House Republicans Order Navy to Stop Buying Biofuel - Polidicks

Crops that are for food aren't used in biofuel but land that could be used to make food is, Fossil fuel is bad, biofuel in its current form is bad.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;35958163]That's like complaining that a new building could have been used as a homeless shelter. The food would not have been grown except for this purpose.[/QUOTE] I hate the whole "You could have fed Africa with that land!" argument. Oh I'm sorry. Let me just repurpose my land to grow grain or rice or something, then ship it all for free to Africa. [B]That's not how it works. You can't just get mad at people for NOT doing the most tremendously philanthropic thing.[/B]

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;35959848]And we should be getting out of that by cutting back our imperialistic world-spanning wars, not by burning dirtier fuels just because they're a bit cheaper. FP is against this because it's so blatantly political and really has nothing to do with saving money. Republicans are the servants of the oil companies and don't want anything competing with them, and in their world alternative energy = Democrats = BAD. It's the same logic that had the House Republicans voting to bring styrofoam containers back to the congressional cafeteria after the Democrats had voted to use biodegradable containers.[/QUOTE] Yeees classify all the republicans as corrupt whores and "servants of the oil companies" then attack them for classifying all democrats as bad. You have some great logic there.

[QUOTE=scout1;35958991]You guys are kidding, right? Do you have any idea how much the US spends on its defense budget? It needs to be reduced. Not to mention we are FOURTEEN TRILLION in the hole and kind of need to get out of that Isn't FP usually wildly anti-defense spending/anti-debt Where the hell did you guys come from[/QUOTE] omg guiez but it said REPUBLICANS in the title

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;35959963]I hate the whole "You could have fed Africa with that land!" argument. Oh I'm sorry. Let me just repurpose my land to grow grain or rice or something, then ship it all for free to Africa. [B]That's not how it works. You can't just get mad at people for NOT doing the most tremendously philanthropic thing.[/B][/QUOTE] More food = cheaper food, Nobody said it should be sent to Africa. To be honest, there's no reason to spend money on more expensive fuel that's no cleaner. Just build nuclear ships and call it a day.

[QUOTE=danharibo;35957707]Don't Biofuels use up a lot of crop that could be used for food?[/QUOTE] there isn't any food shortage so its not like we are using up a vital limited resource. Well, there is a food "shortage" in certain countries but its purely economic and has nothing to do with food production at all.

[QUOTE=Ridge;35958862]You guys DO realize that using the biofuel costs more, and means the military has to spend more, right?[/QUOTE] "But the it's the Republicans and as far as we know it's called Biofuel and the word 'bio' sounds Eco friendly and cheap!"

[QUOTE=SilentOpp;35958042]Yeah but in the middle of DOD budget cuts, depending on the price of biofuel vs petroleum, I could see why this decision was made. They have to save every dollar they can so that it can be allocated to areas that need it. It's a sensible decision, it wasn't made because of 'hippy fuel'. It allows biofuels when they are cheaper. People for the biofuels said it themselves, when the price of oil goes up a dollar it costs the Navy 31 million. To get this much backlash, I'd imagine that the price of biofuel is much more significant. There are still other ways for the BioFuel industry to grow without the Navy as a buyer. Once they reach the point where they can efficiently make enough so the price is equal, or less, the Navy will then become a very large client.[/QUOTE] Yeah, we really can't afford to scrap our invisible space tank program, it's vital to this nations safety!

[QUOTE=Ryder1337;35960545]Yeah, we really can't afford to scrap our invisible space tank program, it's vital to this nations safety![/QUOTE] Very ignorant. They cut personnel first and foremost. They can't exactly cut projects, as it is civilian companies that are funding the projects, bidding for a contract to build things for the military. So we just cut personnel.

[QUOTE=Glitch360;35957649]"i love green energy but i love money more"[/QUOTE] Well money is green after all.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;35960686]Very ignorant. They cut personnel first and foremost. They can't exactly cut projects, as it is civilian companies that are funding the projects, bidding for a contract to build things for the military. So we just cut personnel.[/QUOTE] So you're telling me the government doesn't actually pay for the crazy expensive shit our military does?

[QUOTE=Ryder1337;35961215]So you're telling me the government doesn't actually pay for the crazy expensive shit our military does?[/QUOTE] I never said anything of the sort. I said that the government puts up a contract and civilian corporations bid for it by submitting their piece of equipment as well as a cost, and it goes on from there. The military doesn't really develop a lot of their own stuff. If anything, it deals mainly with everyday soldier items, not big projects like the JLTVs and new jets. Now, what comes out of those contracts that the government actually buys is indeed expensive. Also, it is not just as narrow as you put it with the contracts being impractical fantasy vehicles, but more like upgrades to our aging fleet of helicopters, new, more efficient personnel and cargo transport (JLTVs), down to better MREs and whatnot. It is not developing such things as "invisible space tanks". [editline]14th May 2012[/editline] I am also telling you that instead of cutting the contracts, the military just cuts personnel and equipment. [editline]14th May 2012[/editline] Hope that clears everything up.

[quote] “I understand that alternative fuels may help our guys in the field, but wouldn’t you agree that the thing they’d be more concerned about is having more ships, more planes, more prepositioned stocks,” Rep. Randy Forbes said during a February hearing with Mabus. “Shouldn’t we refocus our priorities and make those things our priorities instead of advancing a biofuels market?” Then he told Mabus: “You’re not the secretary of the energy. You’re the secretary of the Navy.”[/quote] Ignoring the renewable nature of biofuel, there are military reasons here. A significant amount of oil is shipped in from a region of the world which is extremely unstable and is largely controlled by a consortium interested in making the maximum profit from the resource at all times, regardless of the cost in human lives or to the environment. Ensuring that the military an remain active and is unaffected by foreign oil restrictions is simply good long term strategy.

[QUOTE=GunFox;35961395]Ignoring the renewable nature of biofuel, there are military reasons here. A significant amount of oil is shipped in from a region of the world which is extremely unstable and is largely controlled by a consortium interested in making the maximum profit from the resource at all times, regardless of the cost in human lives or to the environment. Ensuring that the military an remain active and is unaffected by foreign oil restrictions is simply good long term strategy.[/QUOTE] A significant amount, yes, but not a significant amount to the US.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35961462]A significant amount, yes, but not a significant amount to the US.[/QUOTE] Significant economically, even if the percentage itself seems small. No point in winning a war if you fail economically.

I can understand why they want to do fossil fuel over biofuel in this particular case. I just feel like even if they didn't have a legitimate reason to choose oil over biofuels, they would choose oil anyway.