Another hypocritical Obama moment

[NotDeadYet]

What the question should be is: If Brazil can wean their cars off gasoline, why can't we?

Brazil makes their ethanol from sugar cane, which requires a tropical or subtropical climate. We are limited in the amount of sugar cane we can grow, so we use corn, which is not an efficient fuel source. It has to have the starch converted to sugar before it can be made into ethanol, uses tons of water and fertilizer, and diverts needed crop land from food to fuel. Using food crops for fuel is not going to wean the world's cars off gasoline without starving someone somewhere. Wean to electricity? Then the question becomes, what shall we use to produce the electricity? Oil, coal, natural gas? Or something other than a fossil fuel? Nuclear, perhaps? The oil and gas industry has blocked any meaningful attempts to develop non-fossil fuel sources.

It's amazing to me to hear a conservative gripe about possible negative environmental effects in Brazil. :shock:

 

[LuciferSam]

The point is that an action with a negative environmental impact in Brazil could have an impact here. So drilling is bad everywhere or ok everywhere.
I agree that the more they produce the better for everyone. That goes for the US as well.
What the question should be is: If Brazil can wean their cars off gasoline, why can't we?

Brazil can do this I believe because they have greater access to sugar cane. As far as the environmental impact, it's misleading to imply that all risks and impacts are equal without regard to location. If you believe that, go sky dive into Fukushima.

 

[idlewind]

Brazil makes their ethanol from sugar cane, which requires a tropical or subtropical climate. We are limited in the amount of sugar cane we can grow, so we use corn, which is not an efficient fuel source. It has to have the starch converted to sugar before it can be made into ethanol, uses tons of water and fertilizer, and diverts needed crop land from food to fuel. Using food crops for fuel is not going to wean the world's cars off gasoline without starving someone somewhere. Wean to electricity? Then the question becomes, what shall we use to produce the electricity? Oil, coal, natural gas? Or something other than a fossil fuel? Nuclear, perhaps? The oil and gas industry has blocked any meaningful attempts to develop non-fossil fuel sources.

It's amazing to me to hear a conservative gripe about possible negative environmental effects in Brazil. :shock:

I am afraid I have been misunderstood. I am not griping about possible negative environmental effects in Brazil but am pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals who oppose it here but love it there. If it is bad in one place it is bad in all. same goes with risk.

 

[scooterbug44]

Perhaps "liberals" oppose it here because of its lack of regulation, political hamstringing, shoddy recent track record, and its stifling of the alternative fuels movement.

It's only hypocrisy if all the variables are the same.

For example, it is not hypocritical to oppose the use of snowmobiles in Florida, but think they're okay in New Hampshire because you are comparing maple trees and oranges.

Brazil has higher standards and stricter drilling regulations, meaning the potential for environmental damage is lower.

 

[idlewind]

Perhaps "liberals" oppose it here because of its lack of regulation, political hamstringing, shoddy recent track record, and its stifling of the alternative fuels movement.

It's only hypocrisy if all the variables are the same.

For example, it is not hypocritical to oppose the use of snowmobiles in Florida, but think they're okay in New Hampshire because you are comparing maple trees and oranges.

Brazil has higher standards and stricter drilling regulations, meaning the potential for environmental damage is lower.

Then why is Obama not implementing higher standards and stricter drilling regulations here instead of simply trying to ban drilling and shipping it (and the jobs that go with it) overseas? Last time I checked he was President of the USA, not Brazil.

 

[scooterbug44]

Last I checked, he was trying and getting opposition at every turn.

Apparently oil companies have a lot of money for lobbyists and campaign contributions. Who'd a thunk it? ;-)

Not to mention that the number of actual human jobs produced by oil drilling is constantly shrinking..................and the number promised is always quite different from the number realized.

 

[idlewind]

Last I checked, he was trying and getting opposition at every turn.

Apparently oil companies have a lot of money for lobbyists and campaign contributions. Who'd a thunk it? ;-)

Not to mention that the number of actual human jobs produced by oil drilling is constantly shrinking..................and the number promised is always quite different from the number realized.

One job means one more family off relief and paying taxes. I will take every job we can get. And all I have seen out of the administration is instituting bans and ignoring court stays on his bans.
Maybe he should change the tax code so lobbyists and campaign contributions are taxed at a higher rate than regular income. That might fix that problem.