Open Fuel Standard

Elephant? What Elephant?

2012-06-01T12:26:00.000-07:00

In The Week Magazine, they often excerpt the opinions of the most well-known pundits around the country on a single issue. A few weeks ago, the issue was gas prices. There were quotes from famous pundits from NationalReview.com, NationalJournal.com, The New York Times, The Post, Mother Jones, and The Washington Post.

Lots of talk about the cause of high gas prices. But not one word about OPEC!

Have you ever been to a family gathering where people talk about everything except the trumpeting elephant in the middle of the room?

OPEC is a large enough cartel that its output determines the world price of oil. If they agree among each other to lower their collective production, oil becomes scarce on the world market and prices rise. When discussing the rising price of oil, it would be understandable if every once in awhile someone didn't mention OPEC. But for all of them to talk about everything but OPEC seems surreal.

I'm sure there are many reasons why such an obvious cause is not being addressed, but one of these days we're going to have to come out and say it. I've been wondering why all these well-informed and well-respected pundits did not mention OPEC or the Open Fuel Standard. Here are some possibilities:

1. Oil companies advertise in newspapers and magazines. I know of at least one direct intervention by an oil company to block public knowledge of an alternative fuel (read about it here). So I suppose it's possible this is happening routinely, and any stories that might mention the bare facts of the issue might not make it into print.

2. Oil companies have also spent a lot of money publicizing information about alternative fuels that makes it appear unattractive or unworthy of considering, and perhaps they've done such a good job trying to complicate and confuse the issue that these pundits really and truly have no idea OPEC is the wizard behind the curtain.

I'm sure there are more possibilities. What do you think?

More Things You Can Do

2012-05-25T13:24:00.000-07:00

If you've already called your representative, and you've subscribed to these updates and "liked" us on Facebook, and you've informed yourself and are sharing information with your friends and family about the Open Fuel Standard, and you want to do more, here are some ideas:

1. Use a E85 fuel-station finder (like this one or this one) and visit your local fuel stations that sell alternative fuels and ask them to hand out fliers to their customers — fliers that inform the customers about the Open Fuel Standard. Those customers are already fans of alcohol fuels, and would probably appreciate a greater proliferation of alcohol fuel pumps. And the owners of the station would appreciate a greater number of cars coming off the assembly line capable of burning their fuel.

2. Contact the employees and employers of methanol and ethanol facilities and let them know about the Open Fuel Standard Act. Bring them fliers. They are natural allies.

3. Create a PDF document that people can use. Make a one-page flier to copy and hand out. Make sure it tells people about how they can help, and tell them to subscribe to updates at openfuelstandard.org. Send the PDF to us and we can make it available to others. About half way down this page are some PDFs you can use right now.

4. Make YouTube videos about the Open Fuel Standard Act, telling people why it's important and what they can do to help it pass.

5. Use your six degrees of separation to contact Vinod Khosla and Warren Buffett, and ask them to support the Open Fuel Standard Act. Vinod Khosla has been an outspoken promoter of alcohol fuels, and Warren Buffet owns 39 million shares of Walmart and Walmart has considered putting E85 fuel pumps at their locations, so it would not only be good for America and the economy, it would be good for Walmart if more cars were flex fuel capable. Find these men, or find people who know these men, and make them aware of the new legislation. Urge them to help make it happen.

6. Contact the service clubs in your area — Rotary, Kiwanas, etc., and ask to show a film. They usually have presenters at their regular meetings speak for about 20 minutes, and they're always looking for speakers. Show them one or more of these videos, and open it up to a Q and A session afterwards.

7. If you are a member of any group, read Turning Oil Into Salt, and report your summary to the group.

8. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Get people talking about it.

9. Use Google News Alerts for "Open Fuel Standard" and "ethanol" and "flex fuel" and "gas prices" and make comments on blogs and articles about it. Help educate people about the subject.

10. Add your Members of Congress to your email address book and the speed dial of your phone. Get their contact information here. Make sure they understand what the Open Fuel Standard will do for your state or your region, and what it will do for the United States.

Big Oil's Anti-E15 Campaign Filled with Gross Exaggerations and Misinformation

2012-05-19T11:57:00.000-07:00

The people who rammed lead down our throats for nearly a century, and denied it was harmful, have a new story to peddle

By Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL

AUTO CENTRAL - May 16, 2012: A bit more than 18-months ago, the EPA issued a study finding and held a teleconference to announce that after evaluation they determined that E15 engine fuel (15% ethanol mixed with 85% gasoline) had the same effects on spark-induced internal combustion engine vehicles manufactured after 2007 as E10 engine fuel (10% ethanol mixed with 90% gasoline), which in a word were "none."

• Listen to the complete October 2010 EPA press conference

The oil and gasoline industry, along with all their paid politicians and media personalities became apoplectic. They issued press release after press release denouncing the EPA announcement in which they repeated their tired rhetoric about how harmful ethanol can be to automobile engines and challenged the EPA's authority to take on the study and then pronounce E15 ready for prime time. Big oil claimed that the EPA did not do sufficient testing and that their results were premature. They threatened, among other things, that they would sue the EPA.

Four months later, in January 2011, the EPA extended their E15 pronouncement to include all passenger car and light truck gasoline-engine vehicles manufactured for model years 2001-2006, thereby giving the green light to all such vehicles manufactured from 2001 on.

• Read more about EPA's January 2011 Waiver

The oil-gasoline lobby had a sh-t fit. They re-circulated all the press releases they used four months before, added some new vitriolic condemnations, and made good on the promise to sue the EPA.

Again, Big Oil claimed that millions of vehicles would be damaged and that the EPA waiver was made without sufficient testing and that it was premature.

Today, the American Petroleum Institute and two auto manufacturer associations held their own teleconference to officially announce the finding of a study that they preliminarily released several days ago. This study, which was conducted by a private organization called Coordinating Research Council, studied the use of E15 in eight vehicles and found that two of the vehicles suffered from pitted valves, leaks, and loss of compression. A former member of CRC joined the Big Oil panel to present these results and explain the technical aspects. Using the study's results the group unanimously stated that their earlier criticism about the EPA results was correct, that the EPA was premature in issuing the waiver.

• Listen to the 39 minute press conference on YouTube

Not only did I listen to the press conference live, I participated in it. In my opinion this study and its findings are irrelevant, immaterial, off-base, wrong, and/or entirely fraudulent. The study and its findings continue a long history of oil industry misdeeds that were and are designed to keep America and most of the world enslaved to gasoline.

