Petroleum vs. Biofuels

Natural fuels are a hot topic, but the drawback is that they aren't competitive, price-wise. They still need taxpayer support to match oil prices.

Why do we think that oil, gas and coal don't cost our nation in countless indirect ways?

A tremendous amount of time and human energy in the Beltway are focused on insuring that fossil fuels continue to be available to our citizens. Is that not a cost?

The Secretary of State and his/her Department spend an enormous amount of their resources trying to keep the flow of oil continuing to the US. That's not free.

Have we partnered with thugs to get oil? Have we rebuffed honest governments? Those choices tax us in many indirect ways.

And then there's the Biggie: the Army, the Navy, the Marines. Can anyone put a price tag on their deployment around the globe, so that they may protect our oil supplies?

Look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of how you feel about the wars, consider this: without our dependence on oil, would we be involved in that region?

For that matter, would there be a War on Terror, if not for our oil needs? Would radicals in so much of the Islamic world focus their destructive efforts towards America?

I'm not supporting terrorism. This is just an observation. Our ties to fossil fuels have hidden costs we need to start recognizing.

And I'm not blaming big oil, either. Without our oil companies, the USA never gets to where we are today.

This is about recognizing changing realities. We can only buy oil from a few countries. We can get biofuel feedstocks from every country in the world.

And if we can decrease our dependence on oil, our nation can devote more of expenditures, our attention, and our international efforts toward goals that will serve us in the future, as well as today.

So maybe, just maybe, plant and animal fuels are more affordable than fossil fuels, even before the recent rise in prices at the pump. -Josh Skandar