The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (7 comments)

  1. Benjamin Cole

    7. Renewable Energy Goes Bust in Europe – Lessons for Obama?

    I get a laugh out of bloggers who keep saying “Obama and renewable fuels, blah, bah, blah.”

    Um, have you heard about ethanol?

    The Bush program that subsidizes and mandates the use thereof, as in 800,000 barrels (yes, barrels) a day?

    And Bush jr. wanted to add on cellulosic ethanol, and more than double the size of the program. Except no one can make cellulosic ethanol for anything even approaching a market price, even if it were mandated and subsidized.

    Still, we have corn ethanol, and our grandchildren will be forced to use ethanol, as pink-o, socialist farm programs never, ever die in the USA…they don’t even fade away.

    1. morganovich

      and we get a laugh out of your intense fixations.

      ethanol is ridiculous. this blog routinely says so. that’s been covered.

      bush is no longer in office. providing him lessons seems a bit late now, no? they are only relevant to the guys in office.

      obama is a huge proponent of solar and wind and numerous failed ideas from europe as well as a dire opponent of coal over a bunch of bad science. this is the perfect time for him to get a lesson before he does any more damage. fwiw, i note that he has sure not done anyhting about ethanol either.

      it’s a cute attempt at deflection, but it’s baseless. “blame the last guy” when you are 5 years into an administration gets a bit stale when yu are keeping up the same policies and adding a pile of bad new ones.

      your whole argument is a logical fallacy. claiming that it was ok for you to steal a car because your neighbor stole a bike is no justification at all.

      pointing at other bad policy does not make current bad policy good.

      why all the obfuscation?

      1. Benjamin Cole

        Morgan, Morgan, Morgan–

        Because Bush jr’s renewable energy program—actually a farm pink-o subsidy program in drag—vastly dwarfs all of Obama’s stupid and puny alternative energy programs put together.

        If you want to ridicule renewable energy, then Topic No. 1 is ethanol. By several subsidized country miles. Also, Topic No. 2 and 3 and 4 and 5…..

        It’s like blaming the Post Office for the national deficit (ignoring the cost of rural delivery, btw) and forgetting about Defense, VA and Homeland Security ($1 trillion a year).

        The Big Stuff. Think about the Big Stuff. And get some sleep–what time is that there, anyway?

        For the record, I think all government subsidized energy programs are stupid. Obama’s or Bush jar’s.

        1. morganovich

          bennie, bennie, bennie-

          then your own argument is self refuting. why make it at all?

          you yourself admit that obama’s policies are foolish. yet any time someone tries to point that out, you shriek about bush and ethanol.

          you mischaraterize this blog which, as a quick read will show you, has been anti ethanol, and try to shift the discussion away from obama and onto bush.

          bush is gone man. it’s been 5 years. he does not get to make policy anymore. it’s a bit late to tell him what to do.

          if it were 2005 and you said “bush needs an econ lesson about ethanol” i’d be the first to agree with you. he did. but he’s not president anymore.

          obama is. obama is pushing even further and subsidizing technologies whose roi is even worse. ethanol persists. coal is getting creamed.

          he’s the president, he’s the one who a lesson would currently benefit.

          so why try and shift the debate away from him at every opportunity?

          if you want ethanol to change, obama and the current congress are the guys to speak to. why try to hide this simple fact and divert debate?

          obama voted for the bill in 2005 that mandated 15% renewable fuel in gas.

          8 states just asked him to waive the ethanol blending requirement. he said no.

          he’s pushing it too.

          if i start a bad policy and you take over and continue and even deepen it, at some point, it’s your policy.

          we seem to agree that ethanol mandates are stupid and ought to end.

          but you bristle and try to change the subject any time obama comes up. he voted for them, has continued them, and passed on a chance to waive the requirements through the epa. at what point are you going to admit that he is part of the problem?

        2. “The Bush program that subsidizes and mandates the use thereof, as in 800,000 barrels (yes, barrels) a day?”

          Yes. And your boyfriend wholeheartedly endorses. His flunkies over at EPA could waive the ethanol mandate any time His Highness gives the order. Yet he doesn’t.

          “The Big Stuff. Think about the Big Stuff.”

          Good idea. About 70% of the USDA budget you’re always pissing yourself over is dedicated to “food security” programs like food stamps (SNAP.) Most of the recipients also voted for your boyfriend. Obama vastly increased the size and scope of the food stamp program in his 2009 stimulus bill.

          “Big stuff,” Benji boy. You still wanna talk about ethanol?

      2. a dire opponent of coal over a bunch of bad science


        why all the obfuscation?

        Produce your “good” science!

        1. morganovich


          i’m not going to get into a long AGW debate with you. you have made it clear you do not have the science background to do so in the past.

          what i will do is this:

          here’s a chart leaked from the forthcoming ipcc ar5.

          it shows that global temperatures, which have not gone up meaningfully for 15 years, are now lower than the best case scenario from the IPCC models. that best case scenario was based on a flattening or even a drop in co2 levels.

          co2, meanwhile, has exceeded the worst case ppm scenarios.

          so, when you get a worst case input and less than a best case output, i’d call that model bad science. what would you call it?

          when the predicted tropospheric hotspot on which AGW is predicated fails to emerge, then the theory is bad.

          i do not need to provide a global climate model. i’m not the opne claiming we need to do anyhting. i do not think there is a good global climate model. the ones that exist have failed at every test.

          even east anglia admits the world has stopped warming and they they are puzzled.

          when you make models that fail to predict reality by massive margins, then your science is bad. it’s really that simple.

          to ask the world to shoulder massive costs based on them is absurd.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content