The Great Ethanol Scam

By Alan Caruba

The rocketing costs of gasoline and the price of corn being paid worldwide are the result of U.S. government mandates requiring the inclusion of ethanol in the gasoline all Americans must use. The time has long since passed to eliminate ethanol from this primary fuel.

A recent report by ActionAid USA, “Fueling the Food Crisis: The Cost to Developing Countries of U.S. Corn Ethanol Expansion” is based on work by researchers at Tufts University. ActionAid USA is an anti-poverty group. The study found that the corn-importing countries of Central America and North Africa are at the highest risk from ethanol expansion—the requirement to include ethanol with gasoline.

“Strong policy should not be based on prayers for good weather, especially when the stakes are so high. From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the G20, it is time to recognize that current biofuel mandates are unsustainable,” said Kristin Sundell, a policy analyst for ActionAid USA.

The group is calling on G20 leaders who are meeting on World Food Day, October 16, to eliminate incentives that encourage unsustainable biofuels production.

The idea behind ethanol is that it reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and, in doing so, it saves the Earth from global warming/climate change, but CO2 plays no role in climate change, and shows up well after any increase or decrease of temperatures. Ethanol is bad science. It is bad for the engines of cars that must use such a gasoline blend. It increases the cost of gasoline and all other corn-based products. It actually increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And it reduces the mileage a car can achieve with pure gasoline.

An authority on the U.S. oil industry is Sel Graham, the author of “Why Your Gasoline Prices Are High”. He is a man with more than fifty year’s experience, first as a petroleum reservoir engineer and later as an oil and gas attorney. He is also a graduate of West Point.

Here’s what Graham has to say about the current gas prices:

“Gasoline prices could be decreased instantly by President Obama if he wanted to do so.  Republicans have not yet picked up on this issue.”

“Abolishing the ethanol mandate requiring ethanol to be blended with gasoline at the pump or waiving the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) would: (1) lower gasoline prices by millions of dollars; (2) result in billions of miles of free travel annually; (3) prevent millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide from being emitted into the air; and (4) improve national security and the energy picture since it is impossible for US ethanol to ever replace foreign oil imports.”  

“The following is reference data for skeptics. Gasoline prices can be lowered instantly by either abolishing the ethanol mandate which requires that ethanol be blended with gasoline at the pump or waiving the RFS.  This would eliminate the millions of dollars in waivers which refineries are required to purchase because there is no cellulosic ethanol production, thereby decreasing the price of gasoline."

"The 2012 RFS for cellulosic ethanol is 8.65 million gallons.  Cellulosic ethanol production through August 2012 has been only 20,069 gallons, a shortage of 8.63 million gallons requiring $0.78 per gallon waivers.”

An essential truth that few Americans are aware of is that “The price of U.S. oil is always lower than the price of foreign oil. Last year, U.S. oil averaged $95.73 per barrel, $7.25 cheaper than foreign oil imports at $102.98 per barrel. If U.S. oil replaced the 3,261 million barrels of foreign oil imports, it would be a savings to Americans of $23.6 billion annually.”

Given the enormous oil reserves in America, both domestic and offshore, there is no reason why they should not be extracted, but the environmental movement in combination with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior and Energy Departments, has restricted access to our own oil.

The ethanol mandates are not just robbing Americans at the gas pump, they are endangering the cost of food prices worldwide

Current government energy policies are a definition of insanity.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Cartoon Round Up

A Most Obnoxious Biden

By Alan Caruba

The Biden-Ryan debate will be the subject of millions of words written and spoken, but, if remembered at all will likely be remembered for Vice President Biden’s obnoxious behavior. One was reminded of the Bush-Gore debate of 2000, but Biden's behavior went beyond Gore’s boorish sighing and pacing.

Those with any familiarity with the issues knows, too, that Biden lied on several occasions. Early on in the discussion of Iran, Biden said “There is no weapon at this point.” Assuming he was referring to enriched uranium capable of being weaponized, he’s right, but Iran possesses any number of missiles to which a nuclear warhead could be fitted. Thus, it is mostly semantics as to when “now” is. Sanctions have not worked to deter the weaponization process and most guesstimates put it within a few months; perhaps early spring. To suggest there is no weapon may be technically correct, but it is still deceptive.

Biden’s assertion that Mitt Romney “had no commitment to jobs” despite his career as an investment capitalist who was instrumental in building into companies with many job was also deceptive and, of course, Romney’s main campaign theme has been jobs.

Biden also dodged an early question about Libya and the Benghazi attack that cost the lives of the U.S. ambassador and three others, saying “We did not know they needed more security there”—an outright lie--blaming the intelligence initially received and then employing the scare tactic—something he did throughout—saying “The last thing we need now is another war.” Sometimes you get a war whether you want one or not and the Middle East is replete with that potential.

Ryan retained his composure throughout, but some observers thought he was too deferential to the Vice President. Better that than responding in kind to having his opinions dismissed as “malarkey” and “all that stuff.” Ryan scored points replying that “Sometimes the words come out of your mouth the wrong way.”

Indeed, whatever Ryan wanted to say was harmed by Biden’s non-stop interruptions and, at times, by the moderator’s. I often wondered during the debate if Ryan would ever be allowed to complete a sentence.

Worse, perhaps, was the continuous and inappropriate laughter of the Vice President, along with what was clearly a great deal of smirking that suggested his disrespect for Ryan.

What we saw and heard was a repeat of the last nearly four years of the Obama administration, one incapable of telling the truth and unwilling to deal with the hard issues whether it was the economy, defense, or foreign affairs.

Whether it was Afghanistan where our troops, as Ryan noted, “are less safe” because of the stated withdrawal date and the “green on blue” attacks, or Syria where Ryan said, “Nobody is proposing to send troops”, he was constantly having to respond to the straw men and scare tactics of Biden.

If one actually lasted the full ninety minutes, Ryan had by far the best closing statement saying “That’s what we get from this administration—speeches.” 

“I never say anything I don’t mean,” said Biden and that has been his problem as Vice President. He has said so many foolish things it is hard to take the man seriously.

I doubt the vice presidential debate will have much effect on the outcome of the election though it may have swayed some “undecided” and independents who were as offended by Biden’s behavior as I and others were.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Americans, You're Fat

By Alan Caruba

Does it strike you as ironic that, along with all the advertisements for programs and pills that allegedly can help you lose weight, that there are also just as many urging you to eat all manner of tempting foods or dine out at America’s fast-food chains and restaurants?

 In Lisa Tillinger Johansen’s new book, “Fast Food Vindication”, the dietician-author says, “Recently, several overweight/obese people have sued fast food chains for damages related to their weight gains, These people held the restaurants, not themselves, responsible for their excess pounds,” noting that “Congress eventually passed legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits of this type from clogging the judicial system.”

 Ms. Johansen is well aware that “There’s a serious obesity epidemic in the United States and it’s a growing problem throughout the world.”  I can remember was widespread famine and food scarcity. “Clean your plate,” mothers in the 1940s would tell their children, “there are children starving in China.”  Not anymore. The same American fast-food chains are busy these days in a China that has embraced capitalism while retaining a one-party system of government.

Ms. Johansen draws on her training as a registered dietician and her research, saying that one is more likely to over-eat in a sit-down restaurant and grow fat from “decreased or non-existent physical activity; increased caloric intake from snacks, sodas and energy drinks; and the content and size of foods prepared at home.

 So, it’s your fault if you’re fat or your kids are fat.

The government is now engaging in all manner of advertising and other efforts to advise and keep people from getting fat, but the recent efforts of Michelle Obama regarding school lunch programs have backfired because the kids say they’re still hungry from the reduced portion sizes and the choices of food.

 All this is of interest to me because my late Mother, Rebecca, wrote two cookbooks and taught gourmet cooking for some three decades in the adult schools of the community in which we lived or that were nearby our town. When soldiers returned from service in World War II, lots of them had been introduced to French and other cuisines, and they wanted their wives to learn how to prepare it. Television shows featured early teachers like Dionne Lucas and Julia Childs. Today, one can select from a dozen such programs.

One might think that I grew fat at my Mother’s dinner table, both neither she, my Dad, nor myself were fat because of the size of the portions and the wine that was served that helped metabolize what we ate. Age alone gifted my Dad and I with the familiar “belly” that men develop at the same time that fat goes to women’s buttocks.

In 2008, Connie Leas., wrote “Fat: It’s Not What You Think” (Prometheus Books) in which she said, “While experts purport to know how much fat is healthy and unhealthy, the truth is nobody really knows. People are different.” We know, however, if we’re fat. We need only look in the mirror. And too much weight does pose health risks.

 “You need to take into consideration,” wrote Ms. Leas, “factors such as age, gender, physical activity, race, and where on your body the fat accumulates.”

