Wednesday, December 14, 2011

HAVE A GREAT THURSDAY READERS!


Here is yet another article citing continued pressure by food related industries to the continued increases in feed costs causing significant increases in poultry, beef, pork, etc. I'm sure this fight won't end soon.


Livestock, poultry groups request hearing to evaluate RFS

By Kris Bevill | December 07, 2011

A coalition of livestock and poultry lobby groups submitted a letter to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee leaders on Dec. 7, requesting a hearing to evaluate the economic impact of the renewable fuel standard (RFS). A hearing is warranted based on increasing feed prices for livestock producers, according to the groups, which they believe is a direct result of increased ethanol production in response to RFS mandates.

“As representatives of the livestock and poultry industry, we remain concerned over the continued pressure on grain supplies and the impact this is having on the bottom line and risk management strategies of livestock and poultry producers,” the groups stated in the letter. The coalition, which includes the American Meat Institute, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Chicken Council and 13 other livestock and poultry groups, further expressed concern over reports that congressional support is growing for a modification to the RFS that would allow corn-based ethanol to qualify as an advanced biofuel. The coalition believes a modification of that sort would only exacerbate the already tight corn supply situation.

The coalition also cited the U.S. EPA’s recent discovery of fraudulent renewable identification numbers (RINs) as reason to examine the RFS, stating that the RIN system is likely only one of “potentially hundreds of areas that highlight the problems with the current rigid RFS compliance system.”

Matt Hartwig, communications director for the Renewable Fuels Association, said livestock groups are falsely blaming the ethanol industry for high corn prices and are ignoring the real factors at play in the commodity market. “The corporate livestock lobbies are seeking a return to the day when they could buy corn under the cost of production for American farmers,” he said. “In doing so, they are scapegoating ethanol as the cause of higher corn prices and giving a free pass to hedge funds, market speculators, oil dictators and a host of other factors that all play a greater role in raising corn and food prices than does ethanol.”

Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., serves as chairwoman of the Senate EPW committee. James Inhofe, R-Okla., is the ranking member of the committee. Both are outspoken opponents of corn-based ethanol. A representative for Boxer said the committee is currently reviewing the livestock coalition’s request for a hearing.

"Pete" Landry.........comments welcome...........at ...way2gopete@yahoo.com


Saturday, December 10, 2011

HELLO READERS - HAVE A GREAT WEEK!

Hello Readers..........well, LSU's "Honey Badger" didn't get the Heisman, but the publicity should propel him for a much better showing next year, provided he continues to perform to the level he did this year, and stay out of trouble.

I know many LSU fans were upset to learn that the Tigers must play Alabama in "The Game of the Century - Part II" for the BCS National Championship on January 9th of next year. The Tigers opened a 1 point favorite, primarily due to the game being played in the Superdome, which is essentially a home field for the Tigers.

I haven't posted on the Blog in awhile, but I thought you might be very interested in this article which I found today. This action by Congress may in fact delay if not kill the "E-15" or 15% ethanol gasoline issue for awhile, although I'm sure the ethanol lobby group will fight "tooth and nail" to try to get 15% ethanol gasoline to market. Here's the article:

PS: I urge all readers to check their owners manuals regarding fuel recommendations. Even though the EPA, in it's approval of 15% ethanol gas indicated it was safe for 2001 and newer passenger cars and light trucks, many 2001 and newer vehicle owners manuals disagree. I have a 2008 Mercury Sable and a 2009 Ford F-150. Both vehicle owners manual warns "do not use fuel with greater than 10% ethanol. Any engine damage caused by use of other than specified fuel may result in engine damage and may not be covered by vehicle warranty"!


Last Updated: December 10. 2011 1:00AM

Lawmakers: Block ethanol blend

Bipartisan group says use of E15 may cause damage to engines

David Shepardson/ Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington —A bipartisan group of more than 70 House members is urging a congressional block on higher levels of ethanol blended into gasoline.

Automakers and other engine makers have clashed with corn growers since 2010 over whether the United States should allow the use of a new blend of ethanol called E15 because it is 15 percent biofuel. The Environmental Protection Agency has approved the use in all vehicles from 2001 and newer.


In August, the EPA approved fuel labels designed to warn drivers of older vehicles not to use the fuel, but it still must be registered before the fuel can go on sale. In February, the House voted 285-136 to block the EPA from moving ahead with E15 regulations.

