William Yeatman

Cellulosic ethanol—derived from wood scraps and other forms of inedible plant mass– may or may not turn out to be a real technological breakthrough.  On the one hand, it could reduce the ruinous impacts of grain-based ethanol on food prices.  On the other hand, the extensive set of federal mandates and subsidies for cellulosic ethanol is not a good omen—good technologies rarely need federal help, and the existence of federal aid is often a tip-off that a new technology is a loser.

But here’s another question: if cellulosic ethanol does take off, what impact would that have on the clichés we use?  Would we have to scrap the old saying about separating the wheat from the chaff, and instead talk about separating the chaff from the wheat?

Big-government, command-and-control technocrats believe that when central planning fails, the solution is a better plan and smarter planners. They never step back and look at whether planning makes sense in the first place. This was true of the Soviet Union, with tragic five-year plan after five-year plan. It was true of Communist China, with Mao’s revolutionary upheavals. And today, here in the United States, it is true of government energy policy.

The US has said post-Kyoto protocols to tackle climate change will not make any sense if India and China are given a "pass" and that Washington will not be a signatory to any such framework if the two Asian giants are not on board.

Record high gasoline prices have created an interesting situation on Capitol Hill. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has complained that the Democrats promised to do something about high gas prices in the 2006 elections, but that since winning majorities in the House and Senate they have done nothing except watch prices skyrocket.  Many Representatives and Senators have tried to put the blame on oil companies.  A bill to raise taxes on just the "big 5" oil companies passed the House last year.

Now, several Democratic Senators are threatening to block armaments sales to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries unless they agree to increase their production of crude oil.  Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have sent a letter to President Bush demanding that he use the threat of suspending arms sales to pressure Saudi Arabia to pump more oil.

The interesting thing about this is that all these Senators have opposed legislation that would increase U. S. oil production by opening federal offshore areas and the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration.  They also all support cap-and-trade legislation on greenhouse gas emissions that would increase gas (and electricity) prices for decades to come.

This hypocrisy is beginning to be noticed by the press.  On Wednesday, Environment and Energy Daily (a sister publication of Greenwire) ran a story by Ben Geman that asks, "Should lawmakers pushing global warming legislation want high gas prices?”  Geman goes on to point out that the chief sponsor of legislation to suspend the 18.4 cents per gallon federal excise tax on gasoline is also the Senate’s chief promoter of cap-and-trade legislation—Senator John McCain (R-Az.).  Co-sponsors of McCain’s gas tax suspension bill include the chief sponsors of the cap-and-trade bill that is tentatively scheduled to be debated on the Senate floor in June, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.)

Claims that global warming causes extreme cold weather are popping up once again.  The British Telegraph reports that, due to greenhouse emissions, we’ll have a wetter Arctic that will produce colder winters.  And in Peru climate change is being blamed for deadly cold temperatures.

The alarmists love these claims, because it makes their predictions even more unverifiable.

But consider what Al Gore said in his film:   “[T]here is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun.” 

Suppose Gore had said this instead:  “When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer … or it gets colder.”

Would Gore have been laughed off the world’s stage, or would he have been hailed as an even greater prophet?