It is certainly no surprise that Bush is promoting flex fuel due to the fact that flex fuel is no closer to being available in the near future than hydrogen cell energy. He’s still looking out for big brother Exxon and all his other big energy brothers.

My partner has also written a two part article on flex fuel. Le’t hope this gets out to the public so that everyone can see the pathetic effort of Bush towards solving our energy dependence and global warming concerns.

Great article!!

Granted there are informed and right-thinking people in many places
who are making an impact, but not a great one at present.

Ethanol production exacts more energy costs in its “manufacture”
by farming (think of costs of cultivation, harvesting, transport, etc.,)
besides which it provides less energy in combustion, thus requires
*more* to send an automobile from point A to point B.

We haven’t begun to make inroads in the development of alternative
fuels…. enough to supply more than a fraction of our “consumption.”

One cannot help be suspicious of claims of automakers that they’re
really On Board in trying to find a replacement for the petroleum industry product. Hybrids are an interim (but only interim) step in the right
direction. More money toward innovation, toward research & development, would be nice.

(s) Honda Insight 2000 owner

I think that implicit in this story are some important lessons for environmentalism going forward.

Back at the beginning of the environmentalism, the movement became associated with the American left. This wasn’t a necessary connection — Nixon, after all, started the EPA, and one of that organization’s most effective leaders was a stalwart Republican leader — but it happened. And in the 1970s, a substantial portion of the left became quite hostile to business and capitalism. Thus, environmentalism came to seem as opposed to market forces — not necessary, in the philosophical sense, but it happened.

The DLC and Clinton remade the democratic image in part by becoming much more aligned with business and pro-market. The big tech boom of the 1990s seemed to cement this relationship. And there was a sense that any criticism of big business harkened back to the bad old days.

As a result, there’s a temptation to just say, businesses will take care of the environment. It’s in their interest and consumers demand it, ergo, it will be provided. The last six years, though, should have taught us that there is, in fact, a big difference between being pro-market and pro-business. As environmental groups try to figure out how to go forward, I think it’s important to keep the distinction between pro-business and pro-market in mind. The EDF and Nature Conservatory are both doing innovative programs by being pro-market — by using market incentives to change bad environmental practices. As you’ve made clear in previous posts, there’s much that could be done along those lines to promote climate-friendly technologies. But, relying on old guards in the business world, such as GM and Ford, may be dangerous, for the exact reasons that you’ve outlined. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. So, the trick is to create market incentives and help those companies that want to innovate, and be willing to leave behind those that don’t — which isn’t an easy choice, given that the left includes both organized labor and environmentalists — but seems like the way forward.