Now, in a letter to the top Republican and Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, members of Congress want the block on higher ethanol levels included in a spending measure to fund the government's operations through Sept. 30.


"E15 is not ready for prime time," said the letter signed by Reps. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township; Mike Rogers, R-Brighton; John Conyers, D-Detroit; Tim Walberg, R-Tipton; Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland; Darrell Issa, R-Calif.; and Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., among others. The amendment to block the fuel is co-sponsored by Peters and Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla. "More thorough research and testing are necessary to ensure that E15 will not harm consumer investments," the letter said. "The desire to allow for more ethanol to enter the transportation fuel pool should not trump sound science."


Automakers and other groups have opposed approval of E15, warning it could damage engines in some models. Automakers "unanimously expressed concerns that E15 is likely to harm engines, void warranties and reduce fuel efficiency," said the congressional letter. The letter noted that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory says E15 causes significant damage to marine engines. Automakers have twice filed suit challenging approval of use for the fuel.


Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group that first sought the approval for the fuel in early 2009, said previously it expected E15 to be at pumps by the end of 2011. That seems unlikely now.

The group says it is essential to move to the higher blend in order to use the higher amounts of ethanol required by Congress under a 2007 energy act.

It says more than 136,000 new green-collar jobs will be created nationwide by moving to E15.


Opponents of ethanol argue that the use of more than 40 percent nation's corn has boosted food prices for consumers and feed costs for farmers. For the first time this year, more corn was used to produce ethanol than to feed animals in the United States.

dshepardson@detnews.com

(202) 662-8735



From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111210/POLITICS03/112100322/Lawmakers--Block-ethanol-blend#ixzz1gCVGzzti

"Pete" Landry...........comments welcome.............at.................. way2gopete@yahoo.com

Thursday, November 24, 2011

HAPPY THANKSGIVING READERS!

Wishing all of our readers a very happy Thanksgiving Day! Despite all the difficulties in our Country these days, we still have lots to be thankful for.

Don't forget the "Game of the Century - Part 2" tomorrow between our #1 Ranked and undefeated LSU Tigers and the #3 Ranked Hogs of Arkansas. Should be a great game. This will be the 7th ranked team the Tigers will have played this year, and the third in the top 5! No other team in the Country has played a schedule like LSU and survived undefeated. An LSU win Friday propels the Tigers to the SEC Championship game against the Georgia Bulldogs on December 3rd in the Georgia Dome. A win there puts the Tigers in the BCS National Championship game in the Louisiana Superdome on January 9th, possibly in a "re-match" against Alabama!

Here's another article I ran across about cattle farmers against the ethanol industry. Continued increases in ethanol production is causing substantial and continued increases in feed prices for cattle farmers. There is increasing pressure from many corners about the increasing impact that ethanol is having on all food products.
==================================================


Livestock farmers say ethanol eats too much corn

By Associated Press on November 23rd, 2011

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Livestock farmers are demanding a change in the nation’s ethanol policy, claiming current rules could lead to spikes in meat prices and even shortages at supermarkets if corn growers have a bad year.

The amount of corn consumed by the ethanol industry combined with continued demand from overseas has cattle and hog farmers worried that if corn production drops due to drought or another natural disaster, the cost of feed could skyrocket, leaving them little choice but to reduce the size of their herds. A smaller supply could, in turn, mean higher meat prices and less selection at the grocery store.

The ethanol industry argues such scenarios are unlikely, but farmers have the backing of food manufacturers, who also fear that a federal mandate to increase production of ethanol will protect that industry from any kind of rationing amid a corn shortage.

The subject of debate is the Renewable Fuel Standard, a 2005 law requiring the nation to produce 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012. The standard was changed in 2007 to gradually increase the requirement to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

While a $5 billion-a-year federal ethanol subsidy is scheduled to expire this year, the production requirement will remain, unless it’s changed by Congress.

That has other corn consumers worried that if production falls and rationing is needed, ethanol companies will be exempt. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently reduced its estimate of this year’s corn crop because of flooding in the Midwest and drought in the southern plains, and corn reserves are expected to fall to a 20-day supply next year. A 30-day supply is considered healthy.

