- The Washington Times - Thursday, September 1, 2011


I generally agree with Dr. Milton R. Wolf’s opinion pieces, and his column “Energy Obamanomics: No green jobs and plenty of red ink” (Commentary, Aug. 24) is no exception. However, one aspect of the controversy surrounding the promotion of biofuels seemed to be missing from the piece.

There is little doubt that biofuels are cost-ineffective and will not be produced without government support or mandates. There has been considerable discussion of the costs and consequences of that support. However, serious quantitative discussions of the benefit side of the equation seem to be few.

Biofuels certainly are not currently a winning economic proposition, and I am sure Dr. Wolf would agree that global warming is not the issue. The obvious and possibly only benefit of the biofuel programs is the reduction in the amount of oil we have to import and, consequently, the amount of money we send overseas to dictators and monarchs who want to wipe our country from the face of the earth.

We need to have some exposition of how much reduction in oil imports there has been as a result of biofuel production and how valuable this has been for the country. For example, how much is it worth to have more control over our country’s fuel supply and how much is it worth to have more of our fuel money go to our own citizens?



Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide