The Democrats were finally able to get something passed in Congress, a new energy bill that mandates car gas mileage and bans the incandescent light bulb, and on Wednesday’s CBS "Early Show," co-host Julie Chen described it as, "Congress's historic move to get rid of gas guzzlers." Co-host Harry Smith began the "historic" theme at the top of the show:

Later this morning, the president will sign a new energy bill, that will radically change the way we drive, the fuel we burn, and the way we light our homes...This morning for the first time in 32 years we will have a new energy bill. The Energy Independence and Security Act.

No one objected to the idea that everyday light bulbs would be banned with this new legislation. Instead Smith joked holding up a light bulb: "So guess what, will we see the end of the incandescent light bulb? Remember, was it Uncle Fester who put it in and it lit up?"



The market is good for corn farmers right now. Corn prices are reaching highs because of the increased demand for food and as of late, the increased demand for corn-based ethanol.

The price of corn is at an 11-year high. Its $4.38-a-bushel price tag is fueling food inflation, according to the December 17 "CBS Evening News."

However, that's contrary to what CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta told viewers on the December 18 "American Morning." It is the low price of corn, he said, that has prompted the need for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to impose a "sugary drink tax," specifically drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup.

"[I]f you look at the history of this substance, ["American Morning" co-anchor] Kiran [Chetry] - I think this is very important - we subsidize a lot of corn production in this country," Gupta said. "We've been subsidizing it for a long time to support the corn farmers, which is a good thing. If there is a problem in all of this, it is that maybe we make too much corn and some of that corn gets turned into this high-fructose corn syrup."



NewsBusters.org - Media Research CenterFollowing up on Al Gore’s reception of the Nobel Peace Prize, Carolyn Washburn of the Des Moines Register asked the Republican candidates several questions on the issue of "global climate change" and related topics. At the beginning of the debate, Washburn stated "we won't talk a lot about issues like Iraq or immigration. They're important issues, no doubt, but Iowans say they know where the candidates are coming from on those." But Washburn gave no indication that Iowans actually wanted to hear more about the Republican candidates’ stance on climate change.



As NewsBusters reported, ABC's John Stossel bravely presented a skeptical view of manmade global warming on the October 19 installment of "20/20."



Here's something you don't see every day on the front page of a major American newspaper: an article about how the rising demand for ethanol has sent corn and grain prices so high that it's resulted in more people around the world going hungry.

Even more shocking: the article in question was on the front page of Saturday's New York Times.

In a piece entitled "As Prices Soar, U.S. Food Aid Buys Less," author Celia W. Dugger shockingly presented the dirty little secret about soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore's grand solution for manmade global warming that NewsBusters has been writing about for months while most in the media remained silent (emphasis added, h/t Glenn Reynolds):



Reuters photo

Say goodbye to the Great Green Hope. Biofuels are on the endangered list, although the media in America won't tell you that.



Here's an inconvenient truth our global warming obsessed media seem certain to withhold from the public: biofuels produce more greenhouse gases than oil and gasoline.

Fortunately, as has been noted by NewsBusters before, foreign press outlets are more willing than ours to present the facets of this issue that go counter to the prevailing climate change agenda.

As such, Britain's Times reported Saturday (emphasis added throughout, h/t's Don Surber and Glenn Reynolds):



A new study published in the journal Science last Friday concluded that the continued burning of oil-related energy products combined with the planting of additional forests is better for the environment than the manufacture and use of biofuels such as ethanol.

In fact, the authors suggested that governments across the globe move away from biofuels as a global warming solution completely, and instead focus moneys and energies on reforestation and increasing the efficiencies involved with the burning of fossil fuels.

Of course you didn't hear about this because no major American press outlet thought it was newsworthy despite media's fascination with anthropogenic global warming.

Fortunately, several British outlets covered this interesting study, including the Guardian (emphasis added):