At the same time, the price of corn for livestock feed has risen from an average of just over $3 a bushel in 2006-07 to an average of more than $6 this year.

“If we get a short crop, the ethanol industry does not participate in rationing and the brunt will fall on livestock and poultry,” said Steve Meyer, president of Paragon Economics, a livestock and grain marketing and economic advisory company in Adel, Iowa.

A bill introduced last month by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., would partially waive the ethanol goals when corn inventories are low.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 300 food and beverage makers, also has endorsed the bill.

“We’re behind livestock producers on this issue,” said Geoff Moody, the association’s director of energy and environmental policy. “We believe if there is a need to ration that ethanol will eat first because of the mandate.”

About 5.9 billion bushels of corn were used for animal feed last year; 2.4 billion were exported; and about 4.9 billion were used for ethanol, up from about 630 million bushels in 2000, according to the National Corn Growers Association. About 1 billion bushels were eaten by humans in products such as cereal, sweeteners, and beverages.

U.S. corn farmers have steadily increased production over the years thanks to hybrid seeds and improved techniques, but Meyer said a 20 percent decline in the harvest would be enough to force corn rationing and lead to feed shortages. That would leave livestock farmers with little choice, he said.

“We can’t shut down feeding,” Meyer said. “The only way to do that is to kill the animals.”

Even if there’s no rationing, ethanol manufacturers generally have been better able to cope with high corn prices than livestock farmers because their business has bigger profit margins, said Darrel Good, an agricultural economist at the University of Illinois.

Randy Spronk, who raises corn and hogs in Edgerton, Minn., said farmers don’t want to attack the ethanol industry but they want a plan in place if the corn supply should drop significantly.

“We really don’t want to attack ethanol but wise people make plans,” he said.

Matt Hartwig, chief of staff for the Renewable Fuels Association, called the effort to rewrite the fuel standard law “little more than a Trojan horse effort” to weaken or even eliminate it. He said the farmers’ complaints were overblown and most livestock producers and meatpacking companies were making good profits.

Also, the ethanol industry now produces about 1 billion gallons of ethanol more than is required and if corn supplies fall short, it could cut back, he said.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the fuel standard, said in a statement that states can already ask for a waiver “under certain circumstances, including inadequate domestic supply or harm to the economy or environment of a state.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry did this in 2008, claiming rising corn prices were hurting ranchers in his state. The EPA said it denied the request because the quota for renewable fuel wasn’t causing severe economic harm to the state.

Meyer said many farmers are skeptical about a process that leaves such decisions to the EPA administrator, who “many in agriculture believe won’t consider the best interest of livestock.”

Good, the University of Illinois farm economist, said meat supplies could tighten if competing demands force corn prices higher. He said it boils down to a simple choice: “We’re going to have to reduce our rate of increase in corn consumption or we’re going to have to produce more corn.”

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

"Pete" Landry..............comments welcome..................at way2gopete@yahoo.com


Tuesday, November 15, 2011

HAVE A GREAT WEDNESDAY READERS!


MEMO TO ALL BLOG READERS:

The readership of my "Blog" page has dropped off so much it hardly justifies my time to do this anymore.

Therefore, effective today, Wednesday, November 16, 2011, I will post a blog ONLY when significant news on ethanol gas, regulations, or other important ethanol related matter developes.

Thank you for your readership.

Alton "Pete" Landry

Saturday, November 12, 2011

HAVE A GREAT SATURDAY READERS!

Saturday again..........several good football games on tap today that could affect the outcome of the rankings and the BCS. Standford plays at Oregon. Standford is a team, along with Oklahoma State that could possibly be LSU's BCS Championship competitor, presuming our Tigers win the rest of their regular season games. SO, let's all pull for Oregon!

Here's another interesting article on the impact that ethanol production is having on the cost of foods..........this time, turkey!







Turkey Sticker Shock









BY DENNIS WYATT Special to the Journal









POSTED November 11, 2011 11:27 p.m.





Have you checked out the price of turkey lately? You can thank Al Gore.

Actually you can thank Gore and the Midwest ethanol subsidy lobby consisting of Republican and Democrat lawmakers alike.
Gore was the leading cheerleader for ethanol as the elixir for all that ails America when it comes to energy.
He led the charge to put in place ethanol subsidies.
The end result: Ethanol gas that is not cost effective and has created a shortage of corn that in turn has sent food prices climbing.
The hardest hit is Third World countries that rely partially on buying grain from American farmers to feed poor people.
It is also hitting American consumers in the pocketbook. It is particularly noticeable as Thanksgiving approaches. Corn is the primary feed for turkeys. Ethanol subsidies have diverted much of the crop into fuel production essentially tripling the price of feed for turkeys. That puts the squeeze on turkey growers and ultimately you the consumer.

It’s the classic lose-lose scenario from the government meddling with the marketplace believing they know better than the private sector. Not only are you footing the bill for ethanol subsidies but you are paying more for food because those subsidies are being used to give farmers better prices than the market allows.

Farmers aren’t idiots. If Uncle Sam is willing to dole out bushels of more money at a set price for their corn crop why not go for it?
The tragedy of all of this is the fact ethanol isn’t really cost effective. There are studies that indicate energy consumed to make ethanol has produced a situation where more energy is burned per gallon by the time you factor in production with ethanol than with oil.
Here’s the math on the most cost effective year to date for corn ethanol subsidies.
Corn ethanol subsidies in 2006 hit $7 billion for 4.9 billion gallons produced. That means it cost taxpayers $1.45 per gallon of ethanol produced. What did we get for that? Based on government research we became 1.1 percent more energy efficient while greenhouse gases were reduced a whopping 1/19 of a percent. It gets better. Once the emissions from the ethanol manufacturing process is factored into the equation, ethanol is actually increasing greenhouse gases
By the way, not all of the subsidies in the program go to corn farmers. Oil companies will pocket $31 billion over the next five years to help them produce ethanol.
Given the amount of subsidies needed to make ethanol compete with gas prices, do you think the oil companies would have gotten into ethanol production on their own? And if they had, do you think whatever long-term contracts they entered into would send corn prices as high as the guaranteed subsidies have from Uncle Sam?
Gore, to his credit, admitted that the facts show that ethanol subsidies are a big mistake. And in a refreshing candor for a politician, he admitted at a European conference in December 2010 that the only reason he supported ethanol subsidies was political. He said, “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee and I had a certain fondness for farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”
Several environmental groups have also urged Congress to drop the subsidies including Friends of the Earth.
But like any government program it has now morphed into an entitlement in the eyes of those receiving it. Good luck finding enough members of Congress willing to go cold turkey by dropping the notion that they should use tax dollars to build loyalty among special issue constituents in their bid to keep getting re-elected.
This Thanksgiving enjoy your artificially plumped up turkey in terms of price thanks to ethanol subsidies.
As you’re forking over more money to eat a slice of turkey rest assured that your tax dollars are making sure oil companies, real Midwest farmers, and corporate farmers will have plenty of pork on their tables.





Thursday, November 10, 2011

HAPPY FRIDAY READERS!


Sorry for being away from the "Blog" for a few days readers......I'm in the middle of a transition from my old 2003 Dell computer to a 2011 super fast HP new one with huge RAM memory and a HUGE hard drive. A local computer shop will transfer all of my data files from my old to the new computer tomorrow. I will be operating on the new computer tomorrow evening hopefully.

As you can surmise from the following article, the US Congress is no longer enamored by the government's ethanol program. There are more and more articles of late questioning not only the subsidies, which are set to expire on December 31st of this year, but also the substantial increases in the cost of food products. There is more and more convincing evidence that the tremendous rise in prices from all products made, directly or indirectly from corn is directly linked to ethanol production. We're in essence burning our food in fuel tanks of vehicles. I really believe this whole issue will come to a head soon.

Here's the article:

House hearing witnesses bash RFS, call for repeal of E15

By Kris Bevill | November 03, 2011

It was déjà vu all over again on Nov. 2 as representatives of the ethanol industry were forced to watch a House of Representatives Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on motor fuel standards from the sidelines. Earlier this year, the subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the scientific testing of E15, but failed to invite anyone from the ethanol industry to testify. On Nov. 2, the subcommittee again convened a panel to address the “Conflicts and Unintended Consequences of Motor Fuel Standards,” but declined to include any ethanol industry representatives. The petroleum industry was well-represented, however, as were several other witnesses who delivered remarks opposing the implementation of E15 and the RFS.