Fat, however, has many positive factors for your health. “Fat is the primary building material both for cell walls and for the sheaths that surround and protect nerves,” wrote Ms. Leas, “The hormones released by fat cells affect metabolism, weight, and overall health. Besides producing hormones (that regulate bodily functions) fat cells also release other compounds, including immune-system cells.”

If, like me, you love chocolate and other sweets, Ms. Leas tells us that “Our genetic makeup is virtually that of our hunter-gatherer forebears. By the time they started planting crops ten thousand years ago, 100 percent of our genes were formed. In those days the problem was finding enough food to eat. When they found such a place, our early ancestors probably stuffed themselves. It was a matter of survival. Now food is always plentiful and survival is not the issue, yet we’re still programmed to take advantage of high-calorie food sources. We’re stuck with those pesky caveman genes.”

As a book reviewer of some fifty years, I can tell you that diet books and cookbooks flood into my office every month. I have long since concluded that maintaining a comfortable weight for yourself is a matter of eating moderately, getting some exercise, and understanding the role that fat plays in maintaining your health. Don’t like what you see in the mirror? Eat less. Snack less on sweets. Avoid diets that advise eating more of something and less of something else. It’s not what you eat, but how much you eat.

 It is definitely not the government’s job to intervene. It’s your job.

 © Alan Caruba, 2012

Two Million Page Views and Growing!

I am pleased to report that "Warning Signs" has just passed two million page views and is enjoying an increasing rate of visitors with every month.

Alan Caruba

The Oceans Are Neither Rising, Nor Turning to Acid

By Alan Caruba

When you consider how deeply in debt the nation is, you might think that scientists from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) would want to avoid wasting taxpayer dollars studying “ocean acidification in the Arctic and what this means for the future survival of marine and terrestrial organisms.” You would be wrong.

Like so many government agencies that were originally established for legitimate reasons, the USGS has been corrupted to advance the greatest hoax of the modern era, global warming, aka climate change. A visit to its website shows that its major concerns these days include “climate and land use change”, “ecosystems”, along with “energy and minerals, and environmental health.”

My dictionary defines geology as “1. Scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth. 2. Structure of a specific region of the earth’s surface.” It says nothing about “environmental health” or “ecosystems.” One might also expect the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to be more interested in the alleged ocean acidification than the USGS geologists.

We have arrived at the sad and dangerous point in our history when our government’s agencies are just as likely to be used to advance the global warming./climate change hoax as to be engaged in the original and actual functions for which they were established.

It gets worse. There is no scientific justification for a bunch of geologists to be studying ocean acidification. According to USGS Director, Marcia McNutt, “Ocean acidification is a particularly vexing problem associated with the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels because it interferes with the ability of marine organisms to build hard shells of calcium carbonate.” Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Why is the USGS worried about “marine organisms”? If the object of geology is to study the structures of the earth’s surface, why are they collecting samples of Arctic water to study the utterly bogus claim that marine creatures are endangered?

The answer lies in aspects of the biggest collection of lies and predictions about the earth, the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations vehicle for the dissemination of the global warming/climate change hoax.

In its Forth Assessment Report (AR4) it pushed the lie that the oceans were rising and would swamp everything by 2100. The rate of sea rise since AR4 has actually decreased by about 25%. Ocean acidification is just another one of its lies.

A team of scientists recently released a report debunking the IPCC prediction that there would be a massive die-off of ocean plankton due to ocean acidification. That's not happening either.

As for acidification, the alleged increase in the pH factor—the measurement of the amount of hydrogen ion concentration in a solution—has long since been debunked because for at least the last 600 million years, if it were true it would have dissolved the ocean’s limestone deposits, none of which have been dissolved through all of that time.

In fact, as Cliff Ollier, an emeritus professor of geology, has noted, “Marine life flourishes where CO2 is abundant. Over geological time enormous amounts of CO2 have been sequestered by living things, so that today there is far more CO2 in limestone than in the atmosphere or ocean. This sequestration of CO2 by living things is far more important than trivial additions to the atmosphere caused by human activity.”

The USGS is not telling the truth about CO2, especially when it asserts that “mining and burning of coal, the mining and smelting of metal ores, and the use of nitrogen fertilizer are the major causes of chemical oxidation processes that generate acid in the Earth-surface environment.” It is no accident that these alleged “causes” all have to do with the provision of energy, products that use metals in their construction, and crop yields on which humans and livestock depend for food.

The USGS forgot to include the tons of CO2 that are exhaled daily by the seven billion humans on earth.

