Yes, "unbalanced," the Stanford Daily is a conservative rag on par with the Weekly Standard. Are you kidding?

Biofuel production methods speed global warming, topsoil erosion, and the gradual desertification of our planet. The United States Congress is drilling for energy in the human food supply! The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization states that global food prices increased 40% in 2007 alone. Biofuel production is causing food price hyperinflation and the food price spiral has just begun.
See "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Biofuel production methods speed global warming, topsoil erosion, and the gradual desertification of our planet. The United States Congress is drilling for energy in the human food supply! The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization states that global food prices increased 40% in 2007 alone. Biofuel production is causing food price hyperinflation and the food price spiral has just begun.

The conservative pieces here, especially Oberman's, are incredibly naive.
Starrett: "Unfortunately, Congress cannot magically wave away all of our problems simply by passing a law. In fact, our problems usually increase despite Congress’ best intentions. The case may prove no different with this year’s energy bill"--what is this? No, no one can "magically" do anything; I doubt that many of our elected representatives, at least on the federal level, believe in magic, regardless of party. (Starret's likely unintended implication here that those who endorse higher fuel efficiency standards are somehow deluding themselves into a magical fantasy world is insulting.) And yes, "problems" do "usually" result from every piece of passed legislation; ensure that we don't destroy our planet may, gasp, involve people losing jobs! (And remember, this all just "may" happen.) It's disappointing that Stacy, despite laying out a strong case for the ultimate ineffectiveness of the act, wasn't able to point out the many ways in which this greening process, if not this act specifically, will create far more jobs than it vanishes, and better paying jobs, too. (That seems to be more a problem of editorial misframing than Stacy's problem--the "energized debate" promised by the title isn't here; the conservative voices and Stacy are talking past one another, not to one another.) Take a look at any of the many proposals out there for alliances between green groups and labor--a radical idea four years ago that has now become a staple progressive proposal. Unless Starrett is unaware of these proposals, it is disingenuous of him to mention the jobs the bill could potentially destroy without at least treating (even if only to refute) the clear argument for a market-boosting alliance between labor and environmentalists. The notion that innovation in energy technologies, especially w/r/t automobiles, will ultimately harm American laborers--will, in, say, 50 years, have had a net negative effect on our economy and the quality of life of our neighbors--is plain and simple hogwash.
Oberman's piece is just poorly reasoned. First, all new technologies are more expensive than old ones when they make their debut; if the technology proves useful, it becomes more and more affordable with age. There's absolutely no reason to think that raising energy standards would lock anyone out of the car-buying market who isn't already locked out of it, if only because standards are set up to increase gradually. Moreover, California, the state with the strictest emissions standards, if I recall correctly, clearly has plenty of smoke-belching jalopies on the road. Its unlikely that the drivers of those cars--stereotypically the drivers Oberman thinks she's defending--will be at all economically disadvantaged, again because standards are set to rise at a pace to specifically prevent that from happening. Second, of course economists have varying opinions about how this will affect the economy. That "many economists" (who? where? numbers please?) point out the obvious point that some individuals might see their fuel-efficient vehicle as an excuse to work further way does not imply that all individuals will do so, or even that most will. And even if most did just start driving around more, the benefits from those who chose not to do so would still be significant enough to merit the standard increase. Third, her treatment of ethanol is premised on the politically conservative assumption that the market rather than morality is the ultimate authority. How else to explain this?: "If there were sufficient market demand for ethanol, why would there be a need to mandate its production?" Well, Ms. Oberman, the mandate's aim is to decrease pollution regardless of the demands of the market, not only in the event that the market will benefit from it.... Of course we expect conservatives to reference conservative principles when making conservative arguments, but if Oberman truly wishes to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with her, she cannot premise her argument on a stock conservative principle that is fundamentally discounted by most of those whom she ostensibly seeks to convince. With regard to ethanol specifically: If other methods can be found that would have little effect on or would benefit the market (and others certainly can; ethanol probably does have too many downside to be a good long-term option for us), clearly we should investigate and exploit those before investigating and exploiting ethanol. But suggesting that any options which have economic downsides should be dismissed solely for that reason makes it clear that when it comes down to it, a healthy economy is more important to Oberman than a healthy planet or healthy children.
The overarching problem of Oberman's piece (and to a lesser extent Starrett) is that she seems to assume that breaking our dependence on foreign oil will, or at least should, require absolutely no policy trade-offs. If an energy initiative entails any sacrifices, she seems to think we should throw up our hands and call it a day. What, precisely, I would like to know, do Starrett and Oberman think SHOULD be done? Stacy's piece endorsed the measure to a point, and cogently pointed out reasons that, from her liberal perspective, it did not go far enough. Starrett and Oberman both profess to support ending our dependence on foreign oil while opposing the measure in question. But the arguments they make against the measure indicate that their commitment to effecting U.S. energy independence persists only so long as it requires them to make no substantive sacrifices--which is another way of saying that their commitment isn't much of a commitment at all.