Let me take this point-by-point:

The EPA Waiver

The EPA took on the study of E15 because they were requested to do so by members of the ethanol industry. They didn't do it because of some New World Order socialist conspiracy to control our lives (I acknowledge that the EPA has been guilty of this, but this study didn't originate with them). Either because the request originated from an outside source, or because the EPA lacks the authority to mandate the use of E15, they did not mandate its use, they merely made a recommendation that it could be used without undue harm. They also recommended that additional warning labels be placed at filling stations to alert consumers to the fact that this fuel from an E15 pump was E15 fuel, as compared to E85, regular gasoline (E10), diesel, plain water or compressed air. Currently there are other similar labels on station pumps, so this label wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

The EPA's study was not conducted unreasonably quickly. The original request to test was submitted in March 2009. The preliminary findings were released in September 2010 - 18 months later. That period of time is at least as long as the study time conducted by CRC to dispute the EPA findings.

In today's anti-E15 press conference the Big Oil spokespeople stressed that CRC's study was conducted by experts. They used the word "experts" again and again, as if to say that the EPA relied merely on the opinion of monkeys. The EPA's study was based upon the work done by the government's testing laboratories - the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Argonne National Laboratory. I tried to ask the panel if they felt that the two U.S. labs were less expert or if they didn't have experts, but I was cut off before I could ask the question.

I can assure you that both government laboratories have experts, too. Oh, and by the way, when the EPA did the test they also tested E20 just see if perhaps E15 represented some invisible line that if broken would have disasterous effects. E20 proved as harmless to the tested engines as E15. How do I know this? During the October 2010 press conference, I asked if they tested any other blend levels at the same time. You can hear it for yourself if you listen to the press conference via the link above. (Argonne and NREL have actually been studying ethanol for years.)

So, knowing about the E20 test, you might ask, "Why didn't the EPA recommend E20, too?" I also asked that question. The answer was that they (the EPA) was only asked to test E15, so that's all they are responding to. The E20, as I mention above, was just used as a control of sorts. The significance here is that if the EPA wanted to force the evil ethanol monster on us, as API contends, they would have gone straight to E20. That information is only available to the world because the question was asked.

In addition, to support the findings of the government labs, Ricardo Laboratories - perhaps the worlds most prestigious private testing lab - conducted their own independent study of E15 and not only arrived at the same EPA conclusions, but they broadened their acceptance of E15 to include vehicles manufactured as far back as the 1994*.

• Read about the Ricardo Study

Moreover, ethanol is not a new engine fuel. In fact it was used in the very first internal combustion vehicle in the 1820s. Up until the time when General Motors scientists invented the use of leaded-gasoline, ethanol was considered the better fuel. What the GM scientists sought to achieve with the invention of leaded-gasoline was a fuel that mimicked the performance qualities of ethanol. Gasoline didn't become the dominant fuel because it was better than ethanol, it became the dominant fuel because GM, the world's largest auto maker, found a way to make billions of dollars of profit by promoting their new patented product. GM was given a mighty assistance in achieving fuel dominance by partnering with John Rockefeller's oil-gasoline companies. Rockefeller then delivered the fait accompli to the contest when he gave millions of dollars in bribes to politicians to vote for Prohibition, virtually wiping ethanol from the field of competition.

Ethanol, and various blends of ethanol-gasoline, have been studied, tested and used in America and around the world for more than 150 years. To say that studies using ethanol are premature is as much of a joke as when the oil-gasoline industry and its political lackeys told us that leaded-gasoline was not harmful (Joe Biden once testified before Congress that leaded-gasoline was not harmful to humans).

Pitting Valves, Leaks and Loss of Compression

The anti-ethanol crowd likes to say that ethanol damages engines. They say it as if gasoline had no negative effect on engines. The panel members in today's anti E15 teleconference repeated this over and over. The truth is that gasoline damages engines. Gasoline causes pitted valves; gasoline can leak, engines that run on gasoline can experience compression loss. If you don't believe me, drive by any engine shop and look to see if they are working on any vehicle engines. These aren't engines that have been using ethanol, these engines are damaged because engines deteriorate over time, and gasoline damages engines.

Furthermore, if it wasn't for mixing ethanol with gasoline any higher compression engine (all modern engines) would blow apart because of the knock caused by straight gasoline. During the years that tetraethyl lead was added to gasoline the knock was quieted. When leaded-gasoline was finally legislated out of existence, the options were to go back to mixing in ethanol or methyl tert-butyl ether, aka MTBE. When it was finally realized that MTBE was another poison, and it too was eliminated, the only real solution reverted to the original solution, ethanol.

I've run across a few knuckleheads online who promote freedom of choice by saying that we Americans should be allowed to choose to not use gasoline with ethanol. It makes me laugh because if their gasoline didn't have any ethanol in it their engines would really experience damage. By the way, this freedom of choice has nothing to do with the Open Fuel Act, which truly would give us a choice in deciding which fuel to use.

Gasoline Engines Not Made for E15

Perhaps the only comment I heard during today's press conference that I agreed with was when one of the speakers said that gasoline engines were not made to run on E15. That statement is exactly correct. However it's a completely irrelevant and immaterial point to make.

The fact that a gasoline-optimized engine can run on any other fuel other than gasoline is absolutely remarkable. It's a testament to how fantastic ethanol is. Just think: if we were ever faced with the apocalyptic future, as envisioned for example in the Mad Max Road Warrior movie, we wouldn't have to hijack remnants of gasoline to run our gasoline-powered motor vehicles, we would just make ethanol out of almost anything regardless of where we are. We wouldn't need to drill thousands of feet below the surface with expensive equipment, we could simply ferment whatever grows and then use a stone age technology to distill it into alcohol.

The serious point I'm making here, and it's a point that most people overlook, is that ethanol isn't the perfect fuel for a gasoline-optimized engine because the engine is optimized to run on gasoline, not because ethanol is not as good or better. In an engine that is optimized to run on ethanol (with proper fuel injectors, appropriate spark timing, and greater piston compression), ethanol will perform equal to or better than a gasoline-optimized engine. Furthermore, if you tried to use pure gasoline or E10 in the ethanol-optimized engine your results would probably not equal the results of pure ethanol or a high ethanol-gasoline blend in a gasoline-optimized engine.