Add ocean acidification and falsely asserted rapid rise of sea levels to the list of things the IPCC, the USGS, and NOAA, among others, are lying about.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Obama's National Security Advisor

If you are wondering why the Obama administration was slow acknowledge the attack on our Benghazi consulate that killed our Libyan ambassador and three others and concocted lies about it, it helps to know who is advising the President. My commentary from March 14, 2012, provides part of the answer.

By Alan Caruba

There’s a YouTube video of John Brennan, the President’s national security advisor, praising Islam and the Arab culture to an unidentified group of Arabs that is so revealing that it should be probable cause for his removal from office. At one point, he addresses them in fluent Arabic, a language acquired in his studies and CIA posts over the years.

When the British Empire spanned much of the globe there was a turn for men who embraced the culture and nations to which they were assigned. They were deemed to have “gone native”, often wearing Arab garb and becoming apologists for their actions. Among the most famous was Lawrence of Arabia, but there were many others such as Lieutenant-General, Sir John Bagot Glub, widely known as Glub Pasha, best known for leading and training Jordan’s Arab Legion from 1939 to 1956, the same Legion that took part in attacks on Israel after it declared independence in 1948.

In the video, Brennan waxes poetic about Arab culture. In 1977 Brennan had received a degree in political science from Fordham University. During his studies he had spent his junior year learning Arabic and taking Middle Eastern studies courses at the American University in Cairo. He received a Master of Arts degree in government with a concentration in Middle East studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 1980.

His career in the Central Intelligence Agency was one in which he reached the highest rungs as an analyst, serving at one point as a daily intelligence briefer for President Bill Clinton. In 1996, he was the CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, when the Khobar Towers, a housing complex was blown up by a truck bomb, killing nineteen U.S. servicemen billeted there. He would serve under CIA Director George Tenet as the director of its newly created Terrorist Threat Integration Center from 2003 to 2004. He would serve as director of the CIA’s National Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2005.

One might assume from such an impressive resume that Brennan was the idea man to be appointed President Barack Hussein Obama’s chief counterintelligence advisor with the title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

One might assume that, but Brennan, from his earliest days in that post made a number of statements and authored a USA Today opinion editorial that revealed deeply felt sympathies for the very people who were and are attacking Americans at home and overseas. In his USA Today opinion, Brennan criticized “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering that only serve the goals of al Qaeda.”

Commenting on Brennan’s USA Today opinion, Jeb Babbin, in an article for Human Events on February 11, 2010, wrote of Brennan and the Obama administration’s incomprehensible national security actions, “Consider their consistent record of bad decisions only one year into Obama’s presidency: to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; to move Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other al Qaeda varsity out of the military commissions system and try them in civilian criminal court; to war against the intelligence community; to put the White House in charge of interrogations of captured terrorists; and, most recently, the hasty decision to put the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in civilian custody thus preventing professional intelligence interrogators from having access to him.”

Babbin characterized Brennan’s USA Today article as “a string of fibs and misleading statements so easily disproved (that) it leaves observers wondering about Brennan’s sanity.”

Writing in the Washington Observer on May 26, 2010, Spencer Ackerman reported that “Brennan signaled as well that the administration is concerned that blowback from civilians killed by drones could turn tactical success into strategic failure.” Brennan said the U.S. had an obligation to destroy al Qaeda proactively, “but also has a responsibility not to overreact in the event of a successful attack.”

One wonders if he thought that President George W. Bush overreacted to the al Qaeda attack on 9/11. One can only assume he agreed with President Obama’s decision to send a SEAL team to assassinate Osama bin Ladin. In his defense of the decision to read Adulmatalleb Miranda rights, Brennan said, “Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lacks foundation.” This ignores the long history of trying people who commit acts of war against the United States the use of military courts.

The fact that Brennan is one of the chief advisors to President Obama explains a lot about the decisions Obama has made since taking office with regard to protecting the nation against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It explains Obama’s now famous “apology tour” of the Middle East that he took in 2009 and his conciliatory speech delivered at the University of Cairo.

Egypt has now moved outside the nation’s zone of influence and Iran openly mocks the Obama policies of using diplomacy and sanctions to stop their quest for nuclear weapons. Israel, despite Obama’s reassurances, was told to stop building housing in its capitol city and to retreat to indefensible 1967 borders.

Inside the White House, Obama continues to be advised by a man whose sympathies, despite his long service in the CIA, are with the enemies of the nation. It is no surprise that Brennan has maintained a very low profile since 2009-2010.

There have been many calls for Brennan’s resignation or firing, but he remains in Obama’s good graces. That, too, is no surprise.

© Alan Caruba, 2012
March 14, 2012