Committee Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., opened the hearing by making clear his disapproval of the U.S. EPA and government policies to support biofuels and renewable energy. “Whether through government hand-outs, as in the case of Solyndra, or heavy-handed mandates as in the case of the RFS [renewable fuel standard], the picking of energy winners and losers by government fiat is an exercise in futility destined to fail miserably,” he said. He asserted that the EPA “continuously fails to do its homework” and said its approval of E15 based on one U.S. DOE study is an example of that failure.

Harris’s comments were echoed by Brendan Williams, senior director of advocacy for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. He testified that the E15 waiver approval puts refiners and consumers at risk for potential misfueling issues and urged Congress to repeal the EPA’s partial waiver for E15. Williams further stated that the concerns related to E15 provide an example of even greater issues associated with the RFS in general. “If the existing RFS program is carried out without changes, it will create great market and economic uncertainty, which will in turn threaten additional refining investment and job growth and harm consumers,” he stated. “Given the aggressive schedule of the mandate and the limits of what fuel and vehicle infrastructure can handle, our nation will soon face a practical limit [as to the amount of biofuels] that can be pushed into the fuel supply without causing significant consumer disruption.” He added that E85 could help to alleviate pressure on the blendwall, but said it has yet to become widely accepted by consumers and does not appear to be a viable compliance option for the RFS. “No small engines are designed for E85 and only a small fraction of the fleet of cars is designed for the fuel,” he stated. “E85 requires an expensive investment at retail stations because of the corrosive nature of ethanol. This issue is yet another in a panoply of problems associated with the current structure of the RFS.”

Margo Oge, the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality director, came to the defense of the RFS in her testimony, stating that when the policy is fully implemented it could displace 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel in 2022. “We also estimate that the fully implemented program would decrease oil import expenditures by $41.5 billion, result in additional energy security benefits of $2.6 billion, and reduce GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions by an average annualized rate of 138 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year,” she stated.

Oge also noted that the EPA has not registered E15 as a new gasoline under the Clean Air Act, so it cannot yet be legally sold into the marketplace. According to her testimony, ethanol industry representatives submitted emissions and health effects information related to E15 earlier this year, to be used in completing registration applications, and they are now in the process of developing additional information for that purpose. “Once complete, the information will be helpful to fuel producers in submitting registration applications for E15,” she stated. “Until such time as EPA approves a complete registration application, E15 may not be lawfully sold for use in model year 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles.”

The recently released National Academy of Sciences report, “Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy,” was referenced frequently during the hearing as proof of the policy’s ineffectiveness. However, Ingrid Burke, co-chair of the committee who authored the report, offered extensive written testimony on the conclusions reached in the report, often stating that the end results were inconclusive. The effect of 36 billion gallons of biofuels on GHG emissions compared to the energy-equivalent amount of petroleum is “uncertain,” she stated. Also, the effects of increased biofuel production on soil and biodiversity are likely to vary depending upon which practices and feedstock are used. “Thus, the effects of achieving RFS2 on those two environmental variables cannot be readily quantified or qualified largely because of the uncertainty of the future,” she stated. Nonetheless, the committee majority appeared only to be interested in one of the items mentioned in Burke’s testimony, releasing a statement that repeated a comment made by her suggesting that increased ethanol use could have a negative impact on air quality due to higher concentrations of certain pollutants.

Meanwhile, Oge pointed out during the question and answer session of the hearing that ethanol plays a vital role in the transportation fuels sector and cannot be completely omitted from the supply. “Ethanol improves the octane of gasoline, so it’s a very important product in gasoline,” she said. “Ethanol reduces the amount of benzene in aromatics so you end up with somewhat less toxic substances in the gasoline make-up.”

Ethanol groups spoke out in advance of the hearing in an attempt to make their voices heard despite being left off of the witness list. Brian Jennings, executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, submitted a letter to committee leaders expressing his disappointment in the lop-sided hearing and pointing out the importance of ethanol in reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil and creating jobs. Growth Energy, the group responsible for initiating the E15 waiver request, said the hearing contained a “chorus of critics” who used the hearing as an excuse to promote and protect their own special interests. “We need serious discussion about a national energy policy, including domestically produced alternatives like ethanol and next-generation biofuels,” CEO Tom Buis stated. “Instead, we are seeing special favors tossed like candy to Big Oil, which doesn’t need any more sweeteners considering the billions in taxpayer giveaways they’re already getting.”


