digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at zcommunications.org

Oil vs. Food.....A not so funny cartoon.

zcommunications.org — What have we done, and when will it end?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BishkekBuddy, on 05/27/2008, -16/+151Unfortunately, all too true....
    • foxhaze, on 05/27/2008, -20/+5Don't you love environmentalists?
      • borez, on 05/27/2008, -8/+6I love the way the word "environmentalist" has evolved from the phrase "crusty tree hugging political activist"
        • feshmania, on 05/27/2008, -7/+4political correctness FTW.
        • DavidBGie, on 05/27/2008, -7/+3FALSE! The corn used in ethanol production is not the same corn that humans eat. There is no corn shortage!
        • 47f0, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7False - Farmer Jones has 100 acres of corn. He can plant eating corn or fuel corn - he's going to plant whichever pays better. If he plants 40 acres of fuel corn, he's only got 60 acres left for food corn. Get it?
        • danomagnum, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Only he plants 100 acres of fuel corn because it's subsidized.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 05/27/2008, -13/+7Thank Al Gore for championing ethanol, even casting a tie-breaking vote for it when he was Vice-President.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mq-aiA7Dd0
    • Absinthminded64, on 05/27/2008, -3/+27Big oil wants you to think it's true.
      • BlueSkyfish, on 05/27/2008, -1/+9Big oil wants biofuel because it still forces you to go to the pump. We need electric cars in order to really make a difference.
        • KingWilson, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4electric cars force you to go to an outlet.... that's an electricity pump right?
      • arobicha, on 05/27/2008, -8/+0Big oil doesn't give a ***** what you do. Either way we still need fossil fuels to lubricate the engines and moving parts of all cars regardless of what powers the fuel. There will always be a need for fossil fuels, and they'll always charge you out the ass for them.
        • secrity, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4There are suitable non-petroleum lubricants available, many are silica based.
      • thethinktank, on 05/27/2008, -3/+4You're absolutely right, this food shortage nonsense has next to NOTHING to do with ethanol, its a Big Oil smear campaign. Ethanol is to blame for one quarter of one percent of the 4.3% increase in food prices in the US. The bulk of that increase is due to transportation costs from gasoline, not ethanol...

        Meanwhile, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas introduced legislation to halt the mandate for biofuel usage which congress recently approved. Turns out Senator Hutchison received more campaign contributions from Big Oil than any other member of congress in her 2006 Senate campaign.

        Its pretty ironic to watch Diggers hate on Ethanol, many of us Diggers have bought into Big Oil's propaganda, fortunately a few of us have not.
        • mooseofshadows, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Look at the facts about ethanol though, it produces far less energy than gas and actually takes gas to produce it. It's just not a feasible alternative.
    • nedzalife, on 05/27/2008, -9/+18The only thing true about this is that Bush has orchestrated the oil crisis with the help of his big wig friends in the industry. 9 million barrel reserve in 2002 to a 250 million barrel reserve today. Yea right USA, I call BS on your so-call oil crisis. Bio fuel is not the way to go. Electric combined with solar is.
      • floorman56, on 05/27/2008, -8/+2How do you make a Electric combined with solar Tractor Trailer? Farm tractor? Bulldozer ? Crane?

        By the way ..Do you have one? if not ..why not? You can make one.
        • SSUK, on 05/27/2008, -2/+9Rechargeable batteries connected to solar panels. If this wasn't obvious to you, then I believe you need to retake life.
        • georgetds, on 05/27/2008, -0/+9Can do quite a lot with electric engines - just look at trains.
        • secrity, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2There is no way that any reasonable amount of solar cells are going to be able to power a farm tractor, tractor tailer, bulldozer, crane or even a sub-compact car. Some day when the technology matures, then maybe, but we are nowhere near that now.

          There is also no way that any reasonable amount of storage batteries are going to be able to power a farm tractor, tractor tailer, bulldozer, or crane for any reasonable length of time.
        • elnerdo, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Yes, trains use electric motors* (Yeah, semantics, but it's not an engine), but they're still powered by diesel. They are not examples of the versatility of electric power. The purpose of the electric motors is to eliminate the need for a transmission. Since bulldozers and cranes don't really have a problem with heavy transmissions, trains are irrelevant to them.
        • nedzalife, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Not yet. Have you seen the electric motor bike the does the 1/4 mile in 8.08sec? My point is, when the dollars are invested into the technology needed to create these type of products, results will happen. Bush needs to get out of office though in order for this to even remotely start to happen.
      • Terr01, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1While the stocking of the US reserve is certainly important, I'm not sure I'm willing to conclude that it's malice as opposed to just being swept up in the "OMG Better buy now!" fervor.
      • Terr01, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5I'd have to disagree a little bit here, Ned.

        CORN ethanol is not the way to go. It might be a useful transitional stage, but we can't stay there forever no matter what the huge agricultural lobbies want.

        The nice thing about biofuels (I'm talking algae tanks and things now) over solar is that using biological processes may have comparable (or better) efficiency, and they're self-healing, and the end-result may be very close to a high-density transportable liquid fuel.

        I'm not really an engineer, but I just want to point out that energy transition costs are important, and that liquid chemical fuel is far more energy-dense than most batteries or hydrogen systems, which means you don't need to carry as much weight for the same propulsive force.
        • secrity, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2We don't have algae biofuels and may never have algae biofuels. The "just two more years" alternative fuel people have lost their credibility.
        • Terr01, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2I can't tell if you're trying to make a sarcastic jab at the "Six more months" in Iraq thing or not.

          AFAIK various companies have been building real facilities recently--it's not just hot air with no action, and it seems a little early to toss it into the same basket with Fusion power.
        • nedzalife, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2I could be wrong, but the figures I've seen calculate the bio-fuel advantage to be 1.25 to 1. While 25% more energy vs. the cost of energy being put into making it is better than nothing, i agree, it's not sustainable, and IMO, not worth the damage its doing (however big or small it may be) to the food pricing issues that are currently going on.

          Solar, is free (unless the sun explodes). Once the solar cells are made, they last far longer and have a better energy output vs. input factor that bio-fuels. Culture will be the biggest hurdle, although the Tesla will probably fill that neiche.
    • Terr01, on 05/27/2008, -3/+18"All too true?"

      How do you know? Seriously! Give me the statistics here.

      I'd point you to this article:
      http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_19 ...

      Among the highlights... WTF is causing the high price of rice? It's not being turned into fuel. It's also a staple on it's own, not just some "secondary corn". Yet it's price is also rising. Also, while corn prices are going up steeply, it's a tiny tiny amount of the cost you pay for cornflakes or even the milk from corn-fed cows. Now only that, but in the last year the USA's exported corn level HASN'T DROPPED. Yes, we could have exported more if it wasn't used for fuel, but there isn't some sort of sudden shock to the markets that people seem to assume happened.

      AFAIK, nobody has actually made a statistical case for what the connection is between ethanol policy and the problematic food prices we're seeing. They just assume that the same timing means one caused the other.

      I'm seriously interested in this, I'm not just trying to be a contrarian (although it is fun)... so ask yourself: Is it really factually true, or does it just *feel* true?
      • FatherVic, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2as far as the rice goes.. you have to see the big picture on commodities like grains.
        I don't know if there is a rice shortage, but what I do know is that if Rice supplies are low due to an increased demand for corn growers then you have a problem. Another factor could be this.
        Oil prices are high for stupid, fearmongering reasons. But if you look at the data, the cost of refining crude has doubled in the last few months thanks to ethanol. Already dilapidated refineries are being re-fitted to utilize corn and are struggling to meet new environmental restrictions thus increasing operating costs (which are refining costs). This helps put a burden on pump prices. Biofuels like diesel are already at record highs that outpace gasoline due to corn and ethanol. Increased gas prices have made it more expensive to grow, harvest, and sell crops, thus creating a need for cost recovery which is naturally higher prices.
        so, while rice may not be corn, it is certainly not exempt from the effects of ethanol.
        • Terr01, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1"the cost of refining crude has doubled in the last few months thanks to ethanol"


          Actually, you've wandered onto another hot-button issue of mine :)

          Refinery costs are *NOT* what's causing pain at the pump. The rise in gas prices is almost entirely driven by *CRUDE* (that is, unrefined) oil prices. Refinery prices are been relatively flat over time, only with short-duration spikes like during Hurricane Katrina.

          So no, biofuels are NOT driving up the price of normal gasoline from refinery complications. In fact, they ought to be LOWERING the price by decreasing demand.

          P.S.: Now, OK, if you mean very very specifically only last three months or so, I may be looking at old data. But I highly doubt it's significant.
        • Terr01, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1P.S.:

          Someone's pretty graph version:

          http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f190/thackney/Oi ...
        • FatherVic, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1@Terr01
          I absolutely agree with you. Refining costs, though double in the last few months still only account for .02% of the cost of a gallon of gas at the pump. The largest cost contributors are the cost of crude oil and taxes.

