is a great thing - why not blame the US "companies" for failing in this, rather than the country itself. (I know, it takes blame closer to individuals, and there's no such thing as individuals in your world).

the government forcing it, is the wrong thing

Japan also doesn't operate on outdated union shop models, unusual workplace laws, etc. also

Maybe our industries suffer from TOO MUCH social intervention, vs not enough as you all crave to believe.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

You guys

a company watching the market and anticipating the future needs is a great thing - why not blame the US "companies" for failing in this, rather than the country itself....

The reason that I point to my government is that my government is already influencing the industry through tax incentives, subsidies, etc. And in our case in particular, it is in our national security interest to find alternative sources of energy.

P.S. Unfortunately our priorities are skewed right now. We apparently value the building of other nations over our own.

[billvon 3,063]

>a company watching the market and anticipating the future needs is a great thing . .

Agreed. It's also great when a government anticipates future needs when it comes to things like highways, epidemics, energy, flood control, need for police etc. It takes both.

>why not blame the US "companies" for failing in this . . .

A company maximizing short-term profit is not "failing" - indeed under many models of economics it is doing exactly the RIGHT thing. However, making money for your stockholders is not always the same as doing the right thing for the future.

Look at pollution. It is economically advantageous to install no emissions controls on powerplants, and the company that does this will give shareholders a better return on investment, allow its shareholders to send their kids to college, afford the lung operation for poor old mom etc etc. and all the other good things that go along with making money. The company that installs excellent scrubbers has a poorer ROI, investors sell out for more profitable investments, and the company goes under. Result - lots of pollution.

So the government steps in, and says "you HAVE TO meet these standards." Now everyone is on a level playing field again. The company that installs scrubbers is not penalized, because other companies have to do the same thing, and are impacted just as much. Less total money made - but now mom doesn't need the lung operation, either.

The idea that capitalism will always do the right thing in the long run is soemwhat myopic. Government has a role in creating limits and incentives so we can avoid the sort of abuses/shortsightedness we've seen in the past when the "let the market figure it out!" paradigm is followed.

[rehmwa 2]

The reason that I point to my government is that my government is already influencing the industry through tax incentives, subsidies, etc. And in our case in particular, it is in our national security interest to find alternative sources of energy.

so you kinda make my point - perhaps it's in our better interests to get out of it more than 'in' it more - good opinions both ways, I'm just on the out of it more side. Or at least it's more intuitive to me so when there's a debate my Devil's advocate tendencies take me to that POV

P.S. Unfortunately our priorities are skewed right now. We apparently value the building of other nations over our own.

you got that right, but it's not an either/or situation like you guys like to present (Kallend is the master of that false logic tactic). We could stop meddling in other nations AND not further meddle in business issues.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

same old, same old - you quote some legitmate examples and attempt to say it applies to everything else. Then you call anyone that disagrees 'myopic' because the little insult/jabs are ..... actually, I have no idea why you do that.

I'll assume that since you said "always" think capitalism (infer 'market forces'?) does the right thing, it doesn't apply to anyone here - "always" is pretty absolute.

Not like you guys that think 100% control by government of our thoughts and actions will create a utopia.

It's not a go/nogo thing like you want to argue - it's a matter of extent. You just want to oversimplify because it's Friday.

Quote

we can avoid the sort of abuses/shortsightedness we've seen in the past when the "let the market figure it out!"

take your choice - I'd like to avoid the abuses/shortsightedness we've seen in the past when we "let the government take care of it"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants