The Obama agenda for the next two years materializes

By 44 Comments 2,469 views

image

Barack Obama seems finally on his way to developing some sort of strategy to deal with ISIS. Obama has been criticized by both sides of the aisle for informing ISIS that he had no strategy to deal with them. Most know by now that Obama once labelled ISIS the “JV”, then tried to argue he didn’t say it. The lie is so egregious that even Politifact hammered Obama for it.

Barack Obama is careening from one foreign policy blunder to another. After he was elected Obama believed that his Apologizing for America Tour would solve everything. It didn’t. Then he decided to take all US troops out of Iraq so he’d look like a champ. That has now failed. He was going to bomb Assad. That would have been a blunder of monumental proportions. Now he has to deal with ISIS. Obama released the current ISIS leader from US Custody in 2009.  Obama blamed “bad intel” for his being caught flat-footed on ISIS but both the Pentagon and Homeland Security said they knew about ISIS. It seems that the President of the United States was about the only one not to know about ISIS, but as always, it’s not his fault. Nothing is ever his fault.

Obama’s plan for ISIS is a departure from his past actions. The weirdest part is that he wants to include Congress. He wants Congress to have a “buy-in.” There is irony in Obama’s words:

 

Obama said he will meet with members of Congress on Tuesday to discuss the administration’s strategy, let lawmakers “have buy-in” and debate the plan. But asked by Todd if he was seeking congressional authorization of his strategy, Obama appeared to say no.

“I’m confident that I’ve got the authorization that I need to protect the American people,” he said.

 

Heck, why wouldn’t America have confidence in someone who is wrong just about 100% of the time, gets caught flat footed and rarely if ever utters a truth?

When Obama attacked Libya he thumbed his nose at Congress. There is a reason this time is different. According to Obama, defeating ISIS into a “manageable” state will take three years. There is a reason for that. It would mean the campaign would last into 2017.

After Obama is out of office.

At that time the next President will be forced to deal with the reality of Iraq. We need boots on the ground. There is no way to have good intel and act as a deterrent without having boots on the ground. There is more than ample precedent. To this day the US maintains a peaceful presence in Japan and Germany. There was no reason not to leave a residual force in Iraq, other than Obama promised he’d take them all out. Obama could easily have left a force there are declared them “advisors” as he has done now. The US now has 1000 troops in Iraq. Like it or not, we’re back in Iraq and in another war. Shhh!

Any time there is something that needs to be done which could cause pain to Obama or to democrats, it’s delayed. It gets swept under the rug.

Obamacare employer mandate? 2017.

Executive action on immigration? After the election.

What doesn’t he delay? Golf. Ten minutes after noting the beheading of a second American he’s teeing up.

The Obama agenda for the next two plus years will be to avoid risk and delay any and all possible discomforting actions until Obama is out of office. As it always has been, Barack Obama’s number one priority in the world is Barack Obama.

Iraq was won. Obama threw it away. Now it has to be taken back again. This was avoidable.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

44 Responses to “The Obama agenda for the next two years materializes”

  1. 3

    Greg

    Iraq was won. Obama threw it away. Now it has to be taken back again. This was avoidable.

    If Iraq had ever truly been won, it wouldn’t have gone to hell in a handbag so quickly after we pulled our military forces out—a withdrawal that was in accordance with the terms and timetable that were locked in by the same administration that was responsible for selling our nation on the necessity of the invasion in the first place, by the way.

    Let’s be clear on this: The Bush Administration was single-handedly responsible for one of the biggest geopolitical screw-ups in U.S. history. They left the Obama administration with a precarious situation in Iraq that had no more long term stability than a house of cards.

  2. 4

    This one

    No, it was not ‘won.’ The US left on the timetable Bush developed with Iraqis. Obama asked them to extend the deadline, they declined. But thanks to George for opening a hornet’s nest (based on lies with no exit plan), we may never close.

    “When Obama attacked Libya he thumbed his nose at Congress” Hmm…at the time he was criticized for leading from behind. He was part of a coalition well within his right and one Khadaffi was dead, the GOP now complains about ‘thumbing his nose at Congress.’

    Yes, part of the ACA will be implemented in 2017 and 2018? You’d rather implement them now and risk the fiscal stability of businesses? It’s pretty clear (to smart people, anyway) that Obamacare is here to stay and it’s working. More and more red state governors are coming around and expanding medicaid in their states.

    Yes, ‘Immigration after the 2014 elections.’ Imagine that, a politician playing politics. But this is after the GOP wanted to sue him over executive actions then turned around and went on vacation before voting on the Immigration Bill telling Obama to ‘do it himself.’ Lunatics.

    Geez, you didn’t bring up his birth certificate? Lol!

  3. 5

    Nanny G

    CNN polled Americans about ISIS.
    90% say ISIS poses threat to U.S.
    Seven in 10 Americans believe ISIS has the resources to launch an attack against the United States.
    Additional airstrikes against ISIS, 76% favor.
    Military aid to forces fighting ISIS, 62% favor.
    Providing humanitarian aid to people fleeing ISIS, 83% favor.

    Even more interesting is that Americans don’t want Obama going off on his own…..
    More than 7 in 10 Americans think Obama should ask Congress for the ability to strike ISIS militarily.
    And 8 in 10 Americans support Congress approving military force against ISIS.

    Why?
    Because, so far, Americans are not happy with how Obama has addressed the ISIS situation, 70%.

    Seems Americans used to be lulled by Obama’s lying words….
    In September 2010, only 3% of Americans named terrorism as the most important problem facing the country.
    But no more….
    It has now increased to right behind the economy as the most important problem facing the nation.

  4. 7

    Greg

    Obama has already struck ISIL militarily. There have been more than 100 airstrikes against ISIL military emplacements and positions. U.S. airstrikes began in August and have continued. It’s Congress that seems to be playing catch-up. It’s also Congress that has a 14.2 percent average approval rating, compared with Obama’s approval rating of 42.3 percent. The 70 percent who believe the President should seek Congressional approval aren’t necessarily thinking that way because of they disapprove of his actions. They may be fed up with Congress’s inaction.

  5. 8

    Fuzzy

    Obama is not a President by any stretch. He’s a 2 year old that is impeachable by any country that values consequences. His only redeeming quality is he’s easy to despise. Your day of perdition is inevitable, you loser.

  6. 9

    enchanted

    @Greg: @Greg:
    obama armed ISIS. He told them he would bring in military in Syria, however Congress said to wait a minute and it didn’t happen. They are now armed with weapons from the US, and have picked up abandoned equipment along the way. obama is instrumental is making them powerful. The ill winds are blowing and we know which side obama will pick, and it isn’t ours.

  7. 10

    retire05

    @Greg:

    They left the Obama administration with a precarious situation in Iraq that had no more long term stability than a house of cards.

    and yet…………..

    in a speech at Ft. Bragg, NC on December 14, 2011, Obama said the United States was “leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”

    So which was it? Was Iraq instable “as a house of cards” as you claim, or was it stable as Obama claimed on 12/14/2011 because you can’t have it both ways, Greggie.

    Obama could have renegotiated the SoFA, (because if he was unable to do that, he is more inept that anyone thought) but the truth, that you want to ignore, is that he didn’t want to. Obama wants to be known as the anti-war president but unfortunately, for him and the rest of America, is that our enemies didn’t get the memo.

    So either you stick to your mantra that Iraq was never stable, or you admit that Obama lied when he said it was.

  8. 13

    Greg

    @retire05, #10:

    So which was it? Was Iraq instable “as a house of cards” as you claim, or was it stable as Obama claimed on 12/14/2011 because you can’t have it both ways, Greggie.

    Iraq was as unstable as a house of cards, as events demonstrated over the next couple of years. But what would anyone have expected a President of the United States to say before a military audience at Ft. Bragg, after having complied with the Bush Administration’s Status of Forces Agreement deadline of December 31, 2011? Obama put a good face on things, and everyone hoped for the best.

    You have a habit of framing either/or questions in such a way that it limits responses to those you want to hear, don’t you? That’s called a false dilemma fallacy.

    Obama could have renegotiated the SoFA, (because if he was unable to do that, he is more inept that anyone thought) but the truth, that you want to ignore, is that he didn’t want to.

    What you’re doing there is slipping in an assertion that renegotiation of Bush’s Status of Forces Agreement would have been an easy matter. That, in fact, is a load of horseshit, which seems to be one of your favorite things to shovel. While the wording of the agreement did suggest that such a possibility existed—and that was likely done intentionally to allow for later spin—the fact of the matter is that anti-American sentiment and local politics in Iraq made any practical possibility of extending the deadline about as likely as hell freezing over. Sure, you can keep U.S. troops in Iraq—provided, of course, that they be answerable for any actions we find objectionable in our local Iraqi courts. That was a completely unacceptable condition, considering that we would be remaining for their benefit, not our own, and no one would have howled more loudly if Obama had accepted it than our own political right.