          Biofuels are driving up the cost of refining and the cost of non-gas related items such a meat, bread, cheese, milk and other staples.
      • urothane, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3AFAIK, the argument wasn't that the cost is up because the crops are competing on two markets (fuel vs food), but that the cost of fuel raises the price of developing and harvesting the crops thus the rise in retail food prices.
        Yes there are some slight influences in some markets on the ethanol side, but the majority of food price rising has to do with the cost to manufacture.
        • Terr01, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4I see, I may have jumped to conclusions over what BishkekBuddy meant... I've just been debating with a lot of people who think the Eeevilll Environmentalists are the root cause of all the problems. (Specifically, they baselessly assert that refinery regulations are the reason for high gas prices and that ethanol mandates are the reason for high food prices.)

          However, I'm pretty sure that the cartoon was referring to food being turned into fuel, and as fuel, unavailable as food for the poor. I mean, it's got a big cornucopia flowing into a gas-pump.

          If the cartoon was making the argument you're referring too, we'd see something about a farmer who can't grow anything because he can't fuel his tractor or something. (Of course, we use a lot more fuel in agriculture than other places due to heavy mechanization.)
        • urothane, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1You are right in that the cartoonist is saying we are taking food from the poor to fill our cars, but that is different than the reason prices are going up. Also, it doesn't mean the cartoonist is right. this guy drew something based upon a message he was old to deliver. He may be as confused as the rest of the world as to what is happening.
    • ADVIZR, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4Except it's not true. The root of most problems we're seeing is directly related to the price of oil, thanks to the Oil Cartels/Suppliers and Bush's policies. Also, even if corn-based ethanol were a leading problem, it will be remedied by cellulosic ethanol.
    • OriginalReplica, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Yet another reason to buy food that is grown locally. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/mark-bittm ...
  • leffunov, on 05/27/2008, -36/+184Get an electric car, no fossil fuel. Ethanol isn't green, just greener. Why there aren't huge subsidies and tax breaks for getting out of oil is beyond me.
    • dotlizard, on 05/27/2008, -11/+62"get an electric car" sounds just a little bit like "let them eat cake". hey, easy answer, just go buy an expensive new car that is unsuitable for long commutes!

      if you're struggling to pay the cost of gas vs. food, buying a new car (with restricted functionality) is a bit more difficult than your glib comment implies.
      • Brian48216, on 05/27/2008, -0/+21While I can understand people who have less money,
        Flex fuel cars that run on E85 are relatively new, and typically aren't exactly bargain cars.
        Just look at the average highway during rush hour and you'll see soccer moms and businessmen driving giant honking SUVs that they have absolutely no need for.

        Also, I don't know how long your commutes are, but newer electric cars can easily run 100 miles on a charge.
        • bjzq8, on 05/27/2008, -4/+10Everybody always says "SOCCER MOMS" and "SUVS THEY DON'T NEED"...well how would you fix this? There are many people that legitimately need SUVs and trucks, and there is no good way to prevent the "do not needs" from getting them. Or would you create a government office of SUV entitlement?
        • secrity, on 05/27/2008, -2/+3How much do these newer electric cars can easily run 100 miles on a charge cost? Where can I buy one? Do they have heat and airconditioning?
        • Logicexe, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7Right now you don't have many options for cheap electric cars with decent range. However, it is estimated that such a car would probably cost around $30-35,000.

          However, I don't think that's the direction we should move towards. I would prefer seeing more plug-in electric gas hybrids. You can put in a little range of about 50-60 miles (which could handle the daily commute of a large percentage of the population) where th car functions as if it were fully electric. Once the battery drains it switches to hybrid mode where the gasoline engine charges the battery while providing electricity to the electric motors.

          Best of both worlds.
        • bweltondav, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2@bjzq8,

          It boils down to personal responsibility. Less than 1% of people in this country have need for an SUV, they just buy them because a) they're popular and b) they're roomy.

          Need more than five seats? Most vans and station wagons will give you those extra seats plus tons more fuel economy. Embarrassing, maybe, but anyone who's social status is tied up in the car they drive is hanging out with the wrong people.

          "there is no good way to prevent the "do not needs" from getting them. Or would you create a government office of SUV entitlement?" -- It's personal responsibility, man. Of course these fat assholes will keep buying SUVs. But you know what? You don't have to.

          ...And to think he'll probably never see this reply.
        • outlaw686, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Tax suv's heavily and let the price of gas go up. Make exceptions for businesses run Government adverts making people who use suv's and trucks without necessity look "uncool". It kinda worked for smoking.... I stress the word KINDA
        • Navigator7, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Brian48126 wrote: """Just look at the average highway during rush hour and you'll see soccer moms and businessmen driving giant honking SUVs that they have absolutely no need for."""

          You do know you are posting socialist ideas?
          We don't need computers, we don't need TV's, we don't need suntan lotion, we don't need to over eat, we don't need cigarettes, beer, wine or many other things we purchase.

          Frankly, I am the best judge of what to do with my money and capitalism is the best way to respond to the needs of the people. Not government.


      • mateo60, on 05/27/2008, -6/+14An Electric Car runs on coal, it's just a longer tailpipe to your local power plant. Of course there are a few areas in the country where this isn't true (hydro, wind, etc..), but for the most part, it's a coal car.
        From an economic perspective, that's not bad since the US has the largest coal reserves in the world, except expect coal prices to rise if electric cars become popular. From an environmental perspective coal is still a CO2 polluter.
        • buba1243, on 05/27/2008, -1/+9But also remember this, internal combustion engines run around ~5% efficiency while electric run around ~85% efficiency. Internal combustion produces sound, heat, and power. Electric produces power with a very little sound and heat. So yes we would move to a coal car but a coal car that gets around 120-180 MPG equivalent.
        • sparsely, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4Electric engines are much more efficient than normal combustion engines. Not to mention coal power has gotten a lot cleaner in the past couple of decades. Even if the electricity produced to charge the car is from coal, we'll be using up fewer fossil fuels and reducing CO2 output significantly.
        • omnivector, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6Except that's not true -- powering a car using electricity produced by coal is still vastly more efficient than distributing heavy liquid all over the country using big trucks (which run on the same damn crap). Not only that, but the engines are more efficient by themselves, regardless of the means to produce the energy needed. You may have a case with the batteries (and the toxins they contain) but when it comes to the coal vs gas argument, you fail miserably.
        • EntangledPhysx, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5When everything is factored in, gas an electric cars have a efficiency difference of within 10% (I did a research paper on this very topic years ago, I cant find it now, though). Electric cars get power from an imperfect electric grid, where power is lost (due to inefficiencies) at the powerplants, power transformers, power lines, etc.
        • mateo60, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4I just got served. ; )

          That's all good info. Thanks for being nice about it too. All too often on Digg, my comment would've generated flamers.
      • sparsely, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5You should watch "Who Killed The Electric Car?"
        trailer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=MSBykAngDpY
        • RoflCoptah, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1dam i hated that movie, teacher made us watch it in AP chem
      • jer2eydevil88, on 05/27/2008, -3/+2I have no interest in an electric car. My work varies but it sometimes requires traveling as far as 300 miles in a day, no electric car is built for that. It also isn't much of cost saver or a green solution since the batteries are so expensive and harmful to the environment. What I want is a Hydrogen powered car.

        http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/

        I am no expert so take what I write with a grain of salt. From what I have read on the subject we could generate a vast renewable non harmful carbon byproduct supply of hydrogen simply by running electricity through water. When hydrogen burns it turns into water which means no more nasty greenhouse gases and it can be retrofitted onto cars already on the road.

        http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/diy-conve ...

        If a hydrogen pipeline were to be built alongside the oil pipelines we have and several nuclear power plants were be built to supply the electricity then we could basically supply the entire country with fuel.

