Submitted by Paul Alford, Feb 28, 2008 12:31

To whom it may concern,

Substantial expansion of our production and refining capacity while identifying inadequate infrastructure as a reason to ditch ethanol is not a fair assessment. Fanning the fear of food price increases while explaining home heating and transportation cost increases as market driven (due to world events in your previous opinion piece), is not a fair assessment. Identifying the carbon emissions imprint of "ethanol" without refering to it as "corn ethanol" is not a fair assessment. Using corn ethanol to help develop infrastructure in the near term for long term development of cellulosic ethanol is the concept in play.

Anyone who thinks that there is enough oil in Alaska, along with a substantial increase in production capacity in the U.S., to stabilize oil prices to previous levels, must be totally ignorant of ever increasing consumption in todays World market. Increased fuel consumption in China and India alone could easily outstrip any potential production increases and overall demand may eventually lead to world conflict.

Increased fossil fuel demand may be unstoppable but I do not appreciate the oil companies lobbying against alternative forms of fuel. They could buy the cellulosic ethanol companies for goodness sake! Oil companies control distribution, so ethanol will be mixed with their products and sold at their pumps. Wouldn't cellulosic ethanol be marked up the same as a barrel of Saudi crude. Or could they could buy all the ethanol companies with less than a years profits and be a part of the solution instead of a hindrance?

Alternative energy resources are a need and not a desire. Increased access to oil in Alaska and in the deep waters of our coast is needed, but in combination with of our many natural resources. Development of more fuel efficient means of production and use of electricity and transportaion fuels, coupled with existing, new and only imagined forms of energy can and will, one day meet our own needs internally. Purchasing billions in oil from Countries in very troubled regions is a recipe for disaster. I live for the day when the United States foreign aid is based upon humanitarian needs and not their available natural resources.

The oil companies certainly (and rightfuly) desire continued growth and prosperity, and I'm pretty sure prosperity, at least in the near term is beyond imagination. Growth should only come along with aquisition and/or development of alternative forms of energy. The ball is clearly in the oil companies court, and further efforts to maintain a monopoly should be met with strong legislative resolve. Grow with us, or watch a free market in action. I can't wait till the first E-85 pump is offered in my hometown!

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.