  9. 14

    Nanny G

    @Greg: Sure, you can keep U.S. troops in Iraq—provided, of course, that they be answerable for any actions we find objectionable in our local Iraqi courts. That was a completely unacceptable condition……

    And now Obama is putting our men back in Iraq with no SoFA whatsoever.
    So far over 1,000 soldiers.
    Maybe it would have been better for those soldiers if Obama had left the golf course and at least TRIED to renegotiate a SoFA.
    He’s so familiar with Muslims, right?
    So, he must have known they are really into the back-and-forth of bargaining.

  10. 15

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    Iraq was as unstable as a house of cards, as events demonstrated over the next couple of years. But what would anyone have expected a President of the United States to say before a military audience at Ft. Bragg…

    So folks we have it from Greg’s mouth. Greg is admitting that Obama lied at Fort Bragg. Except Obama didn’t just lie in a speech to military troops, no sirree, when the lights, cameras and teleprompters came on he spiked the ball for weeks one end, giving us his equivalent of an ass shaking “I’m #1” end-zone dance, crowing about how he was keeping his promise about bringing the troops home. Greg recognizes that Obama did this all while knowing Iraq was unstable, Yet “the W0n” took a victory lap and credit for an agreement Bush negotiated. What Greg is saying is that Obama knew that Iraq was on shaky foundations, but rather than renegotiating a proper SOFA to keep the troops stationed longer and insure Iraq’s stability, Obama decided he was fine with leaving that nation vulnerable to invasion and infiltr5ation, so long as the spotlight was on him and his medicine show.

    Q: Did Bush leave office with an insufficient SOFA in place?

    A: Yes, and quite a few of us of the conservative center were unimpressed with and disagreed with many of Bush’s policy decisions, including the portion of the Iraq SOFA of pulling most (not “all”) of our troops out of Iraq and not leaving behind sufficient security forces!

    Q: Could Obama have renegotiated the SOFA?

    A: As the option was in the Bush SOFA to do so, the answer is Yes.

    Q: Did Obama know the actual situation of Iraq?

    A: Greg admits Yes.

    Q: Did Obama even try to renegotiate?

    A: No! And yet Greg the weasel, declaring that Obama was educated on the Iraq, and knowing full well that once Obama was briefed on the precarious situation of Iraq’s stability that Obama could have taken action to negotiate a more sensible Iraq SOFA, Greg claims that Obama had to do a victory dance because, well, … he was scheduled to talk to the troops and he didn’t want to disappoint them.

    ‘Blame Bush and that darn military audience, it’s all their fault!’ That’s a weak, flimsy, and pathetically lame excuse you’ve built there Greg.

  11. 16

    retire05

    @Greg:

    Iraq was as unstable as a house of cards, as events demonstrated over the next couple of years. But what would anyone have expected a President of the United States to say before a military audience at Ft. Bragg, after having complied with the Bush Administration’s Status of Forces Agreement deadline of December 31, 2011? Obama put a good face on things, and everyone hoped for the best.

    What I expect a Commander in Chief to tell our troops is the truth. Can you, in your wildest imagination, envision FDR saying “Hey, yeah, we’re going to invade Normandy, but never fear, those French Welcome Wagon Ladies will be there to greet you.”?

    What you are saying in that paragraph is that the SoFA was signed, sealed and delivered and there was no way that Obama could have changed one word of it.

    What you’re doing there is slipping in an assertion that renegotiation of Bush’s Status of Forces Agreement would have been an easy matter.

    And here you contradict your own claim that the SoFA could not be renegotiated by saying it would not be easy. I never said it would be easy, I said Obama could have done it. And actually, Greggie, there were many talks by our people in Iraq and the Iraqi leaders to renegotiate the SoFA. But there were two problems; disinterest and uncertainty from the Oval Office, and Maliki’s ever gaining power. Both our representatives in Iraq, as well as Maliki, said they didn’t know how to sell what Obama wanted because they were not sure what Obama wanted.

    . Sure, you can keep U.S. troops in Iraq—provided, of course, that they be answerable for any actions we find objectionable in our local Iraqi courts. That was a completely unacceptable condition, considering that we would be remaining for their benefit, not our own, and no one would have howled more loudly if Obama had accepted it than our own political right.

    I never denied that was a sticking point. But Obama was supposed to be The Won that would cause the seas to recede and would heal the planet, remember? But he couldn’t even manage to convince the Iraqis that he was in charge? The man with the greatest power on earth could not convince the Iraqi government to do what was right to protect the very stability Obama was claiming existed in Iraq? You can parse the words all you want, but that alone shows a failure of leadership on Obama’s part.

    “At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.

    Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.

    Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/united-states-and-iraq-had-not-expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0

    Leaving a residual force, of any size, was not what Obama really wanted. He wanted out of Iraq, completely, although there were already warning signs that Iraq would not be able to stand alone. It was one campaign promise that he intended to keep.

    There is no doubt that Iraq was more stable when Obama pulled ALL the troops out than it is today. And the failure to understand that a fledgling, precariously stable Iraq was subject to fall was clear to everyone but Obama. And no matter how you want to spin it, Iraq has gotten worse under the Obama administration and Bush had not one thing to do with that.

    How ironic that you radical left wingers are quick to blame Bush for an event that happened less than 8 months into his administration, but the events in Iraq that are now happening almost six years into the Obama administration are, by your measure, still Bush’s fault.

  12. 17

    Greg

    @Ditto, #15:

    Q: Could Obama have renegotiated the SOFA?

    A: As the option was in the Bush SOFA to do so, the answer is Yes.

    An option is real only if it can actually be exercised. Where no realistic possibility of doing so exists or is likely to appear, the fact that it hasn’t been specifically ruled out is meaningless.

    Public sentiment in Iraq was already running high against the continuing presence of U.S. forces before the S.O.F.A. was finalized. Anger at the U.S. and against the al-Maliki government increased even after the timetable for withdrawal had been set. (By the Bush administration.) That being the case, there was no way al-Maliki was going to renegotiate in good faith. Extending the deadline would have led to the collapse of his government. So, he went through the motions to hang onto U.S. support and assistance, but included a condition for extending the deadline that it would be impossible for any U.S. Commander in Chief to accept: putting U.S. military personnel under the legal jurisdiction of Iraqi civilian courts for any violation of Iraqi civil law.

    You should be familiar with the concept of the “poison pill” provision. Republicans in Congress have frequently used it themselves, when they’ve wanted to be able to proclaim they tried to do this or that obviously Good Thing, but, alas, Democratic members wouldn’t vote in favor of it.

    I have every expectation that the right will continue to assert that Bush won the war in Iraq, but Obama lost it by withdrawing our troops. The claim is a load of malarkey, but it’s been repeated so many times that they’ve likely come to believe it. That’s how indoctrination and propaganda work.

  13. 18

    retire05

    @Greg:

    So, he [Obama] went through the motions to hang onto U.S. support and assistance, but included a condition for extending the deadline that it would be impossible for any U.S. Commander in Chief to accept: putting U.S. military personnel under the legal jurisdiction of Iraqi civilian courts for any violation of Iraqi civil law.

    As we currently have about 2,200 boots on the ground in Iraq (two boots per soldier) what has changed, Greggie? Do we now have the agreement that U.S. soldiers will not be under the legal jurisdiction of the Iraqi civilian courts? Because if we don’t then Obama is sending our military to Iraq without the demands he made before he withdrew all the troops.

    I have every expectation that the right will continue to assert that Bush won the war in Iraq, but Obama lost it by withdrawing our troops.

    Let me see if I understand you; you’re now saying that the war in Iraq was lost by Bush, yet Obama withdrew all the troops which facilitated the crisis we are now seeing? Is that where you really want to go with that b/s?

    That’s how indoctrination and propaganda work.

    Oh, now that’s really funny. Of all the posters here at FA, you are the most indoctrinated into the progressive propaganda of all (except for maybe RJW).

  14. 19

    Greg

    Let me see if I understand you; you’re now saying that the war in Iraq was lost by Bush, yet Obama withdrew all the troops which facilitated the crisis we are now seeing? Is that where you really want to go with that b/s?

    You likely understood the meaning of what I was saying perfectly well. The problem is that you don’t like it. Whether you like it or not has very little to do with its truth.