        Now I expect that one of the first thing that comes to peoples minds when they think of hydrogen is the Hindenburg and the explosion/fire that destroyed it. Well lots of research has gone into that area and there are ways to store it that are safer than even the gasoline we put in our cars today.

        http://www.safehydrogen.com/technology.html

        So that pretty much wraps it up... It is my opinion that all the big energy companies out there want you to think that there is no solution for our oil fix when in reality we already have it. Hydrogen.
        • sparsely, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6ah, the hydrogen fuel cell!
          the transparent carrot we can safely chase until the fossil fuels are completely diminished! great!
          http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/05/hydr ...
        • Naieve, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Sparsely,
          Do you really expect anything else to fix anything in the next 40 years?
          What will you say in 40 years, when we have done nothing and could be transitioned to hydrogen?
          Just wondering...
        • pandorazboxx, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1there's so many complications with hydrogen. It would be great to switch it all to biodiesel made from algae instead of food, since algae can be grown at wastewater treatment plants, pretty much anywhere and there's plenty of room for it.

          http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/odu-experiment-tur ...
        • sparsely, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1@Naieve: We had fully working mass-producable, electric powered, zero-emissions, fuel-free vehicles. Sounds like a solution to me.
    • OfNumbers, on 05/27/2008, -24/+78Yeah, since electricity is magically created by the outlets in your wall. There are no powerplants that pollute a few hundred miles from your home (or maybe even closer) to charge these magical devices in your wall. They charge THEMSELVES.
      • Brian48216, on 05/27/2008, -4/+48While the electricity isnt' pollution free, the amount of CO2 generated- as well as pollutants is much lower then the amount generated from fossil fuels that are pumped into cars.
        • TheRealToma, on 05/27/2008, -1/+17It can also be sourced from many different areas, eg solar, wind, hydro and so on. Not just coal.
        • jspegele, on 05/27/2008, -0/+9"Can" and "does" are two different concepts. In 2000, 43% of US power came from coal. Another 19% from gas and 7% from petroleum. 12% came from renewable resources.

          Sure, renewable energy is probably (hopefully) the future, but we're not there yet.

          http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ipp/ipp_s ...
        • UTKEngineer, on 05/27/2008, -1/+9Also it's much simpler and cheaper to filter a single large stationary CO2 source (power plant stack) as opposed to millions of small, mobile CO2 sources (all the vehicles in a major city).
      • kenjura, on 05/27/2008, -2/+7Many of them do charge themselves. It is quite possible to charge an electric car using solar panels. If you don't think solar panels are going to be affordable and useful for the masses within the near future (i.e. before oil *really* runs out), you're an ignoramus.

        • secrity, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2For over thirty years I have been hearing about these magic solar panels that are coming 'real soon now', and I still haven't seen any.

          I have seen solar powerd cars - and they SUCK.
        • Logicexe, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2You're not going to see solar panels on cars. Even assuming you could harness 100% of the sun's energy into electricity it would still provide an almost insignificant amount of driving distance.

          At most, under ideal conditions, with a "perfect" 1m^2 solar panel that breaks the laws of physics and converts 100% of the sun's energy into electricity it would take you all day to harness enough electricity to drive maybe a dozen kilometers. That's under ideal conditions with an impossible solar panel, imagine how pathetic that distance would be using more realistic figures.
      • Qposter, on 05/27/2008, -3/+3There is enough coal to power america for at least another 500 years. Add the cleanup at the coal plants that Bush VETOed and you have no fossile fuel needs. Add another billion to producing solar and nanowire batteries and you never needed this BS at all.
        • applemachome, on 05/27/2008, -2/+3Coal still has other environmental impact besides polluting the air. The huge mines cause health problems for the miners and have a huge environmental impact if strip mining is used.
        • XTX7X, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Incorrect. The people claiming that are WAY off... here's a lecture on it if you're interested:

          http://youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

          To sum it up, people saying that don't take into account 1) exponential growth of energy demand, 2)the implications of diverting all of our energy needs to coal, 3)the low rate of recovery for the resource. In actuality there is less than 30-40 years worth of coal still in the ground under the US. If you think this claim is incorrect, please refute the statistics presented in the video with those from credible sources.
      • eMximeR, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear don't pollute the environment and can generate electricity
    • soccernamlak, on 05/27/2008, -1/+17There aren't huge subsidies and tax breaks for getting out of oil because the government makes money from oil. It's been a working, money-making system for 100 years now. As they say here down south, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Although one could argue in this case, if it's broke, milk it for all it's worth. Why do you think we haven't moved away from oil to a better energy source? Too much money involved with the production and selling of oil
      • secrity, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2It will also be difficult to add road tax to the electical power used for recharging electric cars.
    • borez, on 05/27/2008, -2/+8Money
    • BlueSkyfish, on 05/27/2008, -0/+21Ok, where do I get one? Oh, thats right, car companies in America won't produce them because they have a huge stake in the oil industry. Watch the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car. The only decent looking, affordable, mass produced electric vehicle was taken off the market due to "lack of demand" even though there were waiting lists to get one, and mass protests to keep them.
      • WhiteMike87, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6didn't the oil companies buy the patent to the electric car as well?
        • sparsely, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5To the batteries.
        • fooljoe, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2specifically chevron-texaco, after which they sued toyota and panasonic to stop production of the rav4 ev and its NiMH batteries. here's to waiting for 2015...
    • BaseballGuyCAA, on 05/27/2008, -12/+5"Why there aren't huge subsidies and tax breaks for getting out of oil is beyond me."

      If you believe in getting out of oil, do the work, find like-minded researchers, and give them your own money. Stop ***** using government to get your way.

      I have no problem with people using their own money to support eco-friendly causes. My problem comes from the fact that you push to regulate that EVERYONE'S money goes to these causes, because you say it is "right." I'll determine what is right myself. In the meantime, you are just as deranged and just as pompous as the fundamentalist religious loonies.
      • statstudent, on 05/27/2008, -2/+7the subsidy should be done by the government since everyone benefits (not just those who put money towards it). not to mention getting off oil is a matter of national security... so when is the government going to start spending a fraction of the national security expense on energy independence?

        how about... we remove the subsidies to oil and fossil fuel companies and transfer them to wind, solar, and nuclear energy? then there are no extra costs, i.e. the deficit does not get larger.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4But our government is paying a billion dollars a year in oil subsidies to the companies. Despite these companies earning record profits.

        All people are asking for is to stop subsidizing a profitable industry and use that huge amount of money to fund basic research into alternative energy research.

        We could give a thousand grants of a million dollars each to promising startup companies, while not increasing taxes a bit, just by taking away all the subsidies we pay the oil companies.
      • Arghblarg, on 05/27/2008, -2/+2Uh... people pay taxes to THEIR government, so its absolutely appropriate to ask THEIR government to do things for THEM with THEIR money.

        Remember the government is supposed to serve (fear) the people, not the other way around.
        • mooseontheloose, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." - Alexander Tytler
        • Navigator7, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1No...
          Only within the scope of the constitution.
          Your idea only promotes bondage.
          Would you want government coming to repair your sewer connection?

          Mooseontheloose is spot on!
    • cornswalled, on 05/27/2008, -9/+4Great, an electric car, whose batteries will dump lead and mercury into the environment unless recycled. Those batteries make them WORSE for the planet than gas, but Moonbats can't see the big picture like that.
    • theOster, on 05/27/2008, -6/+7actually WIRED just had an article stating that "off the assembly line" a hummer already has an eco-advantage (over a prius) due to the nickel in teh prius' battery. it's an interesting read...

      Main article:
      http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/ ...

      new vs used cars
      http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/ ...
      • Paradoxymoron, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2***** the prius, we're talking a REAL electric car, with lithium-polymer batteries and individual wheel motors.
        • bobsmith1234, on 05/27/2008, -1/+0Lithium-polymer batteries would be worse for the environment than traditional nickel batteries.
    • ColonelJessup, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3Why sure! I'll just run on out to the dealer and buy a brand new car! Oh wait, I forgot................. I don't have 25 grand laying around.
    • AManWithNoName, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6Look at who runs America: Oil tycoons and corrupt assholes. That's why there are no tax breaks.
    • glenSM, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Don't hummers get tax breaks because they are over the weight of a normal car and are put into a different tax category, which is the totally wrong thing to do. I guess buying petrol supports the war on "terror". More gas the more patriotic you are!!!
    • maml, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3Yeah, coal fired power plants are great!

      Get a bike. Or ride the bus.
    • connorf, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6Isn't G. W. in the oil business?
    • sh4rkb1t3, on 05/27/2008, -3/+3Electric cars aren't the solution. Where do you think the energy comes from that gives us the electricitity to power cars? Almost all of it comes from fossil fuels.

      Oh and if you haven't realised you *****, electric cars aren't on the market yet, unless you intend to pay 100K+
      • sparsely, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Since you didn't know, *****, they were, and they were fought tooth and nail every way by several groups, until they were killed.
        Face it, those in control of our current establishment and industries have a vested interest in keeping us stuck in the past. The sad thing is that we're still having this discussion in 2008. Electric cars have been around a long time (~100 years).
        Previously, poor batteries had been the main hindrance, but with modern NiCad batteries that's not a problem. Too bad the oil industry purchased the patents to them.
    • DavidGX, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3Oil man president. That's why not.
    • jdimi34, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0 In response to the oil comment. We would not be in this situation if the environmentalists would allow us to tap into the Billions of gallons of oil in the Dakotas and Montana. Of course you will not here about this because it does not fit the Liberal agenda.
  • MistaBell, on 05/27/2008, -5/+49I wish the algae biofuel / hydrogen scene would hurry up and take off.
    • zantos420, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2HHO FTW
    • NWScreative, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4Hydrogen just isn't practical; it costs around a million dollars at the moment to make one hydrogen car, they can't store enough hydrogen onboard to give the consumers the range they want, hydrogen fuel is more expensive, and to get consumers to buy an hydrogen car, companies would have to build around 20,000 hydrogen fueling stations to replace gas stations. They're simply not cost effective.
      In short, electric cars ftw.
      • welliamwallace, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2The trick is not to store the hydrogen in the car, but to MAKE the hydrogen in the car using elemental aluminum in a reaction with water, for example.
    • thethinktank, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Without increased use of Ethanol, algae biofuel will not be adopted by the market. The federal mandates on Biofuel adoption rates rely on Ethanol, as it is the only widely available form of Biofuel on the market. More Ethanol use means that car manufacturers will make more Flex Fuel vehicles. More Flex Fuel vehicles and rising gas prices makes a growing market for other biofuels like Algae Biofuel.