What we need is a fuel whose source and availability is not dependent upon foreign interests; a fuel whose success doesn't contribute to the war chests of terrorists and terrorist regimes; a fuel that doesn't poison us; a fuel that can be produced inexpensively; a fuel that can be produced in any geographic region. And we need a fuel like this right now, not 50 years in the future. Ethanol is that fuel. Ethanol's cousin, methanol, also meets these qualifications, particularly if the methanol is produced from easily sourced waste materials (not from CNG). Being able to power our vehicles from a fuel produced from an increasingly endless supply of human excrement is better than any Star Trek fantasy we can imagine, because it's doable right now.

As The Auto Channel opined in June 2008, we need legislation that mandates the end of new gasoline-powered vehicles. If you live in fear of a New World Order controlled by the people who occupy the United Nations building in Manhattan, you should be equally afraid of the people who occupy the OPEC headquarters in Geneva and their minions who are housed in the API office building in Washington, DC.

• SEE ALSO: No New Gasoline-Powered Vehicles...

* Why did Ricardo Labs only okay E15 for vehicles manufactured since 1994? In the early 1990's nearly all auto manufacturers changed certain metal and rubber components that were susceptible to corrosion from ethanol, in order to allow ethanol to be used without any harm. Typically any ethanol-gasoline blends with higher ethanol levels are not recommended for use in cars manufactured prior to about 1991-92. In any event, the great preponderance of vehicles on the road today were manufactured after the mid-1990's.

Ethanol Keeps Gasoline Prices $1.09 Per Gallon Cheaper

2012-05-18T11:35:00.000-07:00

Excerpted from Food and Fuel America: May 15th, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development released a study by economists at the University of Wisconsin and Iowa State University that examined the impact of increased ethanol consumption on wholesale gasoline prices. The study, authored by Professors Dermot Hayes and Xiaodong Du, concluded the following:

1. In 2011, ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $1.09 per gallon.

2. Regular grade gasoline prices averaged $3.52 per gallon in 2011, but would have been closer to $4.60 per gallon without the inclusion of more than 13 billion gallons of lower-priced ethanol.

3. The average American household consumed 1,124 gallons of gasoline in 2011, meaning ethanol reduced average household spending at the pump by more than $1,200.

4. Since 2000, ethanol has kept gasoline prices an average of $0.29 per gallon cheaper than they otherwise would have been.

5. Based on the $0.29-per-gallon average annual savings, ethanol has helped save American drivers and the economy more than $477 billion in gasoline expenditures since 2000 — an average of $39.8 billion a year.

Read an abstract and the full report here (PDF file).

High Oil Prices Take Their Toll

2012-05-16T12:10:00.001-07:00

This is from The Week Magazine:

"Americans' personal financial comfort is at its lowest level since Gallup began measuring it a decade ago. 39% of Americans say they do not have enough money to live comfortably, up from 34% last year and 24% in 2002."

We could turn this around now with the Open Fuel Standard bill.

Engel Open Fuel Amendment Accepted Into Another Bill

2012-05-13T19:57:00.000-07:00

Congressman Eliot Engel

Congressman Eliot Engel’s amendment requiring the use of alternative fuel vehicles by the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Justice, and related agencies, was adopted in the FY 2013 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill. The amendment requires all new light duty vehicles in the federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles, such as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31, 2015 and codifies the Presidential Memorandum on Federal Fleet Performance issued last year by President Barack Obama.

Watch YouTube video of Rep. Engel’s comments from the House floor here.

Rep. Engel said, “Our economy and our national security are threatened by our dependence on foreign oil. An Open Fuel Standard will help us to get off our oil addiction. This is now the fifth appropriations bill where my amendment was successfully adopted — it was previously accepted into the FY 2012 bills for Agriculture, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security — and I intend to introduce it into the remaining spending bills. Each federal agency possesses a fleet of vehicles to which this could be applied.”

He added, “These amendments serve as further encouragement for the federal government to meet the requirements mandated in the President’s Memorandum.”

Rep. Engel is a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Open Fuel Standard Act (H.R. 1687), co-sponsored by Rep. Engel, and introduced with Republican sponsor Rep. Shimkus (R-Ill.), would require 50 percent of new automobiles in 2014, 80 percent in 2016, and 95 percent in 2017, to operate on nonpetroleum fuels in addition to or instead of petroleum based fuels.

“Our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600 billion per year to hostile nations — from Iran to Venezuela, and others — to pay for oil at ever-increasing prices. America does not need to be beholden to foreign nations for transportation fuel. Alternative technologies exist, and if implemented broadly will allow any alternative fuel to be used in our fleet. This will encourage the development of domestic energy resources, and the industry and jobs that will come along with these alternative sources. It is a win-win situation — bolster our own economy and domestic employment opportunities while ceasing to funnel billions of dollars needlessly to other countries,” said Rep. Engel.

According to the General Services Administration (GSA), the Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light duty vehicles in America — over 660,000 vehicles with approximately 43,400 subject to this amendment.

Researchers Produce First Cellulosic Ethanol From Corn Kernel

2012-05-13T19:55:00.000-07:00

Researchers at the NCERC today (12 May 2012) announced that they have successfully produced ethanol from the cellulosic portion of the corn kernel.

“This research is demonstrated proof of the viability of ‘generation 2.0 ethanol,’” NCERC Director John Caupert said. “By utilizing existing technologies readily available in the commercial marketplace, the NCERC was able to produce a biofuel that builds upon the strengths of conventional corn ethanol and the promise of cellulosic ethanol, thus making bolt-on cellulosic ethanol a reality.”

Caupert added that the potential for cellulosic ethanol has significant immediate and long-term impacts on the biofuels industry generally and the ethanol industry specifically.

“Any of the 211 existing ethanol plants in the United States could be retrofitted with existing bolt-on technologies to produce cellulosic ethanol from corn without the need to build new facilities,” Caupert said. “This translates into opportunities for jobs and economic development, particularly in rural areas.

According to the Illinois Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol industry provides more than 4,000 full-time jobs with an economic impact exceeding $5.29 billion in Illinois alone. There are currently 14 ethanol plants online in the state.

NCERC Assistant Director of Biological Research Sabrina Trupia emphasized the importance of the demonstration in future research opportunities.

“This is a significant milestone with immediate industry impact, but producing cellulosic ethanol from corn bran is also proof that cellulosic ethanol could be produced at NCERC utilizing any cellulosic feedstock,” Trupia said. “From a research perspective, this is only the first step in a very exciting road toward a future of energy security.”

“It’s the culmination of four years of activity here at the Center, and a shining example of a public-private partnership that works,” Caupert said. “With our expanded fermentation capabilities, the Center is actively seeking industry, academic, and government agency partnerships.”

