The time has come for government to intervene on the worst economic failure in mankind's history…. because the free market has screwed the whole shebang up. We need a paradigm shift. So I support any candidate that recognises that things need to be done a little differently!

I'm not sure I would cite T Boone Pickens as a source for specific numbers, but he may be right. In any case, 50% of GM's US fleet will be Flex-Fuel by 2012, meaning able to run on an 85% ethanol/15% gasoline blend (http://gas2.org/2008/01/16/gms-grand-plan-for-solving-americas-oil-dependence/).

Ethanol from corn is not the answer, that's why there's such an enormous focus on moving to non-food cellulosic sources of the fuel.

Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines."

Ha, according to T Boone Pickens, GM currently makes 19 alternative fuel vehicles that they sell overseas. Why haven't they offered American comsumers that option? Why should they when they can get more of our tax dollars if they just wait?

As far as ethanol is concerned, do you know how much water it takes to produce it? Water is our most precious commodity. Ethanol is not the answer.

Examples? I just listed 9 specific things he say's he's going to do to reduce our dependence on petroleum.

Worse? Define worse please…

@Echelon,

I have a few things to say to that:

First, I've come to terms with gloom and doom scenarios, having been bombarded by them in the past. If we're really screwed and it doesn't matter than we either have to a) give up or b) try to fix it.

I'd rather choose b), but I'm not going to judge anyone that chooses a).

Second, I'm well-versed in peak oil theory and I've already visited both those sites many times. That's the whole point here: as oil creeps (or surges, who knows?) towards economic depletion (translation = get's more expensive), our whole system is going to falter.

Third, if all we've got to go on are platitudes, than I'm going to choose the platitudes that

are the most reasonable and come from the candidate that seems the most trustworthy, because apparently I have nothing else to go on?

Fourth, you do have something else to go on. I didn't want to list it all here, but this is a

sample of news in the last 6 months that shows how much potential we have to move away from petroleum:

http://gas2.org/2008/03/14/switchgrass-could-disp… http://gas2.org/2008/03/25/how-solar-panels-could… http://gas2.org/2008/03/29/first-algae-biodiesel-… http://gas2.org/2008/07/28/aptera-electric-car-cl…

All of these plans are just platitudes. They've already been debunked as unrealistic at many sites around the web. Seriously, don't buy the hype. We are screwed with regard to energy. Google peak oil sometime or visit The Energy Bulletin/The Oil Drum. You might learn something instead of listening to a parrot.

Ech

I don't know either candidates position but I see no mention a carbon tax or carbon trading system. That seems to be working in Europe and has worked with other forms of pollution in this country. Furthermore, why does the government need to subsidize some centralized solution. Wouldn't it be better to use significant tax cuts to individuals who choose a green alternative? If you cut the price, people will opt for something that lowers their bills.