      Ethanol isn't the perfect fuel, Algae Biofuel is a huge step up over Ethanol. However, for us to get to an Algae Biofuel economy, we're going to need to fill our tanks with Ethanol for the trip.
    • joeyeh, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1I agree with NWScreative, hydrogen is not practical. But algae is the best solution for green energy:
      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/biofuel-co ...
    • sassafras1232, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Cellulosic ethanol would be a good alternative too. Ethanol gets a bad rap because the way we make it now is stupid. Politicians need to stop subsidizing corn. (Why exactly IS iowa the first primary?) Ethanol is currently just a green mask on corn subsidies. Before it gets to the masses we need a workable way to make it that isn't from corn (or sugar cane, even though that is a good bit better than corn.)
  • Trav3133, on 05/27/2008, -45/+36i loled
  • jjive, on 05/27/2008, -20/+79Hay people, it takes a lot of money to build deserted attractions in the middle of the desert.
    Do you think Dubai is going to built on reasonable oil prices?
    • WorldLeader, on 05/27/2008, -2/+34Dubai is 90% tourism and investment banking. They know that oil will run dry eventually, so they thought ahead and based their economy on something more stable.

      So they are probably laughing at you right now. : )
    • nullity, on 05/27/2008, -1/+23"it takes a lot of money to build deserted attractions in the middle of the desert"

      Just hire the Department of Redundancy Department, they can do it for 50% less and at half the price.
      • cougar618, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Well some people make desert attractions in the middle of a lake...
    • Donwangugi, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4Dubai is not a good example, as oil counts for little of its GDP nowadays. Also Dubai is a single emirate in the United Arab Emirates.

      The entire UAE still relies heavily on oil and so does Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela and Russia who are using the high price of oil to develop their countries into economies which can stand on equal footing with the West and Asian countries.

      They are somewhat at fault for rising food prices as they are very much at fault for rising Oil prices.
      • taiakpun, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Actually there is only one group responsible for rising oil/gas prices - commodity forecasters/predictors. There is no oil shortage, there is no super increase in demand. In fact, oil production is just fine and dandy, able to keep up with demand. The commodity traders are making big money by saying a while back that investing in oil is beneficial for all investors (this way the price goes way up due to high increase and volume trading among other things). Do not believe what you hear from the politicians - there is no oil crisis, except for the fact that there are a small number of people in control of the price - all about the dollar dollar bills y'all
    • mooseontheloose, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6Damn, you're right, how dare they waste the money they earned (not even from oil in Dubai's case) on building their city? We should keep it to blow ***** up in the desert! Now that's productive!
    • solecize, on 05/27/2008, -0/+10wait- for a second I thought you were talking about Las Vegas.
    • delmar14, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Our oil comes mostly from Canada. Almost none of it comes from Dubai.
    • directedition, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1God, what's with these ignorant people? I get it, a financial power in the middle-east, they MUST be getting it from oil, right? Nope, less than 10% of their economy comes from oil. The vast majority comes from banking and tourism. Stop being a presumptive ass and at least wikipedia the place before bashing it.
    • nwoantibody, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Well, if it wasn't for the irresponsible Americans who let their dollar collapse because of their Federal Reserve. Oil prices are pegged to the dollar. So, you keep biting the hand that feeds you. They don't profit for higher oil prices, neither do people who had their gold worth 530$/oz when they bought it and now it's at 800$/oz; they just kept their value because they're real goods, unlike the American currency.
  • Nurven, on 05/27/2008, -13/+4not so funny? they did it for the lulz
  • mentallyinhell, on 05/27/2008, -10/+78Painful truth. And still people try and claim that food prices and fuel consumption (including ethanol) are unrelated.
    • curseoflou, on 05/27/2008, -5/+23anyone thinking fuel and food are unrelated needs a swift kick to the nuts for being a complete jackass.
    • soccernamlak, on 05/27/2008, -2/+15I don't understand those people. It's like they think their food magically appears in the grocery store or there are local farmers that walk by foot to deliver all their food straight to the market's freezer or produce section.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 05/27/2008, -6/+21Well there's that little problem of corn replacing American crops and European crops and not everywhere else's crops.

      And the fact that these countries never imported grains from north american and europe, it's actually the opposite. We import from them, and we still do btw.

      And the fact that they could never really afford corn in the first place.

      And the fact that exotic grains such as rice have suffered greatly in the last two years because of weather problems and the destruction of agricultural land that is replaced by cities and industries.

      And the fact that nobody has ever been able to explain precisely just how american and european corn subsidies affect the price of other grains in other regions of the world.

      Especially considering that the rise of price of grains actually means more money for these countries that export their grains to us, they make more money with the same product for the same cost.

      And the fact that the presence of corn subsidies is disproportionate to the rise of grain prices.

      And the fact that these populations reached record highs and are grovely overpopulated.

      And then there's the whole grain stock problem that nobody was able to link to ethanol production. Doesn't work too well when you look at the industry over a few decades:

      http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Grain/2006_ ...

      But hey, if the cartoon says so, it must be true.
    • thethinktank, on 05/27/2008, -2/+6And the diggers that are buying into this whole "ethanol is killing the world fuel supply" ***** need a swift kick in the balls. And I thought Diggers were above Big Oil propaganda...
      • taiakpun, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Ethanol is actually worse than oil - see the digg article a while back showing a satellite view of just what ethanol does after it is refined - kills the ocean and all coastlines where it is dumped. Ethanol is in fact not clean at all. Until they come up with a proper disposal technique Ethanol must be banned.
    • jdimi34, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0A majority of our oil comes from Canada not the Middle East. Ethanol is a joke that has caused the rise in food pricees.
  • fludgesickles, on 05/27/2008, -12/+5not so true
    you over looked one thing
    US farm subsidies....have them grow bio fuel plants.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/27/2008, -1/+13The only thing worse than partisan pork bills is bi-partsian pork bills.
    • Ursapater, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1You are aware that the bio-fuel initiative [made from corn] is diverting that away from the food market driving up food prices? That when all the processes for creating it are taking into account it is roughly as polluting as fossil fuels?
      There are many more promising fuel alternatives we should be investigating.
  • Envark, on 05/27/2008, -11/+81Is SUV use more harmful to food supplies than overpopulation?
    • joegibes, on 05/27/2008, -3/+122SUVs should run on babies?
      • Envark, on 05/27/2008, -2/+44Ideally, yes.
      • brentfoor, on 05/27/2008, -2/+31babys don't burn hot enough, i know from experience
      • BaseballGuyCAA, on 05/27/2008, -4/+27400 babies!
        • daishin, on 05/27/2008, -0/+10Will they make my car as fast as Kenyans?
        • albinorhino101, on 05/27/2008, -0/+0Yes and I heard they will make you win at arson
      • drastik21, on 05/27/2008, -3/+5SUVs should run on baby pandas
        • SatansSpatula, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Human babies are a far more abundant source of fuel.
      • blademanx, on 05/27/2008, -2/+1If I digg your comment, it means I'm saying "yes", right?
      • SatansSpatula, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Win-win situation, right there.
      • Snokage, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1finally someone thinking in the right direction
      • amphoterous, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1My car already gets 23 miles/baby!
    • theWrkncacnter, on 05/27/2008, -3/+19Jonathan Swift's babies.
      • Infidelcastr0, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7I cannot digg this modest proposal enough!
    • node3, on 05/27/2008, -2/+12If the answer is no, then what's your suggestion? Let the people die and build more SUVs?

      This isn't a question about what to aim for in the future (presumably fewer people, more SUVs), but what to do with the situation as it stands now (even if it is too many people, not enough SUVs).
      • sh4rkb1t3, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Of course. Nobody must die! The world's population must reach infinity!

        /s
      • SatansSpatula, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2That's already what we do. Let people die and build more SUVs. Let people die and eat hamburgers. Let people die and go to work. No matter what you do, people are going to die.
        The fact that you're privileged enough to have the free time to feel guilt about it doesn't change the fact that people are dying everywhere, all over the world, for all sorts of reasons.
    • statstudent, on 05/27/2008, -2/+9no. but does that mean we should ignore the problem of SUVs?
      • voxtarri, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2It means neutering those rabbits
      • SatansSpatula, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1The SUV "problem" will take care of itself with rising fuel prices.
    • ToastedZergling, on 05/27/2008, -2/+10I don't think any of these replies get at a very important point: overpopulation is "killing" just as much as using fuel for food does.

      The world either needs to do one of two things:
      1. Accept that human life is no more important than any other creature, and therefore we MUST create an equilibrium for sustainable, continued living. This means preventing people from starving by restricting people's ability to reproduce in one form or another.
      2. Accept that there is no "right" or "wrong" or morals at all. Killing by action or inaction or being oblivious should have no bearings on our world. In nature, if there isn't enough food, people starve until there are so few people that there is enough food. Sadly, in the modern world, only by wars can this "morally" be allowed, because religion is so pervasive and gives everyone the feeling that their life is more special than that of the planet's, of which, there is absolutely no evidence to point to that. Our solution to solving a growing population is to just make more food, which leads to a higher population that demands more food, only making things worse in the end.

      Moral of the story: Next global disaster is going to be a major famine. It's the only way in our present society growth can stop.
      • scy1192, on 05/27/2008, -2/+3the liberalists aren't going to like that...
      • rchargel, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4You make some good points. Nature does in fact use starvation as its main method of population control. Except of course you've forgotten one very basic problem in human society. The problem is not overpopulation, the problem is the distribution of food. Why are people in developing countries starving, while people in wealthy nations are dying of obesity related ailments. The cartoon is a comment on basic consumerism as much as it is about the use of corn to produce ethanol.

        It's all just a question of who gets to decide who has the right to live and to breed. According to the UN, procreation is a fundamental human right. Should the US and Europe get to tell Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans that they don't have the right to have children, because they want to be fat and drive big cars?

        Some facts:
        1) Brazil has been producing nearly half of the worlds fuel as ethanol from sugar cane for more than 30 years [1].

        2) Ethanol from sugar cane is much cheaper and significantly more efficient to produce than corn ethanol [2].

        3) The US (Pres. GW Bush) and Brazil (Pres. Lula) signed an agreement that Brazil would train and provide Central American nations with the technology to produce ethanol from sugar, which could then be imported into the US tar tariff-free under the Central American Free Trade Agreement. This would create jobs in Central America and provide cheaper fuel to Americans, possibly at the expense of new refinery jobs in the US.
        [3].
        • rchargel, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Sorry digg screwed up my links:

          1, 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazi ...
          3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_American_Free ...
        • ferkranus, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1If we equally distribute the food then people won't die from starvation, which as horrible as it sounds, is necessary. Can you imagine what would happen if there were no poor people? No third world countries? What would the SUV/fuel situation be like then? Think about China alone...suddenly there is equality...yaaaay...then they all buy cars/build houses and we're even more ***** than before.
          Even though it isn't 'nice' doesn't mean that it isn't true.

          "Can't have kids..." well, everyone knows poor people breed way more than anyone else -- mainly b/c of ignorance and lack of access to birth control. If you have nothing and give birth to eight children with no medical assistance - then yes, some of your children will die. I know that their pain is equal to our pain, I know it is horrible that babies/children have to die.
          There is NO solution to world poverty. Nor can there be...
        • Envark, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0If food were equally distributed, then areas of high population density wouldn't have as much food per person as areas of low population density.
      • hillkiwi, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1You're right about the massive famine that is coming. Unfortunately it won't arrive until Africa (and other regions) are a massive desert. There will be migrations in the hundreds of millions to where life is still sustainable.

        I can see it getting to the point where illegal immigrants will be shot on site when trying to sneak into a country for this will be the only way to deter the hordes.

        Now, wouldn't it be for the greater good (them included) if other nations stepped in and prevented it from getting to this point. Not genocide, but imagine flying planes over Africa which sprayed all the rivers and lakes with something that would chemically neuter the masses.

        Would it work? Yes
        Would it be the right thing to do? To each there own, but I say yes
        • HowboutBBQribs, on 05/27/2008, -0/+0I don't know if you have kids, but I would have to guess no, otherwise I don't know how you could suggest denying a huge population the possibility to ever have their own child. No one has the right to take that away from someone else. Eventually some kind of population control will probably have to be in place as the world can only sustain so many humans with the current technology and food producing capabilities that we have. But sterilization is not the answer.

          It's inhumane to punish them for being born into poverty and ignorance, I don't know what your beliefs are in terms of life and death, but you could've just as easily been born an African instead of in a 1st world Country.
        • frygar, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't bring a child into this world right now if my life depended on it.
          Taking away someone else's reproductive rights is reprehensible; how would you feel if someone wielded that power over you?
        • hillkiwi, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1@HowboutBBQribs

          You're right - I don't have children (it's possible if I did I might have a different outlook).

          I agree a voluntary solution from them would be preferable, but I can't see them getting organized in the next century to the point where they had a functioning 'one child plan'.

          @frygar

          It'd be horrible to have someone do that to me, especially in a place like that where I needed children to provide for me in my old age. I'm just looking at from 'the greater good' perspective.


          I'm all ears if someone has a better (realistic) strategy.
        • Envark, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Haven't you seen Children of Men?
          Everyone would just get violent.
      • solistus, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Malthus beat you to this one by over a hundred years. Incidentally, critics of Malthus have been responding to this for almost as long. The Earth can probably sustain almost twice as many humans as are alive today. Food production is not the issue, anyway; it's living space. Food prices are rising because they were unsustainably low. The problem is, the global economy has balanced itself out by leaving vast swaths of the world's population at subsistence level. This means food prices rising isn't just inconvenient; it's disastrous. That's why the US spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the Farm Bill in a tightrope walk to balance domestic and foreign production and stabilise food prices. Stopping things like paying farmers to burn some of their crops to keep prices high would be a good start. Refusing to look at any commercial or industrial applications of any food products because of our unsustainable and broken international food economy is absurd. Grow more ***** corn.
      • Trichomonas, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2"1. Accept that human life is no more important than any other creature, and therefore we MUST create an equilibrium for sustainable, continued living. This means preventing people from starving by restricting people's ability to reproduce in one form or another."

        I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If you look at population growth since human population expanded, the population rises and levels off until a new major development is made which either allows more efficient resource extraction (getting more "bang for your buck") or increases health/quality of living. Examples include the development of agriculture, the industrial revolution and modern medicine.

        If what you said was true we would see the population expanding to a point and leveling off, then going down, and then back up to where it was and this would contiune in a cycle.
      • DillonHinson, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I once had a biology teacher that lectured about the need for people to understand that death isn't always a bad thing in the sense that it's, for the most part, nature's way of controlling the population. It was a fascinating lecture, really. The world is overpopulated, thus causing shortages of the things we have. I'm sure, in a perfect world, we haven't even fully taken tapped into the resources the planet provides us for survival. The problem comes from the distribution of these resources. Among the reasons why efficient global distribution doesn't exist is money and politics. Those are different problems themselves. But in the larger picture, with human distribution aside, death is nature's way of controlling the population. Too many people on this planet limits the amount of resources that gets to everybody, among other things. When diseases and natural disasters wipe out large numbers of people, it lowers the number of people that need things. It's a small amount each time, but it all adds up. Granted, distribution can become more efficient, world economies could be better and politics more open to the world, but those aren't always easy to change. But demand can be lowered via a decrease in population. My biology teacher went on to blame, not necessarily in a bad way, all the advances in medical care for our continual world population increase. Less and less people are dying naturally. And more and more people are being born. Thus, populations increase. Demand increases accordingly. Prices follow. It's all full circle. Medical resources should be prioritized for use on helping people that are at risk of dying due to unnatural resources, such as crime and car wrecks,etc. Those that fall victim to natural disasters or disease shouldn't recieve the priority medical care. That's a hard pill to swallow, but everybody complains of overpopulation, yet nobody can accept natural death as being good for this planet. I'm not saying we should give up trying to save ourselves from disease and disasters, but we need to understand that sometimes things happen for a reason.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/27/2008, -3/+3You are right, everyone on earth should drive an SUV 50 miles to and from work everyday, and live alone in a 3000 square foot home that is heated with giant barrels of burning crude oil.
      • Envark, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2Really?
        Is that what I claimed?
        Ethanol policy increased food prices an estimated 3%.
        What about the other 40% or more?
    • mcturdTheThird, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1The only 2 logical choices:
      Mandatory sterilization, or indiscriminate carpet bombing.
      Anything else is just postponing the inevitable.
  • duddy, on 05/27/2008, -9/+12That's not how it works!
  • borez, on 05/27/2008, -9/+83Biofuels: When the supposed solution is actually a bigger problem
    • kenjura, on 05/27/2008, -2/+23Nuclear power: when a proposed problem is actually a big solution.
      • moocow1452, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1Nuclear Waste: When a great vision has an Achilles Heel.
    • rugabug, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1To biofuels; the cause and solution to all of life's problems.
    • ParticleMan420, on 05/27/2008, -2/+3Hemp: when corn is for eating and oil is too expensive.

