Our View - Wednesday

THE ETHICS OF A BAD FUEL
Does using E85 starve children?

The saving grace of E85 fuel, made from food, has been that most cars on the road can't use it. Only newer cars, specifically designed to use this unfortunate product, have been able to use it and only a small percentage of people who own those cars are interested in it.

Unfortunately, a new kit has come onto the market that can easily convert any gasoline vehicle to use E85 for less than $400. E85 proponents hope the kits will open a much larger market for the fuel. One company selling the kits is called Chang2E85.

Why should anyone change to E85? It's a bad idea. The fuel is so undesirable that only five gas stations in all of Colorado Springs sell it. But the best reason to avoid the conversion kit is that using E85 at this point in time is an unconscionable decision if one cares about the welfare of humankind.

On the surface, the fuel may seem attractive. The politicians and industry that promote this fuel have hoped consumers wouldn't have the industriousness to look beyond the price at the pump, which today is about $1 less than conventional $4-a-gallon gasoline.

But consumers aren't naive. The low energy density of E85 means that most vehicles go a much shorter distance on it than on gasoline - an incredibly high density, efficient fuel. Furthermore, the cost is lower only because of unethical federal subsidies to the ethanol industry and an anti-consumer tariff that keeps out abundant ethanol, produced efficiently with sugar, from Brazil. The entire E85 scam is about taking money from the little people and giving it to a startup industry designed to leech federal subsidies. It's a classic example of government social engineers picking winners and losers with little regard for anything other than political gain. And what of the environment? Even the most ardent proponents of E85 have been hard pressed to come up with convincing arguments that it has little, if any, positive implications for Mother Earth. Consider the fact that production of this inefficient fuel begins with tractors planting seeds that have been trucked around several times before they ever enter the ground. It continues with giant combines harvesting corn, which gets loaded into trucks. The trucks ship the corn long distances to highly inefficient refineries. From there, the product is shipped to distributors, who ship it again to gas stations. Domestic fossil fuel production involves considerably less shipping, no giant tractors, and much less disruption to the surface of the earth.

Worst of all, every tank of E85 that's sold represents a contribution to the worsening food shortage that's nudging lower-middle-class Americans into poverty and causing people in other countries to starve. Because of the E85 subsidy/tariff scam, the domestic agricultural industry that once provided abundant food has largely redirected its efforts to benefit from federal subsidies - funds that direct food away from mouths and into gas tanks.

America's energy crisis must be addressed in the short-term with immediate efforts to retrieve more oil from our own soil. The longterm solution involves development of better electric cars, combined with more solar, wind and nuclear generation of electricity to power our homes and charge our future cars. With improved battery technology, and efficient electricity generation, we'll pull over to charging stations in the future, plug in our cars, and enjoy a latte while they charge. In the meantime, we need old fashioned crude.

E85 doesn't work today, and it won't work tomorrow. It doesn't help the environment, it's a bad choice for consumers, and it's morally questionable at best in a world where millions are struggling to eat. Keep your old car, decline to convert it, and hold your head high.

MCCAIN'S $300 MILLION PLEDGE

Presidential candidate John McCain believes in the electric car, which he should. Even today's primitive electric vehicles have lots of get-up-and-go. And with the possibility of abundant new nuclear plants on the horizon, electricity will be efficient, clean and cheap.

Tomorrow's gas station, if all goes well, will be a recharging station for cars powered by small, efficient, easily charged batteries or some other mobile electrical storage device. Electric motors are powerfully efficient, so fully electric cars - vehicles that free us from liquid fuels - are highly attractive. It's not some ultra futuristic, pie-in-the-sky fantasy to believe that with a few big innovations electric cars would be more desirable than combustion-powered cars.

To speed up development of a better electric car, McCain has proposed a $300 million award for whoever can develop the battery to drive the perfect zero-emission vehicle. It should deliver power at 30 percent of today's cost and have "the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially-available plug-in hybrid cars."

It's a great idea, and a positive campaign promise. The public should be sure he's talking about a winner-take-all award for an end result, rather than piecemeal awards that would serve as nothing other than conventional subsidies, dribbling out tax dollars with little to show for them.

The only big problem with McCain's idea involves the source of the funds. He would pay the award with public funds by canceling porkbarrel projects.

How about just canceling pork projects, and not using public funds for the award? After all, some might view the award as entrepreneurial pork, especially if it goes to a Big Three auto maker.

McCain should stick to his pledge, but he should modify it by vowing to raise the funds privately. He should promise to raise the funds, and follow through, regardless of whether he's elected in the fall. Someone with John McCain's name recognition, and his connections, could surely raise $300 million for the sake of inspiring a better electric car that would free our country from foreign oil.

CONTEMPT OF PUBLIC CHOICE

Voters will likely be given the chance to restructure the city's enterprises this fall. They will decide one way or another after hearing the talking points of both sides.

Some city officials, who feel passionately about local government's role in the lives of citizens, hope voters keep things as they are. It's understandable how they might fear the ramifications of voters cutting millions of dollars in revenue the city collects by charging a fee to property owners based upon land that causes runoff. Another proposal would cost the city money by making voluntary all fees charged by all 11 city enterprises.

Reasonable arguments will be made in favor of and in opposition to the ballot questions. Some will be neither reasonable nor formidable, however.

Take, for example, the words of Vice Mayor Larry Small. As quoted in The Gazette Tuesday, Small said the ballot measures, initiated by citizen advocate Douglas Bruce, are "an example of the Democratic rights of the people being exercised by a demigod."

How can that be? The ballot measures empower the electorate (aka "the people") - instead of city bureaucracy - to make the decisions.

It's easy to understand how city officials could oppose proposed changes to revenue streams. It's hard to understand why any public servant would oppose letting the public decide.