US imports decreased because we didn’t use as much gas once millions of jobs had been lost and industries were shuttered. Trucks that don’t leave the warehouse don’t need fuel.

If you truly wanted to test whether U.S. policy reduced our net petroleum imports, the first thing you’d do is check whether every other country that suffered had seen a similar drop since the economic collapse. My guess is that they did, which would mean U.S. policy had nothing to do with it.

But more to the point, how does requiring automakers “to increase fleetwide gas mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2020″ with a law passed in 2007 produce an immediate and dramatic drop in oil imports in 2008?

This is the type of ‘evidence’ that makes me immediately suspicious of everything else that a person has to say.

My first guess would be that the drop in imports from 2008-2011 is the result of the global economic collapse, which happened at the same time.

***Also, there is currently a new book that has just recently been released. It is by Lester R. Brown as well, and it is called, “World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse.” Also, although I haven’t read it yet, (although I would like to…), if Plan B: 4.0 is any indication, then this book should certainly be a great read. No doubt in my mind.

And, with the United States being the “Breadbasket of the World,” with less food to give to ourselves, there will be less food to give to others. This will exacerbate the problem by drastically increasing the global number of hungry adults and children, thereby worsening the global economy by worsening the states of the various developing nations.

Of course, the United States could always save themselves by DECREASING the amount of food distributed to other nations, thus opening up large amounts for its own population. However, this in itself would still provide a negative result because that would still prevent many others in poorer nations to suffer. This, in turn, would likely eventually return to hit America with an economic sucker-punch by way of a global economic ripple-effect.

Ripple-Effect Explanation:

1. The United States decreases exports of agricultural products to developing nations in need.

2. This frees up extra amounts of that product to assist in the increasing scarcity of agricultural foods caused by a high percentage of crops used in biofuel production.

3. Resultant of this surge in availability of crop-based food is a temporary drop in the prices of these items.

4. The decrease in crop-based food distribution to developing nations worsens those states’ economic statuses (ex. Foreign Policy’s Failed States List).

5. This prevents them from working sufficiently – let alone efficiently – with allies, other nations, and/or corporate partners to tackle environmental issues such as desertification, water shortages, etc.

6. This further degrades the environment itself, in turn increasing water-demands for developed nations.

7. Resultantly, the United States faces a situation in which it struggles to find water for its crops, regardless of the intent for utilization towards biofuel or consumption.

(This, of course, is in conjunction with the already present situation in which, due to these water-availability problems, cities purchase, and divert, water from farmers. Naturally, this merely damages the situation even more.)

8. Due to the immense shortage of water within the United States (among other nations), the United States implements either 1) water-recycling technology such as that to be used by astronauts, or 2) desalination technology.

The former may be used, as it is being utilized by Singapore at present anyway (see USA Today Thurday, 3 March 2011). However, Americans may or may not embrace it as easily since a) the government cannot as easily force it upon us due to our democratic political structure, and b) because of the so-called “ick” factor.

As for the latter technology, desalination plants may be used. However, at present, it is not over-expensive to construct, yet highly expensive to maintain. Thus has been the cause of its current economic impracticality.

If no steps are taken, then the entire agriculture industry and biofuel sector will surely feel the pinch, to say the VERY least. Either way, biofuel is NOT, and NEVER will be, a viable alternative to other fossil-fuel-based energy sources.
—

P.S.
Excuse the lengthiness of this “comment.” Frankly, I don’t think it can even be considered a comment by this point in time.