      Propaganda: for when our solution to the energy shortages cuts into oil profits.
    • Naieve, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2Fresh water stocks diminishing: check
      Millions facing starvation: check
      World using water and land to grow fuel: checkmate
    • tnycatgirl, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1I agree. When is our government, going to wake up, and put to use technology that we already have?? Solar energy has been in place since the sun was created, and we have the ability and know how to tap into it. The exhorbitantly high prices that solar powered homes, etc. cost now are no accident. The greedy oil companies do not want to encourage, or even allow this to be accessible to the masses. And electric powered cars and other vehicles are making a slow headway - but we have had this option for such a long time. I myself, because of gas costs, financial, as well as ecological, am a bike rider. I don't pollute the air, don't have to pay high gas prices, and as a bonus don't have to worry about parking!! And as a practical alternative, when I need to, I use public transportation. We all can make a difference.
    • jhelmer, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Close, but you don't take it quite far enough. Thomas Sowell once wrote:

      "Most of the problems of this country are not nearly as bad as the 'solutions' -- especially the solutions that politicians come up with during election years. "



  • jeremyduffy, on 05/27/2008, -1/+146I see your cartoon and raise you tens more:

    http://www.cagle.com/news/CornFuel/main.asp
    • bobkingof12vs, on 05/27/2008, -1/+9many of those are just sad... though the fuel meter with the empty kid made me laugh. then instantly made me feel worse about myself...
    • Snokage, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1"dont spill the fuel, remember the staving kids in africa!"

      rofl
  • addysonclark, on 05/27/2008, -3/+76Food is for the weak. I drink gasoline. High priced tastes.
    • kcdstudios, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6yet cheaper than milk, and bottled water.

      still, you made a funny :)
      • smoger, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1what bottled water is that? mine is between .60 and $1.25 / gallon.
        • Jashobeam5, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Milk is about $4 to $5 a gallon.

          World's most expensive waters: http://www.forbestraveler.com/food-drink/bottled-w ...
        • smoger, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1i know there are some expensive brands of water. there's expensive brands of cheese, soda, anything in the supermarket. the implication, i believe, was that water is *generally* more expensive than gas... which is not true
    • rmeddy, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2HP printer ink is the new caviar and Dom Perignon all roll into one for me.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/27/2008, -1/+26http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/flextech.shtml

    "FFVs experience no loss in performance when operating on E85. However, since a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline, FFVs typically get about 20-30% fewer miles per gallon when fueled with E85."
    • thethinktank, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2With that, ~1.25 gallons of E85 = 1 gallon of petrol.

      At my closest gas station, E85 is selling for $2.50 today. Regular unleaded gas is selling for $3.99.

      $2.50 x 1.25 = $3.125 for a per gallon gasoline equivalent of E85

      Thus, I save $.87 per gallon on E85.
      • coolmanmax2000, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Yeah but it's gallon gasoline equivalent only in energy supplied, your car is producing the same amount of CO2 per tank as it would if it was running on gasoline/petrol, so in the end you produce 20-30% more CO2 than a gasoline powered car. Presumably the corn that gets planted to make up for the ethanol burned then takes in that CO2 through photosynthesis and balances out, but the corn still requires processing to become ethanol and that processing requires energy so CO2 is produced there as well. I don't think CO2-wise it's any better even if it is cheaper. Additionally, as corn prices increase, so will the price of that ethanol.
  • keymanjim2, on 05/27/2008, -3/+91Bio fuels don't have to come from food stocks. Great strides have come from using algae for making bio crude that can be sent through our current refineries to make the same products that are made from regular crude oil.
    One company says they will have their product on the market in as little as two years.
    From what I'm to understand, one acre of corn will make 18 gallons of bio diesel a year. One acre of algae will make as much as 20,000 gallons. And with photobioreactors they can potentially increase that to 100,000 gallons. They can be built on land unsuitable for crops and the stuff left over after the oil is extracted can be used for cattle feed or fertilizer.
    Go do a google search for algae bio crude and see whats going on. All we need is for our government to stay out of the way and we can be free from foreign oil in a few years.
    • cornswalled, on 05/27/2008, -25/+3Biofuels are a crock. We don't need to resort to Boifuel. Global Warming is a liberal lie to force us to cripple the economy. Peak Oil is a lie. There's proof that oil is still being produced underground and previously "Empty" oil reserves have been refilled by deeper geological phenomena.

      Take these liberal Biofuel morons, round them up and send them to Cuba where they can commune with the other Communists.
      • keymanjim2, on 05/27/2008, -1/+11All of that oil we are pulling out of the ocean floor was once algae.
        How much would it cost to ship all the necessary equipment to northern Alaska, build the wells, drill down to the oil, pump it out and then ship it back down here?
        How long would it take to build an oil rig, float it out to where the oil is, drill for the oil, pump it out and ship it back ashore?
        Now, how long would it take for both of these before you see a drop in gas prices.
        Theoretically you could build photobioreactors at every coal fed power plant to provide the CO2 the algae needs. Then siphon off as much algae you need to make bio crude, refine it into gasoline in the existing refineries and pump it into the car you already have. This could be done in less than a year if people would put forth the effort to do it.
        And even with omnidirectional drilling the oil rigs will eventually have to be moved to new oil sites. Whereas algae will just keep on growing as long as it has CO2, sunlight and water.
        This is an emerging technology. As Americans we must take the lead on this.
        • cornswalled, on 05/27/2008, -12/+1Or you could just pump oil from underground at a fraction of the cost of your lovely liberal "algae farm" biofuel fantasies. It's all liberal propaganda.
        • kayala, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3You're the only propagandist here. Reported.
      • Terr01, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4There's proof? Show it. And preferably from some real publication rather than a ConspiracyWasTrueOMG.com site.

        'Cause AFAIK the scientists who think that some deep Mystery Machine makes abiological oil are a pretty small minority.
      • honthraj, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2"Peak Oil is a lie. There's proof that oil is still being produced underground and previously "Empty" oil reserves have been refilled by deeper geological phenomena"

        Please - don't just say it - present it.

        Do you have a link to the "proof" so we can verify your claims?
      • nonstop87, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7You forgot your /sarcasm tag, right? RIGHT?
      • Donwangugi, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Its entertaining to see people try and use reason against guys like these.
      • specialbuddy1, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I worked for an oil and gas company and it's not that cheap. The only reason natural gas is hot right now is because the price is so high that if it's found then it can be profitable. It has to be found though and it's not that easy. Our company drilled tons of dry holes and had not lines to get gas to sale. It costs around .5-1 million dollars to drill non-conventional wells. How about spend that million on something you know is there like solar or wind. A 1 megawatt wind fan is about a million dollars and can power 1000 homes. Another thing, good luck with your theory of "Empty" oil reserves filling back up. Yes they fill up but it's all smoke and mirrors because an old well will produce 30 mcf for example but will drop down so fast that it's usually done just to increase numbers to impress stock holders. Once a well is drilled the mcf will always drop over time. Wells can be frac'd and water jetted to increase production but it's very temporary.
    • jbmcb, on 05/27/2008, -0/+12Brazil runs almost entirely on Ethanol produced from sugar cane. Of course, sugar cane doesn't grow that well in most of the US, and various controls and subsidies ensure that sugar is stupidly more expensive than high fructose corn syrup.

      One of these days people are going to realize we're spending billions of dollars subsidizing an industry that's costing consumers millions of dollars so ADM can keep their stock price up.
      • honthraj, on 05/27/2008, -0/+0Brazil is currently working on a process to switch their Ethanol source from sugar cane to grass a much more plentiful source and easily grown in the US.
      • BurnTees, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1i was going to say the same thing. i read or heard that the only reason it's not available here is because gas companies like Exxon aren't willing to make it available to us.
        • jbmcb, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Naw, it's farm subsidies keeping cheap sugar imports out of the market, driving up domestic corn and sugar prices (corn prices are kept higher since they use it to make high fructose corn syrup)

          Exxon doesn't really care if they make money on ethanol or oil. If there's money to be made in ethanol production they have the capital to start up in that field.


      • Naieve, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Yeah, and they are burning the rainforest down at a record pace to do it.
    • kenjura, on 05/27/2008, -7/+4In as little as two years, I will be driving an electric car, charged by solar or wind power.

      If you care about the environment, stop dicking around with anything that remotely resembles fossil fuels.

      STOP.