Guerrilla Marketing

2012-05-12T23:14:00.001-07:00

Click on image to see it larger.

We've made two images to share on Facebook (one to the right here, and one at the bottom of this post) and when we were done, we realized these could also be used as miniature fliers to post on bulletin boards to help raise awareness of the Open Fuel Standard.

The only thing standing in the way of a renaissance of the American spirit, a revitalization of the economy, a wealth of new American jobs, a new era in national security, and a cleaner environment is more people finding out that this bill exists. The only thing missing is public awareness. Our efforts at the grassroots level greatly assist our lobbyists hard at work in DC.

Even posting a little flier has the potential to make a difference. Think of it this way: Every person we get to sign up for updates is another possible center of influence. They'll get the updates and many of them will forward the updates to their friends, some of whom will subscribe and begin forwarding to their friends. When we hit a critical mass, we'll be able get all the co-signers we need to get this bill passed.

Please copy and post these images on your social network. And please download this PDF document and print out a bunch of these little fliers and post them at your grocery store, at your community center, at your local college, and anywhere else you see a bulletin board. Let's make this happen.

Link to PDF: Tiny Tweak Could Restart Economy.

Click on image to see it larger.

New Co-Sponsor: Representative Michael Fitzpatrick

2012-05-11T14:52:00.001-07:00

Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick

Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick is a Republican Congressman from the 8th district of Pennsylvania, a member of the House Republican Policy Committee, and the newest co-sponsor of the Open Fuel Standard Act.

Pennsylvania is rich in coal, natural gas, and biomass — all of which are potential sources of methanol. Rep. Fitzpatrick understands that his district, his state, and his country will all benefit from the economic, employment, and security benefits of this bill.

If Rep. Fitzpatrick is your representative, please let him know how much you appreciate his support of this important legislation, and encourage him to help us enlighten his fellow Congressmen. Contact him here by phone or email. Follow him on Twitter here.

If you've already contacted your Members of Congress and are looking for something else you can do to move this bill into law, we have some ideas for you. Get started here.

Breaking OPEC's Stranglehold

2012-05-09T13:11:00.002-07:00

Guy Rodgers, the Executive Director for ACT! for America, wrote an article about the Open Fuel Standard which was published in the Wall Street Journal. The article is entitled Duel-Fuel: Driving With Methanol. Rogers wrote:

In James Freeman's "Weekend Interview with Aubrey McClendon" (April 28), Mr. McClendon states that natural gas could break the stranglehold OPEC has on our economy in 10 years. Actually, it could be sooner than that — if Congress acts on legislation titled the Open Fuel Standard Act.

This bill requires that, within five years, 80% of all new cars manufactured for sale in the U.S. be duel-fuel capable, which includes methanol. The cost to do this would only be about $70 to $100 per car. The methanol requirement is what is unique. Methanol can be made from everything from garbage to coal to natural gas. Given America's abundant coal reserves and the explosion of extractable natural gas reserves, we could see a day in the not-too-distant future when most drivers choose to fuel their cars with methanol made from domestically produced resources.

As Robert Zubrin, author of "Energy Victory," has demonstrated, at today's spot prices for oil and methanol, the typical driver would save 40% using methanol. Thus, the Open Fuel Standard would be good for family budgets, good for our economy and good for our national security. All that is necessary is for Congress to take action.

Concerns About OFS Engineered Out of Existence Already

2012-05-06T11:59:00.001-07:00

Tom Stricker

Toyota's Tom Stricker spoke at MIT about the Open Fuel Standard Act. You can read more about Stricker's presentation here. You can watch a video of the presentation here. When I asked ACT! for America's National Field Director, Kelly Cook, what he thought about Stricker's presentation, he said:

He’s shilling for big oil. One only has to look at Brazil to realize all his concerns have been engineered out of existence already.

If Toyota doesn’t want to make dual fuel cars, Ford and GM will, as they are in Brazil.

As far as the “very robust” comments, then why did Formula 1 racing employ alcohol fuels for so long? It was the fuel of choice for decades, especially because it wasn’t as combustible in crashes and yet had superior performance levels.

It’s this type of opinion from major auto companies that will slow us down. We have the facts on our side.

Open Fuel Standard Discussed at MIT

2012-05-05T11:00:00.000-07:00

Tom Striker

Toyota's Vice President of Technical and Regulatory Affairs, Tom Stricker, spoke about the Open Fuel Standard at MIT April 18th. He was against it. He said it would cost a lot of money for car makers to produce so many flex fuel vehicles so quickly and there isn't enough ethanol anyway. His brief mention of methanol dismissed it as unavailable.

Gal Luft was at the event and asked Stricker a question: "How many of Toyota's cars sold in Brazil are Flex Fuel Vehicles?"

Stricker answered, "All of them."

Enough said.

Read about the event: Our Gasoline-Free Future.
Read more about Brazil.
Read more about methanol.

Why I Support This Mission

2012-05-04T14:23:00.000-07:00

Getting a bill through Congress is an uphill slog. Their timeline is much slower than most Americans' attention spans, the partisan gamesmanship can be demoralizing, and there's no guarantee that even a smart, well-crafted bill such as the Open Fuel Standard Act will make it through the powerful divergent interests that legislators in various states represent and are in some cases beholden to.

So why do I invest valuable time into this work that I could be spending watching a game or out hiking on a beautiful spring day?

I think about the young Army Captain I used to run with down at Ft. Huachuca whose leg was shredded and lungs burned by an IED in Iraq. I think about the Cavalry Scout whose Post-Traumatic Stress kept him self-medicated in his house and who was hyper-vigilant about being ambushed while driving with me down the streets of Philadelphia. I think about the Marine Infantryman who did three tours in Iraq and who's struggled with alcohol and a lost sense of community. I think about veteran friends who have attempted suicide because of things they've seen or done or wish they would have done instead to save members of their unit or innocent civilians. I think about what I could or should have done differently to contribute more to the mission and to them.

I know this bill isn't going to magically fix our foreign policy problems. I know they're complicated, and I know that it will probably be decades before we can extricate ourselves from the Middle East or see critical political and economic reforms happen that will stabilize the region.

But I do believe that if we can introduce competition at the pump, it will not only help us but it will also pressure the governments of the region to diversify their economies and in the process hopefully broaden economic opportunity and the political representation that comes with it. Less reliance on them will reduce tensions and enable a more flexible national security posture, providing more space for diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution.

This legislation is not a guarantee against future conflicts but it's a much-needed step to address the systemic tension and instability that has become a conflict driver in the region. I sincerely believe that we owe it to our troops to get it passed.

