In the ethanol wars, both sides are wrong
The Iowa primary has put into play one of the more obscure issues in the political life of the nation — ethanol, of all things.
The Iowa primary has put into play one of the more obscure issues in the political life of the nation — ethanol, of all things.
Oil fell nearly four percent on Monday as weak economic data from China, the world’s largest energy consumer, weighed on prices and an OPEC source played down talk of an emergency meeting to stem the decline.
American drivers are within shouting distance of $1.50 a gallon for the first time since 2009.
Ethanol thrives because of the volume-based approach of the mandate, which specifies that a growing percentage of renewable fuels must be mixed into gasoline. But that approach has stifled innovation.
Under President Obama, especially in his second term, there’s been a flurry of action on climate and energy. So it’s a good time to pause for a moment, step back, and take stock.
In December 1979 Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan. The oil price at the time was at its peak of $101 a barrel.
The Senate on Wednesday started debating its first comprehensive energy legislation since the George W. Bush administration, a bipartisan measure meant to update the nation’s power grid and oil and gas transportation systems to address major changes in the ways that power is now produced in the United States.
One year ago, analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch drew a parallel between the subprime mortgage crash and the disorderly fall in the price of oil.
A new poll, commissioned by The Salt Lake Tribune and the Hinckley Institute of Politics, found that 58 percent of Utah voters support government action that would restrict emissions and improve air quality.
The head of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries called on oil producers outside the group to assist in reducing the global oversupply, signaling once again that OPEC won’t make output cuts alone.