The other day while listening to CNBC with Senator Richard Shelby, It occured to me that we have all been brainwashed, and have been gently lulled into believing the crap that has been fed to us by the mainstream media.

At risk of sounding like a conspiricy theorists it seems that the governement controls the media and the Oil companies and auto makers control the government.

When I hear people like Senator Shelby say that the way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil is to open up anwr. (best estimates show that it would not produce oil for 10 years)

I am surprised that the interviewers do not question him futher about his statements and the policies that he supports. His record shows a lack of support for the environment and a bias towards supporting Bills that are Pro "Big Oil".

While most people would agree that renewable fuels, and fuel sources that have less enviromental impact are a good idea these oil proponents are calling for opening up the artic reserve, drilling off the continental shelf, and refining oil shale in Colorado.

They claim that there will be minimal impact to the environment (Need I show another oil covered seal, Duck, Penguin, etc - ok I will to drive the point home)  They state that oil companies are better able to minimize their impact (Since when? - they do not have a good record)

All of these location and methods have a window of time and have not been proven yet. So why support carbon based fuels over cleaner less invasive renewable fuels unless you have a vested interest in the latter. Our government is pushing these methods over plant based ethanol.

I am not naive and I understand that oil is a main element of our economy but I also do not think that oil will be replaced overnight by renewable fuels. I hear Politicians and our president asking for a winfall tax. Well why not use this money to have pumps changed over to ethanol and not produce ethanol with our food souces. This drives up other costs and require government subsidies.
Ethanol from switchgrass is a viable solution and is being used in Brazil.
Why not the US?  Should we the american people beleive that we do not have the technological ability to make this a viable fuel source.

It is time that our goverment works for the american people and not big business, Lobyist, and special interest groups.

• The ethanol industry currently receives a 51-cent per gallon subsidy to help increase production and consumption of ethanol.
• This subsidy is applied to both domestic and foreign ethanol.
• In order to prevent foreign ethanol producers from benefiting from the subsidy, an import tariff of 54-cents per gallon was established to essentially offset the subsidy.
  

Car Companies

The other item is the car companies why are fuel standards set so low, why are all cars not flex fuel (it is just a few sensors)

consumers have the ability to affect this and they are showing the American car companies what they want. Honda sold more cars than ever while the American Car companies and Toyota both lagged due to their large vehicle line and availablity issues with their more fuel efficient models.  Consumer need to demand Utilitarian vehicles that are fuel efficient.

I know if I could have replaced my Xterra with one that was able to get 30 MPG I would have been 1st in line instead I purchased a smaller Honda Vehicle that was a good comprimise between better fuel economy and utility.

Additional Links:

http://www.foei.org/en/campaigns/climate/energy/galicia.html

http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/206/tomich2.pdf

http://kenvironews.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/russian-storm-tragedy-and-oil-spill/

http://www.rainforestweb.org/pages/ocp.php

http://www.earthrights.org/campaignrelated/first_as_tragedy_second_as_farce_thailand_again_potentially_complicit_in_human_rights_abuses.html

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/1997/October97/437enr.html