Thomas J. Buonomo is a former Military Intelligence Officer and an Energy Policy Advocate for the Open Fuel Standard Coalition. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Political Science and Middle East Studies from the U.S. Air Force Academy and has spent the past six years researching U.S. energy policy toward the Middle East.

How to Get Your Elected Representatives to Act

2012-05-03T15:55:00.000-07:00

The power of ordinary citizens to make things happen in Congress boils down to one thing: influence over how constituents vote. Money helps, and corporate lobbyists and campaign donors certainly have a lot of it, but the influence of a well-organized constituency can and has trumped the power of corporate coffers.

The key is to make the issue you're most passionate about a re-election campaign issue. Let your legislators know, politely but resolutely, through emails, phone calls, in-person visits in your district, demonstrations covered by your local news station, and the opinion pages of your local newspaper that energy security and economic growth are the decisive factors that will determine how you vote in the upcoming congressional elections. Let them know that you want decision-makers in office who represents the interests of their constituents, and you want them to demonstrate their commitment to voters this summer by co-sponsoring the Open Fuel Standard Act.

The key is to be targeted and strategic in your communications by focusing on who you have voting power over and demonstrating that many of their constituents are paying attention to the decisions they make on a particular issue.

Legislators are rational actors — they base their decisions in part based on what they think is best for their constituents and the country and in part on how much it will help or hurt them in their next election. If they made decisions based purely on principle in every instance without compromise, they likely wouldn't remain in office long enough to be able to accomplish their long term goals. Like it or not, the balance of power on any given issue is a necessary consideration for them.

Your goal is to convince them that if they support a bill that is currently being opposed by a powerful array of private domestic and foreign interests, they will have the firm and enduring support of their constituents no matter how much money the former throw into manipulative campaign advertising and other political tactics designed to get you to vote against your own interests. It's about shifting the balance of power in your favor by convincing your fellow citizens that this is an issue worth investing time into on behalf of their unemployed friends and family, our troops who have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our nation's future economic prosperity and national security.

If you're new to this game and would like training on how to become a more effective policy advocate, contact us and we'll teach you the skills you need. It's going to take an army of grassroots advocates across the country to make this happen but if we work hard and smart enough together, there's no doubt we can accomplish our mission.

Thomas J. Buonomo is an Energy Policy Advocate for the Open Fuel Standard Coalition. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Political Science and Middle East Studies from the U.S. Air Force Academy and has spent the past six years researching U.S. energy and national security policy.

Since the High Price of Oil Helps Us Conserve, OPEC is Actually Helping the World by Raising the Price of Oil, Right?

2012-04-30T15:38:00.000-07:00

In the article, Achieving Energy Victory, Robert Zubrin writes:

According to [some], OPEC is a blessing because the world is allegedly running out of oil, and by raising the price, the wise men of the cartel are helping us all to conserve.

click on image to see larger

Now it is true that raising the price of oil will tend to cut consumption, but not by much. Oil demand is very inelastic — it takes enormous price increases to effect any significant change in consumption. If we accept the demand curve hypothesized in Figure 1, we see that a cut in oil consumption from 85 to 70 million barrels per day (an 18 percent reduction) needs a near quadrupling of the oil price to be enforced.

The real historical data...suggests that the situation is far worse — the quintupling of oil prices since 2001 was implemented by OPEC simply by cutting 5 million barrels — or 7 percent — out of the oil supply. During the same period, sales of cars with low gas mileage, such as SUVs, continued to grow without missing a beat.

If we actually wanted to enforce global petroleum conservation through price increases, we would have to raise costs several hundred dollars per barrel. That would give the Saudis control of the world.

Fortunately, however, the claim that the world is running out of oil has no foundation whatsoever. Such claims have been made repeatedly in the past, and all have proven false. For example, as Learsy notes in Over a Barrel, in 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, then the world’s leading oil producer, estimated that the United States had only enough oil for another four years. In 1914, the Federal Bureau of Mines said we had only ten years of oil left. In 1940, the bureau revised its previous forecast and predicted that all our oil would be exhausted by 1954. In 1972, the prestigious Club of Rome, using an inscrutable but allegedly infallible M.I.T. computer oracle, handed down the ironclad prediction that the world’s oil would run out by 1990. The club said at that time that only 550 billion barrels were left to humanity.

Since then we have used 600 billion barrels, and are now looking at proven reserves of a trillion more. There is little new about today’s fascination with “peak oil”; since 1972, there have been repeated predictions of imminent oil-supply exhaustion published every few years by various authorities, and not one has come true.

In fact, if we look at the ratio of proven reserves to consumption rate, the world has a bigger oil supply today than it ever has at any time in the past. The argument that we are threatened with near-term oil exhaustion is simply untrue.

Robert Zubrin is the author of one of our recommended books: Energy Victory.

U.S. to Export Natural Gas Because Our Cars Aren't Warranted to Burn Methanol

2012-04-26T02:00:00.000-07:00

Cheniere Energy recently won approval from the U.S. government to build America's largest natural-gas export terminal. The United States is overflowing with natural gas and has the potential to become a major exporter.

Meanwhile we're all paying exorbitant prices to fuel our cars because the only fuel our cars can burn is made of petroleum, and oil prices are controlled by an illegal cartel hell-bent on bleeding the world of its wealth. Robert Zubrin proved that cars already on the road are capable of burning methanol. They just aren't warranted to do it.

What we need are cars that are warranted to burn fuels other than gasoline. What we need is fuel competition. What we need is to turn that natural gas into methanol and use this superior fuel for transportation right here at home.

What we need is the Open Fuel Standard.

U.S. Oil Production Is Up, So Why Are Gas Prices So High?

2012-04-24T06:00:00.000-07:00

In an article in USA Today, Wendy Koch tries to answer the question: If American oil production has risen and if we are using less oil (and both are true), then why hasn't that brought gas prices down? Her first answer is exactly right: "U.S. gas prices are largely determined by global crude oil prices." And the global price of oil isn't much affected by what the U.S. does.

Koch goes on to list five factors that influence the price of gasoline. Here they are:

1. Global crude oil price increases.
2. Iran and other geopolitical uncertainties.
3. Limited spare capacity.
4. Rising worldwide demand.
5. Refinery closures/production costs.

I want you to notice something: We can't do much about these. Most of them we can do nothing at all about. And also notice that even if we did everything we could about all five of them, it still wouldn't bring gas prices down. She's wasting our time and taking us off track.

If you concern yourself with reasons for a problem — reasons you can't do anything about, volumes of writing will accomplish exactly nothing. You might as well remain silent.

Let's look at losing weight to see how this works. Let's say I am gaining weight and I don't like it. I could talk about how our American society encourages overeating, how advertising influences me, my family history, the dangers of supersizing, all the temptations of fast food joints, blah blah blah.

All of those things may be true, but if the problem I want to solve is to lose weight, these reasons are pointless for me to concern myself with. I'm not going to do much about any of them. And even if I did everything I could about them, it would not help me lose weight.

People who successfully lose weight look at it differently. They look at causes they themselves can do something about — how much they exercise, what they eat, how much stress they endure, how much sleep they're getting, etc. All of these factors are in their personal control, and they can do something about all of them, and if they did, they would lose weight.

All of Koch's reasons for high gas prices don't help us do anything to change our plight. But there are plenty of reasons we can talk about that we can do something about. The primary determining factor causing gas prices to rise or fall is how much OPEC decides to limit its oil production. OPEC is a cartel large enough to control the world price of oil.

We can break the cartel's influence on our gas prices by stripping oil of its strategic status. And we can get out of the box of GAS prices and concern ourselves with FUEL prices. How can we lower fuel prices? We can introduce competition in the fuel market by turning the cars on our roads into platforms upon which fuels can compete.

And we don't have to rely on any other country's cooperation. We can do this ourselves. OPEC may decide to continue plundering the world's financial resources by keeping the price of oil high, but it would no longer affect fuel prices in America. Our fuel prices could steadily drop as we develop better ways of making fuel.

We could rely on our own resources and our own ingenuity and our own enterprising nature, and we could stop worrying that "rising worldwide demand" or "global crude oil price increases" or "Iran and other political uncertainties" will cripple our economy or even limit our travel plans.

The best way to approach the causes of any problem is to focus on the causes you can actually do something about. That's what the Open Fuel Standard does.

If you'd like to do something about gas prices, start here.

Power Plays

2012-04-23T14:25:00.000-07:00

The following is an excerpt from a new book by Robert Rapier entitled Power Plays: Energy Options in the Age of Peak Oil. Reprinted with permission.

It wasn't as if there have never been economic alternatives to oil. Compressed natural gas and methanol, for instance, have both been cheaper than oil on an energy equivalent basis for many years...

The problem lies in the fact that consumers don't have the option of filling up with methanol, ethanol, or any of the other contenders to replace gasoline...because the transportation infrastructure is incompatible and, more importantly, the cars on the roads are not designed to handle these fuels.

Thus, my third proposal calls for support of the Open Fuel Standard that would require that a growing percentage of vehicles sold in the U.S. must be capable of running on fuels other than gasoline. I am not usually a big fan of mandates, because of the potential for unintended consequences, but in this case the additional cost to produce a vehicle that is flex-fuel capable is reported to be between $100 and $200. This would therefore only add 0.5% to the cost of the average new car.

The availability of more flex-fuel vehicles would remove one of the major obstacles for new fuels attempting to break into the transportation fuel market. Currently, there is no demand for methanol or mixed alcohols as transportation fuel primarily because the vehicles on the roads are not entirely compatible. If more vehicles were capable of operating on a wide variety of fuels with little added production cost, the market for domestically produced fuels would grow.

Anne Korin and Gal Luft, in their excellent book Turning Oil Into Salt: Energy Independence Through Fuel Choice, compare the situation today with oil to the situation with salt hundreds of years ago. Salt held a monopoly on food preservation, and was thus an important strategic commodity. Countries with salt mines derived wealth from their salt exports, and sometimes wars were fought over access to salt. But eventually salt evolved from a strategic commodity into simply a commodity, because refrigeration broke salt's monopoly on food preservation. That is the goal of the Open Fuel Standard: to break oil's monopoly on the transportation system and convert it from its present status as a strategic commodity into simply a commodity.

Robert Rapier is the Chief Technology Officer for Merica International, a renewable energy company, which is involved in a wide variety of projects, with a core focus on the localized use of biomass to energy for the benefit of local populations. Rapier's whole career has been devoted to energy issues. He's worked on cellulosic ethanol, butanol production, oil refining, natural gas production, and gas-to-liquids. And he is the author of Power Plays. Read more about Power Plays here.

How Committed Are You?

2012-04-22T17:30:00.001-07:00

We just heard from a reader about an idea that solves our biggest problem. Not enough people are putting pressure on our Members of Congress about the Open Fuel Standard bill because not enough people know about it. That's the problem. I don't know about you, but when I mention the Open Fuel Standard to people, they have usually never heard of it.

Our reader's idea is to create business cards, bumper stickers, and magnets for the side of your car that say: "We can lower gas prices permanently," and then direct them to openfuelstandard.org for more information.

What a great idea. People will see the sign, get curious, and (hopefully) sign up for updates. They'll become informed about the issue and start urging their Members of Congress to co-sponsor the bill.

Our reader bought his cards at a company called Vista Print. I looked them up and their prices are very reasonable. They've got nice looking templates, and you can create your business card or bumper sticker or magnet online and see exactly what it looks like before you buy it.

The OFS bill is a history-changer. It could actually alter the destiny of the United States. Let's make people aware of it. Let's post our cards wherever we see bulletin boards — at grocery stores and schools, for example. We could put bumper stickers or magnet signs on our cars. We could hand out our cards to people.

This is a great idea. I'm going to do it. I hope you'll join me.

This is a Game We Can Win

2012-04-21T01:13:00.000-07:00

The following is an excerpt from the book, Energy Victory, by Robert Zubrin:

"As for converting trash, it doesn't matter whether the feedstock is composed of packaging materials, old rags, used candy wrappers, plastic forks, or Styrofoam coffee cups. The stuff is all just compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, with a few impurities thrown in here and there, and all of it can be pyrolyzed and reacted with steam to produce sythesis gas, and then methanol...

"The chemistry needed to dethrone oil from its trump-suit status is well understood. We can readily convert our fuel strong suits into an alcohol supply bountiful enough to wash OPEC off the map.

"The only issue is that we need to have cars and trucks that can use it."

National Security Leaders Urge Energy Diversity to Strengthen U.S.

2012-04-18T22:36:00.001-07:00

On March 27 a panel of senior retired national security officials presented their case at the Methanol Policy Forum for an open fuel standard designed to break the international oil industry’s effective monopoly over the U.S. transportation fuels market.

The Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 would “ensure that new vehicles enable fuel competition so as to reduce to the strategic importance of oil to the United States.” It would do so by requiring automakers to produce vehicles capable of running on alternative fuels in lieu of or in addition to gasoline.

Among the most economically competitive fuels would be ethanol and methanol derived from domestic feedstocks as well as from hemispheric neighbors such as Brazil, whose transportation sector is fueled by sugarcane-based ethanol.

David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs at the Department of Energy, highlighted in his keynote address that “95 percent of the energy used to move our cars and trucks in the United States comes from one source – petroleum.”

Robert McFarlane, National Security Advisor under the Reagan administration, noting that demand from China and India is expected to increase by 10 million barrels per day by 2014 according to some experts, expressed alarm that OPEC states are not increasing production capacity to keep up with demand.

“Consequently, nobody in the industry that I’ve heard of can tell you where that additional 10 million barrels a day is going to come from. So simple upward pressure on price from demand outstripping supply could put oil, according to [former Shell Oil CEO] John Hofmeister, at $200 per barrel.”

Ambassador James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence under the Clinton administration, estimated the current financial cost of the United States’ oil dependency.

“We borrow $1 billion per day to pay for foreign oil. That is more than $1,000 added tax per American, per year, and it’s paid to the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the rest.”

“We have got to get competition at the pump. Anything less than that is a real dereliction of duty on all of our parts.”

James Roche, former Secretary of the Air Force, added, “It’s not the government’s role to choose but it is the government’s role to remove obstacles in the way of a market trying to do what it should do.”

Retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn admonished that “there are a lot of vested interests that like things just the way we are.”

“We will rue the day that we were complacent enough and so comfortable with business as usual when we have our backs to the wall and the options once available to us are no longer.”

His criticism of political operatives aiming to discredit the science on climate change was particularly pointed.

“The United States is the only developed country in the world [that is still] having a discussion about climate change. And it’s because of wacky science, talk radio, and all of these very polarized political groups that just don’t want to think about another way of doing business.”

“The underlying psychology is that somehow that’s going to hurt our economy, lower our standard of living, affect our quality of life. It’s really ironic because actually the opposite is true. By embracing choice at the pump, by increasing our portfolio of energy choices for both transportation and electricity we create better economy, higher quality of life.”

Transitioning the discussion to ongoing U.S. counterterrorism efforts against Al Qaeda, Ambassador Woolsey contrasted moderate Islamic influences with the more virulent strains propagated by many of the religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, upon which the world has become increasingly dependent to offset oil supplies lost due to sanctions against Iran.

“Lawrence Wright, in his fine book The Looming Tower about Al Qaeda, says that with between 1 and 2 percent of the world’s Muslims, the Saudis control about 90 percent of the world’s Islamic institutions, including schools.”

Who finances them?

“Next time you’re pulling into a gas station, turn the rear view mirror a couple of inches so you’re looking into your own eyes. Now you know who’s paying for it. Welcome to the club,” Woolsey concluded.

Robert McFarlane was equally frank.

“All of us are concerned about our servicemen and women and the sacrifices they are making. Seldom do we ever hear, however, that they are over there in large measure because of our vulnerabilities and our reliance upon a single, petroleum-based fuel.”

“I think Gary Hart encapsulated it as well as anybody ever has. After a panel I chaired with him about a year and a half ago, a young woman said, 'Senator Hart, why can’t our country develop an energy policy?'

“He said, 'We do have an energy policy. We rely on a single fuel, priced by a cartel, and every few years we go to war to maintain that privilege.' ”

The audience laughed.

McFarlane replied, “If it weren’t essentially true, it would be laughable.”

Americans Want Choice At The Pump

2012-04-18T01:15:00.000-07:00

A new poll commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and conducted by American Viewpoint, shows American voters have a strong desire for greater choice when pulling up to the pump. Cindy Zimmerman of DomesticFuel.com writes:

Seventy-five percent of those polled said they would support requiring automakers to build cars to run on fuel sources other than oil. The RFA has been a strong and early champion of the Open Fuel Standard (OFS) that would accomplish this exact goal.

Perhaps this piece of news might be something we should send along to our Members of Congress. Get their contact information here, and spread the word!

Conversation with Marc Goldman on Energy Security

2012-04-13T01:22:00.005-07:00

In a Q&A session on inSIGHT, David Frum, contributing editor at The Daily Beast and a CNN contributor, answered a question about energy independence, which you can read here.

In a follow-up conversation, Marc Goldman had this to say about Frum's answer:

David [Frum] is right to lay out for [inSIGHT] readers that when we talk about oil supplies and energy diversification we are talking about transportation fuel. We don't use oil to generate electricity; we use domestically produced coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar. America imports oil from nasty and dangerous regimes almost exclusively to fuel personal and commercial vehicles. Having rightly focused on transportation, David makes a case for domestic oil, conservation, and a better price structure for gasoline.

But as long as oil in the form of gasoline is the only thing that propels cars and trucks (and ships and airplanes), we will be subject to oil pressure. We are playing/struggling with fuel cells, expensive electric cars, and other technologies that may one day give us vehicles that operate entirely differently, but right now we can use existing technology to break the link between transportation and gasoline by adopting open fuel standards.

There are two bills before Congress (HR-1687 and SR-1603) that would require any new car produced that runs on gasoline to also be able to run on alcohol-based fuels — primarily methanol and ethanol. The additional cost to a new car would be about $100 for gaskets and hose material. You can get more information at www.setamericafree.org.

There are already flex-fuel vehicles, of course, but this [the OFS bill] would open new demand for alcohol fuel and additional pumps at fueling stations — which the market is fully able to meet with the relatively recent understanding that we have trillions of cubic feet of accessible natural gas.

The idea of a "government mandate" really disturbs some people, although as mandates go, this one is minimal. Private capital can be expected to enter the domestic fuels market, both at the production end and at the pump, creating domestic jobs as well as improving our balance of payments. And people won't be required to put alcohol-based fuel in their cars; they can pay the going rate for gasoline. But given gas at $4.25-4.50/gallon and the differential for methanol and ethanol, it is unlikely that they would.

This is not an experimental technology. Brazil has moved almost entirely away from gasoline-only-powered automobiles, and the same companies that make cars for Brazil make them for the U.S. market. The fuel is here, the technology is proven — what we are lacking thus far is leadership.

This goes back to where David and I agree: some of the world's nastiest people pump most of the world's oil. Our Congress and our president have no greater obligation under the Constitution than to provide for the common defense. In my mind, that means they have to make us independent of Iran, of Saudi Arabia, of Venezuela.

Iran is an apocalyptic country — if they do decide to destroy the tanker passageway in the Strait of Hormuz, Americans will see that our dependence on oil is not only about personal vehicles and paying stratospheric amounts of money to fill our personal gas tanks. Oil is how our food gets to market, how we get to work, how we export our products and import goods from other countries — it is hard to imagine the chaos and dislocation if the transportation industry came to a halt. Our way of life, indeed our very ability to function as a nation depends on the movement of goods, services, and people across a very large country and beyond.

Our way of life depends on our alliances as well.

Right now, our friends in Europe are paying $8-10/gallon for gas (which hasn't reduced their dependence on imported oil despite somewhat greater fuel economy; there is a limit to the relationship between price and consumption). They don't have the resources for methanol and ethanol that we have, but if the United States shows leadership by breaking the link between transportation and gasoline, they will follow us. And interestingly, Israel — our good friend, but one that has mixed relations with the countries of Europe — is sitting on a major, major natural gas find. It doesn't take much imagination to foresee the next energy-based alliance being the U.S.-Europe-Israel.

That works much better for me than Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

How Much Alternative Fuel Is Available?

2012-04-10T19:59:00.003-07:00

In Turning Oil Into Salt, a paradigm-shifting book by Gal Luft and Anne Korin, they write:

Making methanol from coal

One of the Department of Energy's clean coal demonstration program's most successful efforts is a commercial scale facility in Kingsport, Tennessee that generates methanol from coal at roughly 50 cents a gallon. Methanol contains about half the energy of gasoline per gallon so that's equivalent to about one dollar for a quantity of methanol that will take you as far as one gallon of gasoline.

Producing one million gallons of methanol requires about 5,000 short tons of coal. So 4 percent of current U.S. annual coal production, which in 2007 was 1,146 million short tons, would yield 10 billion gallons of methanol, which is about the same amount of fuel the corn ethanol industry contributes today to America's fuel supply.

There are many other ways to produce methanol. In Germany, Schwarze Pumpe produces 100,000 tons of methanol from sewage sludge and industrial wastes each year. In Sweden, methanol is made from black liquor, a sludge byproduct of paper pulping. Natural gas can also be a feedstock.

And it just so happens that America is rich in natural gas. Says a recent Washington Post article: "So much natural gas is being produced that soon there may be nowhere left to put the country’s swelling surplus."

We can stop our economy's vulnerability to oil prices right now. We can bring down gas prices permanently. All we need to do is open up the fuel market to competition. If you want to help make this happen, start here.

Are You Outraged About High Gas Prices? It May Depend on What You Know

2012-04-08T14:53:00.012-07:00

In a recent article in the LA Times, columnist Jerry Hirsch points out that although gas prices show every indication of rising higher than they did during the price spike in 2008, people aren't as upset about it now as they were then. Hirsch writes:

Having already seen prices cross the $4 barrier, motorists are less likely to become outraged when they see it happen again, said Michael Sivak, who heads the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. And because the costs of other items have risen — notably food — it stands out less as a household budget buster.

What if people knew that the rise in food prices is largely the result of a rise in oil prices? And what if people knew that the rise in oil prices is being driven by to the urgent need of the leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela to gain enough money to stay in power? They're raising the world price of oil through OPEC so they can rake in enough money to appease their populations. Would that cause outrage?

And perhaps it is somewhat misleading to say people aren't as upset about it as they have been, because people don't know there is anything they can do about it. Most people have no idea that OPEC is the fundamental cause, and even when they do, they don't know the Open Fuel Standard could solve the problem.

It might be more accurate to say people are more used to rising gas prices, and more resigned to its inevitability.

Hirsch says The Washington Post did a recent survey:

Asked whether "recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or others in your household," 63% of the respondents said yes.

But that percentage was higher during the surge in gas prices in 2008. "Back in 2005," writes Hirsch, "when California gas prices were in the low-to-mid-$2 range, both consumers and politicians were more vociferous with their complaints..."

I can imagine the OPEC leaders reading about this and smiling smugly. Americans are like frogs put into a pot of cold water and heated up slowly. If the water is heated gradually enough, the story goes, the frogs won't notice and they won't bother to jump out until the water is so hot they can't jump any more.

The LA Times article ends with a quote by a man who is clearly resigned after filling up his car: "We have gotten to the point of acceptance," he said, "whether we like it or not."

High fives all around at OPEC headquarters.

OPEC leaders desperately need Americans to accept these high gas prices. Their survival depends on it. Gal Luft wrote recently that the population of Saudi Arabia, the country with the most control over OPEC, is growing very quickly. Writes Luft:

Because Saudis pay no income tax, the House of Saud will need more and more money to keep its citizens happy, and avoid the fate of toppled leaders in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere.

Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, Saudi King Abdullah almost doubled his Kingdom's budget, committing billions in subsidies, pensions and pay raises in an effort to keep his subjects from storming the palaces.

This expensive response effectively raised the price of oil needed for the Saudis to balance their budget from under $70 a barrel before 2011 to at least $110 a barrel by 2015.

Like it or not, the bill for keeping the Persian Gulf monarchies in power is now being footed by every American. Every time we fuel our car we send an extra 35 cents per gallon, or roughly $6 per fill up, to the Save the King Foundation. Since oil goes into everything we buy from food to plastics, this adds about $1,500 annually to the expenditures of the average American family.

I think most Americans would feel outrage over this, especially if they knew we could change the whole dynamic with the simple, subsidy-free OFS bill. But people don't know this. They are treated to all kinds of complex explanations about what causes high gas prices. In Hirsch's article, he writes:

In 2006, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation to look at whether rising gas prices were the result of antitrust violations by oil companies or refiners. It eventually concluded that the increases were based on supply and market conditions.

That same year, the California Energy Commission launched its own investigation, eventually finding that unplanned refinery outages, unusually high fuel exports and tanker troubles — not misdeeds by the oil industry — were the primary drivers behind a springtime price surge.

As prices soared in 2007, state attorneys general jumped into the fray. Florida's Bill McCollum said his office was looking at more than 200 complaints about price gouging at gas stations. That same year, the House approved a bill that made gasoline price gouging a federal offense.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees! Could it be nobody talks about OPEC because they don't realize we could do something about it? After all, we can't make them produce more oil. Prices are rising and most people feel helpless about changing it.

The elegant solution that can solve this problem is to strip oil of its strategic status.

The Open Fuel Standard does exactly that — cheaply, cleanly, and quickly.