It should have been done thirty years ago. The technology to transform farm products to fuel has been around for many decades. The United States should have been improving this technology following the first oil crisis in 1973. But some decree by the President of the United States mandating ethanol powered vehicles definately should have started following the attacks of September 11. 2001.
The enemies of our country fuel their war machines on our dollars spent on automobile fuel from petroleum. The more gasoline is purchased and the higher the price, the more these terrorist can be armed. In some ways, we are shooting at ourselves, but without a law forcing automobile manufacturers to make changes in vehicles, Americans are not going to seek alternative fuels. If this was done 5 years ago, many of the problems facing the country would not exist today. At the pace of 'voluntarily' make the change based on consumer choices will take too much time and destroy the economy given the rise in the cost of petroleum; and in turn the price of gas.
The fighting in Iraq may be quelled by mid-2008. This war is the impetus behind the rise in petroleum prices simply because the Far East depends on Iraq and Iran for its carbon based fossil fuels. Russia and The United States have oil; lots of it. It is cheaper to well overseas, especially in the Middle East. The fighting, however, in Afghanistan appears to be years away from quieting. This is where the terrorists attacking us came from. Their income for weapons comes from OUR consumption of illegal opiates and oil. The latter could be mitigated if not eliminated if this country changed to organic based fuel production instead of fossil based petroleum.
Brazil, a country two-thirds the size of the US, made the change and imports no oil. Consumers have a choice and choose based on price ethanol. The US HAS ENOUGH OIL to power our cars if the ethanol alternative was used by 60% or more of drivers. It only appears based on press reports the US has as much oil as Japan, which has little or no oil fields (a contributing factor to WW2). We cannot feed our need for gasoline based on petroleum being the source to power automobiles. The change of not having to import oil, would be extraordinary both to the environment and the economy. Of course, companies may still choose to import oil the same as beef, produce and automobiles are imported.
Just about any organic material can produce alcohol. Whey, a by-product of milk, has the most 'bang' for the buck. Corn at this time, however, is probably the most efficient given the fields set aside for this grain. Lay people are not the ones to determine the issues surrounding production and delivery. We have enough scientists and statisticians who can provide the equations to deliver the product at a profit. What is need is a mandate.
War is mandate that requires the Legislative to approve and the Executive branch execute. This is the reason we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. If such a mandate can be executed to keep the citizenry safe, requiring a switch in fuel source would be as urgent. Congress is too divided to this. This has to be introduced by the Executive branch. Congress can dispute the parameters but the core requirement the President can pressure to make sure it becomes law.
No presidential candidate has so far advanced a complete overhaul of auto production to switch to ethanol (or other alternative viable fuels). If one has, they have not made it pronounced enough to be a core of their campaign. I am voting for the candidate that clearly states a change from petroleum or other fossil fuel for propulsion to organic derivatives that can deliver compression or expulsion to power family vehicles. I believe this provides me with the best protection the Federal government can give me from foreign aggressors while caring for the environment.
It may fall to the current president to put a comprehensive plan in action. It will give him the legacy of a leader guiding the country into oil self sufficiency and economic buoyancy. I don't believe because he is an 'oil man' as he has been characterized will necessarily preclude a change in his approach to fuel. It may lower the foreign imported price of oil, but enormous vehicles such as airplanes are best propelled by petroleum products. The profits from these sales would be to those wells within the territory of our great nation.
An ethanol producing plant in western North Dakota just closed from lack of sales, yet in Brazil indigenous people are being forced into slave labor to produce ethanol. The demand is there. We need to demand it.
