Our ongoing flex-fuel debate continues, with Energy Victory author Robert Zubrin writing in:
With regard to the recent study concerning the relationship between biofuels and global warming, it is quite irrelevant to the real crisis at hand.
The United States this year will import 4.4 billion barrels of oil. At $100/barrel, that is $440 billion taken out of the pockets of Americans, or three times what the US Congress is currently talking about taking out of the treasury to put in their pockets to try to stimulate the economy.
Hugo Chavez and Iran’s leader are currently advocating raising the price to $200/barrel. In that case, OPEC’s tax on the US economy will rise to $880 billion per year, and their tax on the worldwide economy will rise to over $2 trillion per year.
That’s $2 trillion per year to promote jihad. And $2 trillion per year to pay for nuclear weapons development. And last, but not least, $2 trillion per year to use to take over every media organization and major corporation in the USA, Europe, and Japan within the next decade.
So, unless we break the oil cartel, it really won’t matter what the weather is going to be like 100 years from now, because we are going to lose our freedom in 10.
By mandating that all new cars sold in the USA be flex fueled, we can make flex fuel the international standard, and expose gasoline to competition at the pump from ethanol and methanol made in any number of ways all over the world.
That’s how we break the oil cartel, and save our freedom, and our livelihood. Having done that, we will have both the wealth, and the freedom, to consider ways to stop global warming.
If we don’t do that, we will have neither.
Would love to hear everyone’s take on the idea that petrodollars will allow the Chavezes and Putins and Ahmadinejads to “take over every media organization and major corporation in the USA, Europe, and Japan within the next decade.” I think that National Review, for one, will remain in good hands.