  15. 20

    retire05

    @Greg:

    If Bush lost the war, as you want to claim, then that makes it even more criminal on the part of Obama to refer to Iraq as a stable country. War torn counties are not stable.

  16. 21

    This one

    Funny how winguts forget about ‘Mission Accomplished.’ ‘The oil will pay for the war…’ ‘We will be greeted as liberators…’ ‘It a pretty well known fact…’ The Daily Presidential Briefing…” ‘No one could have ever guessed…’ ‘Mushroom cloud…’

  17. 22

    retire05

    @This one:

    Funny how winguts forget about ‘Mission Accomplished.’

    Placed on that ship by the sailors whose mission was accomplished.

    ‘The oil will pay for the war…’

    Link, please?


    We will be greeted as liberators…’

    Were you there when our troops rolled into Baghdad? Those that were there said that the Iraqis were happy to see them.

    ‘It a pretty well known fact…’

    So said the Democrats until they decided that electing John Kerry was more important than the truth.

    The Daily Presidential Briefing…”

    Are you talking about the one Bubba Clinton got that warned terrorists were planning using airliners for acts of terrorism to try to free the Blind Sheikh?

    ‘No one could have ever guessed…’

    I guess you think Democrats are capable of predicting the future?

    ‘Mushroom cloud…’

    The only mushrooms you should worry about are the ones you are eating to get high.

  18. 24

    retire05

    @Greg:

    Over the course of the Iraq war and occupation Halliburton was awarded war-related contracts totaling $39.5 billion dollars. That’s a rather large total.

    Golly, Greggie bashing a company that actually provided a service instead of bashing a company that got over $500 million in tax payer money (Solyndra) and provided nothing.. Whoda thunk it?

  19. 25

    Greg

    @retire05, #24:

    It’s interesting that you would consider a such a simple statement of fact to be “bashing.”

    By the way, for the sake of putting numbers into their proper relationship, a billion is one-thousand times a million. You seem to be suggesting numerical equivalence when one of the items being compared is nearly 80 times larger than the other.

    Surely you aren’t attempting to make a moral comparison between the two endeavors, as that would entail comparing body counts.

  20. 26

    retire05

    @Greg:

    It’s interesting that you would consider a such a simple statement of fact to be “bashing.”

    Because, due to the very link you provided, and the fact that I understand your propaganda damaged liberal brain, it is:

    Haliburton = Cheney = War Criminal

    Perhaps you would like to tell me how much money the taxpayers lost, and got nothing in return for our money, to Obama’s green companies? Ummm, let me see, $39.5 billion over a decade where we actually received a product from them compared to the money p!ssed away by the Obama administration on “green” companies.
    I’m sure you supported giving all that money to all those companies that went belly up.

  21. 28

    Greg

    @retire05, #26:

    The nation’s photovoltaic generating capacity has grown to nearly 16 gigawatts and is rapidly expanding. Wind power generation is now over to 61 gigawats. Between the two, that’s enough to power around 18 million homes. The nation is producing around 75 million gallons of biodiesel fuel per month. Would you care to know how much ethanol is being produced in the US per year? Here’s a chart. Multiply the number of of gallons you see listed by one million.

    The only thing that’s a failure is the right’s bullshit rhetoric about alternative energy investments being a waste. Alternative energy is an important and rapidly expanding part of the nation’s total energy security picture.

  22. 29

    Redteam

    @This one: 4

    that Obamacare is here to stay and it’s working.

    It’s unbelievable that Dimocrats openly admit that Obamacare was designed to be a disaster. by “it’s working”, since it’s working and it’s a complete disaster, then that must have been how it was designed ‘to work’. Credit where credit is due…….

  23. 30

    Redteam

    @Greg: 28

    The only thing that’s a failure

    None of these sources can sustain themselves. With no subsidies, there would be no ‘solar’ power, no windpower and no ethanol. Ethanol may be the most expensive fuel ever used in internal combustion engines, costing much more in engine repair than the value of the fuel will ever be. No engines are actually built to withstand the internal temperatures of 15% ethanol and very few can withstand even 10% ethanol. Any time the fuel sits in a combustion chamber, it separates into CO2 and H2O and is no longer a fuel but a carbonic acid. None of that is good for engines.