      Stop.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/27/2008, -6/+4Hypocrite. From where do you think the electricity that powers your car will be generated? Over 70% of that power is fossil fuel based. You are simply passing the buck.
        • vtnerd, on 05/27/2008, -1/+7Did you even read what he posted?

          Here's the key phrase, "charged by solar or wind power" since you obviously missed it the first time.
        • SatansSpatula, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1@vtnerd: yebbut he's not going to get enough power from wind and/or solar to power his car. If he is, then he should sell the car and buy a bicycle, since he's obviously not traveling far nor fast.
      • nunyabuizness, on 05/27/2008, -0/+0Well, my argument on the subject is that as long as there are fossil fuels around, the general public wont give a ***** about anything else until its gone. At least, if we Americans can grow our own gasoline (not ethanol, the government always backs the stupidest *****) we can get rid of foreign dependence.
        and the best part about growing it ourselves is that when a butterfly flaps its wings in Saudi Arabia, it wont do ***** to the prices of our bio-gas.

        Say we have algae that can use genes to turn CO2 from coal plants and other organic material into petrol. the burning of that fuel will produce a lot of CO2, most of which will either be absorbed by the algae directly, or used by the plants used to feed the algae.
        And once this country can completely rely on home-grown, almost recyclable oil, we can worry about new technologies
      • BESTenemy, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1See how many wind turbines and solar panels you can make without using oil. Feed the energy that alternatives generate back into their own production and you'll realize they barely make enough to justify their own manufacturing and decomissioning. If true costs of implementing alternatives was applied, your alternative energy would cost a "clean" dollar for every "oily" cent. The only reason you are able to enjoy the alternatives is cause they've been brought to you by the same old substance.

        By the way, oil is a lot more than energy - it's carbon byproducts. See how much pavement, plastic, nitrogen fertilizer and synthetic textile your solar panel or wind turbine will produce, or how the lack of coal will allow you to make steel for the coveted electric car components.

        Good luck with that.
      • vacax, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1People think cars just appear magically. The resources it takes to build a new car, especially something new like electric cars, are much larger than just driving around your standard gas based car for decades. The problem isn't gasoline it is a consumer culture that would think just buying new cars is a magical solution.
    • secrity, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6I have grown tired of hearing about "just a couple of more years" before some huge energy breakthrough comes. I have been waiting a LONG time, and none of them has come true yet. What happened to oil shale? Nuclear was supposed to be too cheap to meter. Solar cells that will produce enough electricity to pay for themselves. Methane from ***** was supposed to be the natural gas of the future. Wind power, solar power, ***** power, algae power, nuclear power -- all have so far been useless on the scale needed to help the US significantly reduce their dependence on foreign oil.
      • jbmcb, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6That's because the cost of wide scale rollout of these technologies was still significantly more expensive than other forms of power. Now that other forms of power is getting more expensive, these technologies will start to be more economically feasible.

        Nuclear *would* be too cheap to meter, if there were enough nuclear power plants around. Unfortunately every time a company tries to build a new plant, they are hit with a decade of lawsuits from environmentalists who've watch the China Syndrome too many times.
        • krische, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2No kidding jbmcb. I mean when was the last nuclear plant built in the US? Wasn't it the 70s? Look at how much our ***** technology has advanced since the 70s!!! I think we could easily design and build a perfectly safe nuclear plant.
      • Hello1024, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1>What happened to oil shale?
        It will be developed as soon as oil prices get high enough for long enough. There are no significant barriers to this when the circumstances are right

        >Nuclear was supposed to be too cheap to meter.
        That was a misquote - he was referring to nuclear Fusion, which still has large technological barriers before it becomes viable.

        >Solar cells that will produce enough electricity to pay for themselves.
        Realistically still a long way off if you factor in costs like installation time, land costs, failure rates and maintenance.

        >Methane from ***** was supposed to be the natural gas of the future.
        It is already - landfill sites generate significant amounts of energy from various types of rottable *****. It usually isn't economically viable to move ***** though just for energy.

        >Wind power
        Never going to be viable long term due to high land use and low reliability. Many token wind farms are built for government and company PR reasons rather than anything else.

        >algae power
        A possible, still haven't seen any land use per watt comparisons yet though. Might also suffer problems from high water requirements.

        >nuclear power
        Has been pretty successful, just needs the waste problem to be sorted. There are plenty of solutions to that problem, just not everyone can decide which is best.
    • Jordan117, on 05/27/2008, -6/+2Hmmm... Algae... Al G... Al Gore!

      Obviously this algae-to-biofuel business is simply a moneymaking scheme for the Goracle. Alert the wingnuts.
    • nitrojunky24, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1uhh I didn't now they could make bio diesel from corn ethanol yea but I thought that you needed soy beans or something like that. i could be wrong though
    • Tr3mulant, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0This sounds promising. However, Im sure the oil lobby will try they're hardest to get things like this buried. We need a president and a congress willing to invest in innovations like this bio crude is we want to be energy independent.
  • mf0thrilla, on 05/27/2008, -22/+7Hey, it's me again. Just wanted to check up on your total lack of empathy for mankind. Still working as Hitler's secretary? Did you get that gift basket I sent you? The cyanide was really hard to come by. I'm sure you know what to do with it when Obama is elected president. YES YOU CAN!
  • protodon, on 05/27/2008, -21/+53Inaccurate because it implies that we are stealing fodo from the global south to run our cars when in reality they ain't got no food because apprently they have other priorities and depend on the north to deliver for free.
    • Jektal, on 05/27/2008, -1/+10Wait, what are we doing with Frodo?!
    • Chassit, on 05/27/2008, -3/+1wtf?
    • bobartig, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5When the global price of food goes up rapidly, it gets harder for extremely poor nations to buy food on the global market and keep their people fed. It's not just about handouts.
      But having said that, biofuels' effect on the price of foods is a bit complicated. Biofuel production mainly consumes corn at this point, much of it not grown for human consumption to begin with. This would eventually raise the price of raising livestock (and it has), but overall hasn't changed the price on corn very much. Other commodities are increasing in price due to more and more farmers producing corn for biofuels (to collect government subsidies), which reduces the amount of other staples, such as wheat. This, along with growing demand from a number of emerging markets has increased the price of food commodities. As countries like India and China become more industrialized, their citizens start eating a richer diet containing more meat. Since it takes some multiple pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat, this causes a much more rapid increase in commodities demand than just an increase in population.
      • krische, on 05/27/2008, -2/+1But don't forget, many countries still refuse to eat our corn, wheat and other grains because we genetically modify them to bigger and grow faster.
        • Frustian, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1The areas that do this are in the minority, and were (wrongly) informed by hippies that GM food was poisonous, thus causing them to deny the much needed crop from entering towns or villages where they are needed. Very Few whole countries denied the GM food, it was the hippies talking to individual village/town leaders that made individual villages/towns refuse the food.

          I really don't like to use the word 'hippie' in this context, but ultimately they were wrongly informed outspoken activists who spread their misinformation across the world, thankfully more people recognised it as bs than not.
      • OriginalReplica, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Any group of people that is currently starving couldn't buy the food if it cost on tenth the current price, they are that poor. And even when the food does show up for free, it is stolen by local warlords and astonishingly corrupt governments. The only true help that can be offered some places (Sierra Leone comes to mind) is to help the people leave the country.
      • Trichomonas, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Very good explanation and well said.
    • SuperMoses, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1If they have other priorities it's because they are dictated by the US. Most democratically elected leaders get overthrown with support from the CIA in Latin America.
  • suzywang3000, on 05/27/2008, -13/+20how naive... something Bono would applaud for sure
  • igothugeguns, on 05/27/2008, -4/+11This is mucho incorrect. We actually fuel the SUV with the Children. Duh.
    Seriously though Biofuels are not going to have a noticeable effect on world hunger.
    • ginestony, on 05/27/2008, -7/+2** BZZZZZZZZTTT!!!!! **
      Your statement is incorrect
      • lolinyerface, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3Wow, that's incredibly annoying. Do you do that at the dinner table until your parents tell you to stop? Yes, of course you do! :)
    • IdevInull, on 05/27/2008, -4/+4Maybe if those hungry people would stop killing each other and try and start a viable agricultural program -- OR maybe if they didn't run off or kill the people who are doing agriculture (Zimbabwe anybody?) then they wouldn't need our food...which we give to them for free.
      • Naieve, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Africa has water problems for the most part.
        Like Darfur.
        Darfur is a water problem.
        You need fresh water to grow food.
        No fresh water?
        Move south, slaughter the people there, you now have more fresh water.
    • skidooer, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4Higher food prices should be a good thing for world hunger. For the first time in thirty years farming is profitable. Now the third-world farmers might actually have a chance to compete against the highly subsidized American farmers.
      • Matt2k, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3I know it might be a new concept to wrap your mind around, but skidooer has an interesting angle. Crops are subsidized, and given away for free, that it drives many farmers in underdeveloped countries out of business. We give our food away so cheaply that those people living out of run down shacks can't compete. This is an OK situation when there's enough free food to go around, and with full bellies, the idea is these countries can grow and contribute back to the world in other ways. But until those countries come up to speed, they're sensitive to everyone's philanthropy and any shift in market prices directly impacts them. No *****.

