“The reporter writes: "Romney's energy policies are heavily tilted toward increased production of carbon-based resources, oil, gas and coal, that environmentalists blame for global warming."
When is the media going to stop perpetuating the myth that there is a debate over global warming? There is no debate. It’s not just "environmentalists" who say burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming. It’s 99 percent of the world’s climate scientists. The above sentence should properly read:
"Romney's energy policies are heavily tilted toward increased production of carbon-based resources, oil, gas and coal, which are widely blamed for global warming," or "which climate scientists around the world say contribute to global warming."
Attributing the belief merely to "environmentalists" politicizes the idea and undermines the validity of decades of scientific research.
Our refusal to allow facts and science to shape our debates is leading to policy making that is increasingly divorced from reality. The press has a moral obligation to disseminate accurate information. Presenting global warming as a he said/she said issue -- as does the reporter above -- is just another example of how derelict our media has become in its duty to inform the citizenry.”
“But it's not green energy zealots who are demanding the new fuels. It's the military. They want to make our national defense stronger, not weaker, and they feel these fuels are the way to go. That's not crony capitalism. In fact, it's the very definition of a free market economics. The military sees value in biofuels and is willing to pay a temporary premium to procure them. As purchases rise, costs will go down. It's not green energy zealots, but republicans beholden to the oil industry who are compromising our national defense. And they're squelching free market principles by protecting foreign companies like BP from competition.”
Cliff Claven on Jul 23, 2012 at 17:45:42
“Don't confuse political appointees running the military (e.g., the Secretaries of Defense and the Navy) with the uniformed military. Also don't confuse retired military officers working as paid lobbyists for ACORE or the Truman Project Operation Free or SAFE, or those with huge financial stakes in Growth Energy or Solazyme or Gevo to be representatives of the rank and file military.”
Joe Dallas on Jul 22, 2012 at 18:52:03
“The military is demanding it because the commander in chief is demanding the secretary of defense to demand it. No competent military person is requesting or demanding bio fuels - I stress competent military person.”
“Look, Solydra's got nothing to so with this. As for the cost of alternative fuels, you're right. They're more expensive. Right now. But the price will come down. And this new fuel can be manufactured right here at home. No supply disruptions, no pipeline ruptures, no wild price swings. The military doesn't care about the environment or "going green." It cares about war fighting. And when military chiefs say the adoption of these fuels will make them better war fighters, our policy makers ought to listen.”
“I'm not sure I understand the point of this article. Solazyme and Gevo have lobbyists. That seems pretty natural. There's hundreds of lobbyists for every congressman in Washington. It's the biggest business in town. Oil and gas companies have spent billions over the years driving the most destructive policies the world has ever scene. So what if Gevo and Solazyme spend a few dollars to get heard? At least they're offering real solutions to real problems. The Navy knows this. It wants the fuels these companies provide. Mabus hasn't been paid off to say that. He's pushing for sound policy. The same can't be said for John McCain and James Inhofe who recently added language to a defense bill that prohibits the buying of any fuel more expensive than oil, even if it pays dividends in national security and creates jobs here at home. Mabus has said that the price of alternative fuels will fall dramatically if the Pentagon buys them in bulk. McCain and Inhofe are trying to make sure that never happens. They're protecting big oil, upon whose largesse they rely, at the expense of the common good. Where's the real scandal here?”
BBrandon on Jul 23, 2012 at 16:58:03
“Finally, a rational comment. This was a very poorly written article which shed no light on the subject. This recent buy was for 80k barrels, the next big buy is in 2017 for 8M barrels. By the third big buy in 2022 for 80M barrels they expect cost parity. This is a normal 10x increase for each advance and is typical for development build out. The military and the producers know what they are doing as compared to most of these comments.”
ziegleraandd on Jul 22, 2012 at 13:38:24
“I seem to remember the same kind of talk when obama and company were pouring millions into Solendra who "just spent a few dollars to be heard". Why would any of us out here be concerned with our air force flying on around on $59.00 a gallon bio fuel? After all, the Navy is getting such a great deal on it at "only $26.00 per gallon, and it's so easy to get...... It just sounds like the patriotic thing to do, don't it? Make your countries defences dependent on a scarce source of fuel at 18 times the price of what you were purchasing and could get anywhere.”