If Brazil can achieve energy independence why can't the U.S.?

They are not energy independent. They have a very low standard of living. They cut down more rain forest which cause more WORLD WIDE DAMAGE than the US does.

As mentioned, Brazil makes ethanol from sugar cane, which is much more effective than making it from corn. Also, Brazil has sizable sources of oil, which they use domestically (not all of their vehicles run on ethanol). I don't think sugar cane does much to protect against storm surges, not nearly as good as mangrove forests, although it's better than building vacation houses there. The other big thing to keep in mind - Brazil only uses a tenth the energy per capita that we do here in the U.S. So we'd need to use public transportation, relax our standards on cars (air bags and pollution controls reduces the mpg) and probably still lower our standard of living. But since we produce about a third of the energy we use, if we could reduce it 66%, we'd still use more energy per capita than Brazil but we'd be energy independent. If we add renewable energy, then we wouldn't need to reduce our energy use so much.

all good questions. we can make this country energy independent, but it will take more than just ethanol, regardless of source, to make it happen. part of the problem is that while alternative fuels have been around for more than 100 years, there is very little infrastructure to handle the various fuels. second, until recently there was little interest in alternative fuels even though we as a nation knew that it was going to have to come about one day, since the 1940's. third government regulations prevent building the needed infrastructure at this point in time. we need to get government out of the way of the energy companies and let market forces work like they should. fourth the environmentalist lobby in this country doesnt want new refineries built, nor do they want coal liquefaction plants, nuclear power plants, CNG, LPG, etc used as a fuel regardless of the minimal impact on the environment. it is all about power, power to control the people.

They do have the best conditions to grow sugar cane. They also have more area to grow for fuel crops as well as food crops, we don't. I think cane ethanol is great. By the way, even though burning sugar fields produce carbon dioxide, they convert way more into oxygen in their lifetime so it evens out.

moving vehicles and electricity can be two separate goals. we could significantly reduce fuel consumption (almost) overnight by going diesel (like europe). honda makes a natural gas civic for purchase right now. despite minor limitations, unlike diesel, virtually no pollution with natural gas. one of the largest reserves of NG is said to be under the bermuda triangle. that means no more muslim-involved sand wars. investment in materials would make sense too (most of the energy used to move you and your people is wasted on the weight of the vehicle). likewise, the lower half of the united states could be blanketed in solar panels. germany produces more solar electricity than anywhere, and they haven't nearly the amount of US sunshine (they achieve this by making the utilities pay extra for the surplus energy produced by individuals - justified by the cost of building new coal-fired power plants.) wind is the most cost effective for general alternative electricity. the only problem i have with it is the cost and transmission losses of the lines. people should live where the wind is if they want wind as a primary source (what they propose now is sending energy to major cities via transmission lines - a waste). if we want ethanol (back to vehicles again), it should be cellulostic. everyone (including corn farmers) know corn is wrong, and we don't have the climate for sugar cane. lots of reasonable alternatives.... just a lagging political will (mostly because americans, in sum, are a little behind.) btw, iceland is energy independent, and they're hosed right now. but that's a whole 'nother question.