SciamBlog is skeptical on Biofuels. Of course, you get the agribiz lobby plus heartland populism behind it and all of a sudden it's a "solution" for energy independence. It's not unlike how you get developing ANWR as a "solution" when there is nowhere near enough oil there to offset our foreign dependency, just because of the oil lobby and Alaska jobs populism.
We need to get serious. A real national energy plan will focus on conservation. I don't care if you do it by CAFE or by carbon taxes, we need to start to limit free atmospheric disposal of CO2. The "flexfuel" stuff coming out of Detroit right now is bullshit. We need radically better fuel economy from cars, and we need public policy that gets us there: whether by making gas reflect its "true cost" or by mandatory economy standards (btw, I just sent a letter to Pelosi on her stupid pandering promise of "lower gas prices" in the "Six for 06" plan she's hawking--cheaper crack for addicts?).
Next, we need a combination of new domestic energy sources emphasizing scalable renewables like wind and solar, but including cleaner coal (with carbon sequestration enforced under new source review standards--do your job EPA) and nuclear. We need to be environmentalists, but we also need to be pragmatic and prioritize. That means cutting the anti-nuke dogma for greens. It means we need to get America on board with a comprehensive plan that both addresses both energy independence and global warming; that may mean sacrificing conservation interests for development of domestic coal while demanding that carbon sequestration be included under new source review standards and sound mining practices.
We need to face some facts here. (1) Our greenhouse emissions are much, much more costly than we can immediately perceive. (2) Dependence on foreign energy sources is a national security issue. (3) No matter what, we are entering an era of higher energy costs. With sound public policy we can put modernity on sustainable footing and restore energy abundance after only a brief high-cost transition. With poor planning we'll get stuck over a barrel with no alternatives to maintain the basis of the American economy. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that public policy is being guided by sound science: not with the Dems (judging from the ethanol and gas price pandering) and especially not with the anti-science Reps continuing to believe that owning a Hummer is an inalienable right and that climatology is a socialist plot.