Robert Zubrin is a very clever fellow. According to Wikipedia, he has a B.A. in Mathematics, an M.S. in Aeronautics and Astronautics, another one in Nuclear Engineering, and a matching doctorate. Clearly, he’s the guy to talk to if you want a rocket built. However, his thinking on flex-fuel vehicles suggest that he has studied neither economics nor public policy. This is the problem with engineers: their worship of efficiency tends to push out all other values. In other words, they’re just as happy to help a dictator build a better guillotine as they are to build you that bridge you want. Lately, Zubrin’s departed from his quest for privately funded Martian exploration (that bridge we want) to crusade for a flex-fuel vehicle mandate (that guillotine that Big Corn wants). Sadly, his thinking in this regard is riddled with fallacious thinking.

Fallacy 1: Zubrin thinks if we reduce our use of oil, we’ll deprive our enemies of their oil revenues. Now, I hate OPEC, Chavez, and the Islamofacists as much as the next guy, but let’s be realistic. Nothing anyone can do short of bombing their production facilities can deny them the revenue from oil sales. If we stop using oil, the supply gets loose, the price goes down, and MORE people can afford it, not less. Basic Econ, Bob. Oh, and they built their militaries and terrorist infrastructure on $10 – $20.00 per barrel oil — they don’t need it at $200.00.

Fallacy 2: Zubrin suggests that it takes mandates and subsidies to make a free market. A free market in energy would be a great thing. I’m all for it. But getting there means doing exactly the opposite of what Zubrin wants: we should eliminate all subsidies and all technology mandates regarding fuel use, not add more on.

Fallacy 3: Zubrin suggets that If we force European automakers to sell flex-fuel vehicles here, they’ll automatically sell them into their own market. Different markets have different vehicles with different characteristics.

Fallacy 4: Zubrin thinks that OPEC and Chavez are going to “force” oil to $200.00/barrel. I suppose they are also going to take over Canada, Mexico, and all the rest of the world’s oil producers, and prevent us from making shale oil, which we could do for considerably less than $200.00/barrel. Let’s be real: OPEC didn’t control oil prices in 1973, and they still don’t.

Fallacy 5: Zubrin thinks alcohol fuels are going to make us more secure. Let’s think about this, scientists are saying that the climate is more variable than previously thought, and Zubrin wants to make our energy future dependent on . . . climate-dependent crops! Oh, and since we’ll be planting fuel crops everywhere, we’ll make ourselves dependent on foreign food imports instead. Then there’s the recent validation of the “ethanol is bad for the environment” critique published in Science last week.

Fallacy 6: Zubrin seems to think that people will use ethanol just because they have a flex-fuel vehicle. But behavior tells us that consumers buy the cheapest fuel, and that is unlikely to be ethanol. If oil does go up so high that ethanol is competitive, no mandates are needed: consumers will demand flex-fuel vehicles.

Fallacy 7: Zubrin thinks that OPEC is just going to shut off their spigots, and sit on their oil, ending the giant revenue stream that he says is crucial to their plan to take over the world. Right. Let’s assume that you get a truly insane dictator in charge of all OPEC who does this – what would happen? The US is already on record as saying that we’ll simply take over their fields. I don’t think they want to go there.

The same argument in favor of mandating a vehicle that burns ethanol would suggest mandating one that burns coal, propane, LNG, CNG, Hydrogen, and banana-peels, since each of these would somehow, miraculously, appear as an inexpensive fuel source. Stick to rocket science, Bob!