        With prices going back up it can be profitable for them to continue farming, but this sort of change doesn't happen overnight. Such is the problem (in either direction) when you're dependent on others for your self sufficiency.
  • bg2500, on 05/27/2008, -16/+9om nom nom nom
  • Alphapsi12, on 05/27/2008, -2/+5If you are not hauling major weight or in need of a large truck/suv, don't get it. I was guilty of this when my wife convinced me that we need a Suburban a year ago when gas was much cheaper, but now I learned my lesson. I traded in the Suburban for a Camry hybrid which gets ~37 mpg rather than the measly 11 that the SUV inhaled.
    • aspec, on 05/27/2008, -1/+8Right... blame the wife for the Suburban. It's her fault. But only on Digg, where she won't see this. Everywhere else, it's yours.
    • ncc74656m, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4If your wife convinced you that you needed it, you earned it. If it weren't for the whole "feeding the oil industry and polluting my world" thing, I'd actually prefer you kept the stupid thing. Anyone who buys one and does not have a specific immediate need for the power and capability that *SOME* of those have deserves to be paying the prices for them.

      I bought a Corolla, and at my worst, I would like to have a WRX which still gets over 20 MPG, but won't get for exactly that reason. My Corolla was rated at 41 by old EPA standards, but if I drive it carefully on mostly highway, I could exceed 45-50 MPG.
      • SatansSpatula, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Thank god you're a better person than that Alphapsi12 prick! I mean, he was obviously rationalizing his purchasing decision, whereas you, my friend, are... oh, wait, you're just rationalizing your purchasing decision, too!

        Ever see the South Park about the smug? The dad who buys a Prius and drives around telling everyone else that *their* car is destroying the world? That guy is you.
    • Typhoon2009, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1My father's in the same situation. He bought an Expedition back in '04 when one could afford gas. We used it for long trips to South Carolina and Canada. Now, 4 years later (and a divorce too)... my dad doesn't really need that goliath. Considering he lives in urban DC, where you might as well have a tank... at least with a tank you can crush other cars to make room for parking! And don't get me started on refueling... at most places, when his tank is near empty, it's about $100 a refuel. He's probably gonna get a new car this summer... I'm hoping that new Jetta TDI is out by then (the one that gets like 60-70MPG).
  • tierpinho, on 05/27/2008, -12/+6no such thing as peak oil, just a globalist agenda to break down the middle class and make the rich richer. wake up people, we have been had.
    • petska, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4Amen!
    • upchucknorris1, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2Um... do you know what peak oil is? Peak oil is the point at which oil production is at its maximum, and all subsequent oil production is at a lower level than this maximum.

      There is obviously going to be some point that oil production is higher than an other time in history and won't be that high ever again. How is that some sort of globalist agenda?

      Whether or not peak oil should cause mass panic about oil costs or if we should still be relying solely on petroleum products is a valid question, but peak oil definitely exists.
      • tierpinho, on 05/27/2008, -2/+3that would depend on whether or not u believe that oil will run out one day soon. Oil is not made from dinosaur bones as the media would like you to believe.. it is plentiful and quite abundant... they have cornered the market, thus control prices.
        • upchucknorris1, on 05/27/2008, -2/+0This is straight from Wikipedia (assuming that's not a biased media source according to you):
          Most geologists view crude oil and natural gas as the product of compression and heating of ancient organic materials over geological time. (Note it says "most").

          For the scientists that don't believe this we have the Abiogenic theory. It says that hydrocarbons of purely inorganic origin exist in the planet Earth. Since most petroleum hydrocarbons are less dense than aqueous pore fluids, they migrate upward into oil reservoirs through deep fracture networks.

          Either way, there is a finite amount of hydrocarbons, organic or inorganic, that exist. If we could easily and cheaply produce them we probably would be doing so already.

          So, yes, I do still think peak oil exists. Since you think oil is so plentiful and abundant why aren't you out finding it? I guess it's all over the place.
        • tierpinho, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2No, that is not what I meant, my point is that the supply has been manipulated to the point we are talking about peak oil and scarcity -- weren't the Iraq war and coming Iran war supposed to bring plentiful sources of oil??Oil is going to run out one day, but in the near future, no. The think tanks of globalists claim the creating scarcity is in their agenda to implement world govt... but first is the destruction of the middle class and the erosion of our rights, demise of the dollar, aka the USA. Tell me these things aren't happening and I'll show you a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. Just do some research and you will see there plan to destroy us. You were warned so don't play ignorant when they come knocking. good luck.
  • petska, on 05/27/2008, -9/+6Why doesn't OPEC pump more oil to satisfy demand and reduce prices.. thereby making biofuels obsolete?

    if OPEC wants to keep the price high, then invading the OPEC cartel to save the starving children is not so bad imo.

    if they cannot pump more and the price of gas stays here, then ethanol will grow in usage.

    Where is the electric car?
    • ColorBlind, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5Agreed,

      If they wont supply oil at a decent supply/demand rate then we shouldn't supply food at the decent rate either.

      I wonder who will come out on top...hmmmmmmm
      • skidooer, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1But we are supplying food at a decent rate. The current food prices are basically at the cost of production. Any lower and the farmer will be selling his crop at a loss.
    • MaddieCakes, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2It's here (check out the Tesla Roadster), it's just really expensive.
    • whatever01, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6So, it's a free market until you think the price is too high, in which case it's okay to use force to take it?

      Nice watch you're wearing there. I'll give you a dollar for it. No, then say hello to my little friend...
      • petska, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2No one says anything about sky-high oil prices because the US is the main loser as a result... but when it (HIGH OIL) results in higher input costs thus Higher Food costs to the world, the US is to blame.

        Its a free market when it comes to oil, so why so much outrage over higher food prices?

        Is food not a free market?

        Seems a bit Catch-22ish to me.

    • buckrogers1965, on 05/27/2008, -2/+2Evidently you don't realize that the world has hit the peak of oil production and it's a long slow downhill slide from the highest production levels a couple of years ago.
    • nunyabuizness, on 05/27/2008, -2/+21. OPEC doesnt give a *****
      2. Its like forcing more water through a water hose; it can only come out so fast.
      3. Invading a nation to "save people" hasnt really worked out so i think we should avoid that
    • tolgafiratoglu, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2Than the day petrol exhaust will come quicker.

      20 years before only west Europe, USA and Japan was developing (with some common-wealth). Today Africa to Russia, China to India, Turkey to Iran, we're all running with big development percentages (and better politics).
      Which means our energy need is increasing with those percentages also.

      So capital is spreading back to east 500 years later. Over-valued USA economy will decrease step by step, for sure.

      Add the development of Euro-zone and fall of Dollar-Zone...

    • upchucknorris1, on 05/27/2008, -1/+0Where is the electric car? GM killed it.

      See: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-720274006 ... (Who killed the electric car)?
      • Matt2k, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1I found that movie to be silly. The basic premise was a bunch of people signed an Internet petition, and when the electric car salesmen came knocking in the real world, "Ummm. Let us get back to you.". The interviews with the fanatics skewed the perception of popular opinion.

        Yes, I'd love an electric car, and I'm interested in one, and I'll sign a petition saying I'm interested in one. But when it comes right down to it, a car that gets a 100 miles or so between 30 minute recharges doesn't sound all that attractive. It would be a good 'secondary' car. But then I have to buy two cars, and what carbon footprint is that!
    • iamdan1, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1If we all have electric cars, where do we get the electricity from? We are already in huge demand for new plants, and add thousands of cars running off the grid, we are going to have to build new plants. We cant build nuclear, nobody wants wind, solar is too expensive, so that means coal and oil.
      • eluusive, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Solar is too expensive? Check out Nanosolar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar

        $1 per 20 Wattyears, or ~6 cents per kilowatt hour. That's cheaper than coal and oil.
      • petska, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1umm, Natural gas (which we have nearly unlimited supply in), hydroelectric power, geothermal, geez you left out the major ones. and look up a company called "First Solar" , they are 1 year away from beating coal in cost per watt.
        And what about Wind power, its exploding! Boone Pickens is building a massive windfarm from texas to Canada.
        The US is the worlds best electricity producer.
        Oil isnt being used to generate electricity anymore, only in a few markets.
    • Naieve, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1OPEC wants to have oil money rolling in from Asia for the forseeable future.
      They are making a long term decision that will have some negative short term effects for them.
      Meanwhile, we make a short term dec