"Pete" Landry..............comments welcome............at way2gopete@yahoo.com


Sunday, November 6, 2011

HAVE A GREAT MONDAY READERS!


WOW.......what a great football game Saturday between unbeaten #1 LSU and #2 Alabama. It was a real old time "slugfest" if you like strong defensive football. But, it may not have offered the excitement for many with quick scoring offenses and lots of passing. It appears Coach Saban will have to really recruit a good punter and field goal kicker if he is to win in these types of games. And, what can you say about LSU's defense! Coach Miles gave the "game ball" to defensive coordinator "the Chief" John Chavis. And, he sure deserved it! Bama's Heisman Candidate Trent Richardson was only able to gain 89 yards running.

LSU remains #1 in both the USA Today/Coaches Poll, the Harris Interactive Poll and the BCS Poll. Alabama fell to #4 in the two polls, but only dropped to #3 in the BCS Poll. It seems the computers like them. Oklahoma State moved up to #2 in the BCS Poll.

If the Tigers can win the remaining three games, Arkansas being the toughest, they will likely play Georgia in the SEC Championship game in the Atlanta Dome on December 3rd. If they win the SEC Championship game, then on to the BCS national championship game in the Superdome in January. LSU won it 2 past National Championships in the Dome in New Orleans.......strange how fate has a way of repeating itself? At least, let's hope it repeats itself! If the Tigers continue winning, we'll find out in about 3 weeks who would be their opponent in the Championship game. It could be Oklahoma State, Standford or Alabama again.........

The Tigers play Western Kentucky on Saturday at 7:00 pm. It is their Homecoming and it will be broadcast on ESPNU. Then Ole Miss in Oxford before the last game of the regular season against Arkansas in "Death Valley". Not sure who will broadcast the Arkansas game yet and what time it will be. Will update when I get the info.

Now, back to ethanol related issues. Here's an article about shale oil and natural gas I thought you might find interesting.


Cheap Gas Is a Trap

Updated November 6, 2011, 07:00 PM

Matthew Kotchen is a professor of environmental economics and policy at Yale University.

New and efficient technologies for extracting oil and natural gas are increasing the supply of both fuels from North America. But the consequences will be different for oil than for natural gas. Oil is traded in a highly integrated world market, and the relatively small increases in North American oil will have virtually no effect on prices. The result is that our demand for oil will remain unaffected by the change in supply, though we may take comfort in knowing that more of the oil we use is produced closer to home.

Today's abundant fossil fuels should not distract us from tomorrow's renewable solutions.

Natural gas is a different story. The markets are far less integrated, so the increase in domestic supply will lower prices and increase demand. We will have more households switching from oil to natural gas for heating, and we will have relatively more electricity generated with natural gas than with coal. The lower prices will be a good thing for consumers paying their utility bills, and there will be health and environmental benefits because natural gas is a relatively clean fuel.

But more and cheaper natural gas does not help our prospects for bolstering renewable sources of energy, including solar, wind and biomass. History has shown repeatedly that nothing is worse for renewable energy — and the policies that support it — than cheap and abundant conventional energy. Without the urgency of high fuel prices, the United States has never sustained meaningful private and public investment in the technological innovation and deployment of renewables.

We should do our best to make sure this time is different. There has been meaningful investment — both public and private — in recent years, and despite our current economic challenges, it would be a mistake to turn back these efforts. Also, we must not throw out the baby with the bath water in response to the Solyndra bankruptcy. Instead, it is critical that we find ways to do better with the right economic incentives.

The expansion of oil and natural gas supplies in North America changes little about our long-term energy challenges. Beyond the growing demand for energy worldwide, climate change is an increasingly important and closely related problem. Conventional sources of energy generate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause global warming. While the burning of natural gas generates fewer emissions than oil and coal, its emissions are nevertheless substantial — and extraction using hydraulic fracturing raises other environmental concerns.

Renewable sources of energy provide a leading alternative, and we need a sustained commitment to improving these technologies with the aim of making them cost competitive. Indeed, it should be concerning that China is doing exactly this while we in the U.S. watch our former leadership in renewable energy continue to erode.

Topics: Technology, energy, oil



"Pete" Landry..........comments welcome ............at way2gopete@yahoo.com