Minor Thoughts from me to you

Methanol Wins?

Methanol Wins? →

Dr. Robert Zubrin bangs a drum he's beaten before.

The Open Fuel Standard bill (H.R. 1687) would remedy this situation by requiring automakers to activate the flex-fuel capabilities of their vehicles. This would open the market to fuels producible from plentiful domestic resources not under cartel control, free us from looting by OPEC, create millions of jobs, slash our deficit, reduce the flow of income to the Islamists, and cushion us from counter-effects should forceful action be required to deal with threats such as the Iranian nuclear-bomb program. Introduced by Reps. John Shimkus (R., Ill.) and Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.), its current bipartisan list of sponsors includes liberals such as Jim McDermott (D., Wash.), Allyson Schwartz (D., Pa.), Steve Israel (D., N.Y.), and Howard Berman (D., Calif.) to conservatives Dan Burton (R., Ind.), Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md.), Tom Cole (R., Okla.), and Allen West (R., Fla.), as well as many in between. It is a bill clearly in the national interest, and should be supported by everyone from left to right.

By eliminating the artificial incompatibility between the vehicles we drive and the fuels we can make ourselves, the Open Fuel Standard bill will unchain the Invisible Hand, creating a true free market in vehicle fuels. Those reluctant to embrace it need to answer the following questions: In whose interest is it that Americans should continue to be denied fuel choice? In whose interest is it that America’s vast natural-gas, coal, and biomass resources remain unusable as a source of liquid vehicle fuel? In whose interest is it that America continue to give hundreds of billions of dollars each year to foreign potentates bent upon our destruction, instead of paying our own people to make fuel out of our own resources? In whose interest is it that a foreign cartel retains unlimited power to raise the cost of our fuel? In whose interest is it that we remain in the power of our enemies? Finally, should their interests be allowed to prevail, or should ours?

Bah. I dislike any proposal that starts with "someone is missing an opportunity to do some good" and ends with "let's force them to do it!". I don't care how good the idea is and I don't care whether it's proposed by a conservative or a liberal. I just care that your primary interest is in forcing it down everyone's throats and not in convincing everyone that it's in their own self interest.

If consumers were really shopping for methanol cars, manufacturers would be producing them. If methanol producers wanted consumers to drive methanol cars, they'd start an advocacy campaign and advertise about the benefits of methanol. That's how things should work. Bottom up change. Not top down coercion. And I don't care if Congressman Allen West does think this is a good idea. On this, he's wrong.

This entry was tagged. Government