  24. 32

    obamarhhea

    @This one: al queda is on the run ,the war on terror is over,if you like your plan you can keep your plan,if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor…….I am a Teamster that had great health care ,i just lost it,i still have healthcare but i lost my doctor ,my pharmacy which is a block away from my house that has taken care of us for 28 years,and knows my family and my kids since they were born and will start having to pay for my healthcare in a couple of years into the new contact…… so i call bullshit on you and greggie boy…..i cannot kep either and my costs will go up…so much for the 2500 savings asshole

  25. 33

    Greg

    @Redteam, #30:

    Ethanol may be the most expensive fuel ever used in internal combustion engines, costing much more in engine repair than the value of the fuel will ever be.

    Most gasoline sold in the United States contains ethanol. That’s been so for a while now. Ethanol makes up about 10 percent of the total volume of gasoline consumed in the nation. I haven’t had any problems with my engine. I’ve been driving the same truck for nearly 14 years.

    Ethanol production for fuel makes good sense. Technology has greatly improved. It now requires less fossil fuel energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy return you get when the ethanol is burned as fuel. There’s a net gain. The energy gain results from the renewable energy contributed by the sun when the crop used to produce the ethanol is grown.

    @obamarhhea, #31:

    Maybe you should stick with one user name.

    What are all of the direct and indirect costs of the utilization of fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal, both now and over the long term?

  26. 35

    obamarhhea

    @Greg: what are the costs of all the birds and bald eagles fried by solar panels and sheared by wind turbines ?greggie don’t you love nature greggie ,why do you hate birds greggie are you a bird a phobe greggie ,are you a bald eagle hater greggie ?how about condors? finches ?did a bird crap on you once?is that why you hate our feathered friends?

  27. 36

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    I haven’t had any problems with my engine.

    you happen to have a one cylinder lawn mower? If so, you’ve had problems with it if you’re using ethanol. The fact that you’ve not had problems with your truck is luck, you’re lucky that your gasoline seller is one of those that have a lower ethanol content. get up to 10%, you’ll have a problem. You do know that 10% is “up to 10%” to prevent problems, most fuel is made with less than 5% (which is allowed) the higher the %, the higher the ozone emissions. California has started lowering ethanol just to keep ozone down.

    The energy gain results from the renewable energy contributed by the sun when the crop used to produce the ethanol is grown.

    You do know that you can’t get out more solar energy than is put in by the sun, right? Where is the savings to the atmosphere if you have to burn coal or natural gas to make the energy that is consumed making the ethanol. By the time you pay the higher cost of ethanol, increase ozone levels, increase the pollution from burning coal, just where is all the benefit?

    What are all of the direct and indirect costs of the utilization of fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal, both now and over the long term?

    The energy derived from the ethanol can not exceed the energy put in by electrical energy generation via using oil, coal or natural gas. That’s called ‘physics’. The amount of pollution is the same. Burning coal, oil or natural gas does not kill birds.

  28. 38

    Greg

    @Redteam, #36:

    You shouldn’t put pump gasoline into small engines without a gasoline additive. The problem is that ethanol attracts moisture directly from the atmosphere. It’s the water content that can be damaging. Recent vehicle engines have been redesigned to allow for an increased ethanol content. Small engine manufacturers have not done this. Leaving your mower or chain saw tank half-full between uses, or storing gasoline for weeks at a time in a home container allows plenty of time for attracted atmospheric moisture to accumulate. That’s what numerous online discussions of the topic say. It makes sense to me. Alcohol does attract atmospheric moisture, and water-contaminated fuel is especially bad for small engines.

    You do know that you can’t get out more solar energy than is put in by the sun, right?

    Fossil fuel energy came from the sun. It was originally captured by plant photosynthesis millions upon millions of years ago, transformed to coal or petroleum or gas by geological processes, and has been locked in the earth ever since. It’s a finite resource. It will eventually run out, because we’re consuming in a relatively short time what it took nature eons to produce.

    Ethanol energy also comes from the sun, but that energy was captured by photosynthesis very recently. The millions of years required to produce a fossil fuel are skipped. Using it reduces the net release of sequestered fossil carbon, because growing the plants used to produce it take carbon back out of the atmosphere. A large part of the carbon involved is cycled from fuel to the atmosphere and back again. Fossil fuels are still being expended in the production of the ethanol fuel, but the overall use of fossil fuels is reduced because you’re picking up all of that recently-captured solar energy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *