eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Next Mandate Trump Should Dump? The Ethanol Standard
http://republicbroadcasting.org/news/next-mandate-trump-should-dump-the-ethanol-standard/

Rethinking the Ethanol Standard

Obamacare isn’t the only mandate Trump should dump, says IPI’s Dr. Merrill Matthews in The Washington Times. Let consumers decide at the gas pump if they want ethanol in their gasoline.

He writes:

President-elect Donald Trump cruised to victory promising to get rid of the mandate to buy health insurance. While he’s at it, how about getting rid of the mandate to buy ethanol?

The federal government mandates that virtually all gasoline include ethanol, known as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which oversees the ethanol program, recently released its 2017 guidelines for increased ethanol usage, calling for nearly 19 billion gallons of renewable fuel — and increase of nearly 700 million gallons over the 2016 level.

When Congress first embraced ethanol, legislators were convinced that adding it to gasoline would stretch fuel supplies, be less expensive and better for the environment, and reduce our reliance on oil imports.

As is turns out, most of those initial assumptions no longer appear to be true.

First, ethanol hurts drivers. Existing blends provide fewer miles per gallon, forcing drivers to pay more to travel. According to the Institute for Energy Research, the RFS has saddled American drivers with an extra $83 billion at the pump.

Second, auto manufacturers and AAA warn that increasing the percentage of ethanol in our gasoline past the current 10 percent “blend wall” — which some states are allowing — could harm engines, especially in older cars. But Congress mandated that oil refineries increase annually the amount of ethanol they mix with gasoline. The problem is that gasoline usage has remained relatively flat since the recession, so the only way to meet the mandate is to increase the ethanol blend — putting engines at risk.

Third, ethanol production is bad for the environment. About 40 percent of corn grown in the United States goes into our gas tanks. Farmers have plowed up massive tracts of grassland and wetlands to plant more corn, which is the key ingredient in most ethanol. That conversion releases carbon stored in soil, plus the corn must be harvested, transported and refined before being added to gasoline, raising questions about whether ethanol production generates more carbon emissions than ethanol-blending eliminates. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group has called the increased use of ethanol a “climate disaster.”

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, while increasing the amount of ethanol to be added to our gas tanks, required the EPA to provide reports assessing the ethanol program. The EPA produced its first report in 2012, but failed to meet the next deadline.

As a result, the agency’s inspector general recently released a report calling out the EPA for neglecting this obligation, noting that the agency “has not complied with the requirement to provide a report every 3 years to Congress.” The inspector general went on to emphasize that this “information is needed to fully inform the EPA, Congress and other stakeholders of the environmental impacts of U.S. biofuel policy.”


In the wake of the inspector general’s condemnation, agency officials have promised to produce the next assessment by 2017.

Why the delay? Maybe the EPA knows the United States no longer needs renewable fuels to wean itself off foreign energy. Thanks to the rapid expansion of the domestic oil and gas industry, this country has passed Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s top energy producer.

Eliminating the RFS would also increase demand for gasoline, stoking renewed domestic production and accelerating our march to total energy independence.

During the presidential primaries, Mr. Trump proclaimed his support for ethanol in Iowa, a big ethanol-producing state. But since Mr. Trump understands why a mandate has skewed the health insurance market, he should understand why an ethanol mandate could skew the energy market.

We don’t need to eliminate the ethanol industry, just the mandate to use it. Let consumers decide at the gas pump if they want ethanol in their gasoline.

Ve'hoe

Then,,,, Affirmative Action, it is racism against whites, and poison to the minorities

popparod Loc: Somewhere else.

Amen brother, kill the corn.
I stopped using ethanol gasoline when a new station opened in town offering non ethanol gasoline and with the very first half tankful my mileage increased from 13.6 to 16.3 miles per gallon. Ran that out and filled up with a full tank of non ethanol and my mileage somewhat stabilized at 18.6 miles per gallon in my Jeep wrangler and it has never run better. I refuse to use ethanol now and when I am forced to because of non availability and being out of town I use an ethanol inhibitor. Has made a world of difference in all my motor vehicles. Corn was meant to be a source of food, not a source of fuel.

Ricko Loc: Florida

vehoe-how about the congressional black caucus ? Why is one needed ? Should we have a congressional Hispanic caucus or white caucus ? How about a congressional female caucus ? These types of groups serve to divide rather than unite and should be eliminated. Good Luck America !!!

Ve'hoe

Because racists,, NEED ,,,, RACISM!! Same in the indian world,,, if they cant make, are too dumb, drunk, or lazy,,,, they scream racism.... and if you are like me,,, who watched them sink in shame, and defile themselves,,,, so began to study and succeed,,, they call you "apple",,,

Loser-ism,,, knows no racial boundaries,,,, they blame others,,, and are then used by black and white democrats,,,,

It was Democrat Governors who barred the entrances to schools for blacks,,,, and it is the American Progressive liberal Democrat, who uses the same measuring stick for unborn babies,,,, that they did on blacks,,,,, and indians,,,, that we are not human, or owned by the liberal woman, and therefore they can do with us what they will.. even kill us..

And yet,,, racists are as stupid as they are believed to be, and vote in that person who uses them.

mcmlx

The non ethanol gas bumped my mpg in my car by at least 5.
I don't trust the "10%". At the rate they increase it without telling us, I would be very surprised if it isn't close to the 15% flex fuel.

ankerdahl

Ethonol cuts gas milage, increases air and water polution, attracts water, alcohol evaporates at the lowest temperature. Leaving the water at the bottom of the tank. Also the alcohol/water mix is caustic! Destroys fuel lines . Leaving water in the cylinders to rust rings and cylinder walls. The e 10 should be discarded. And the subsidies cancelled out. Saving money and cleaning up the air. Btw. I was a fuel spec in the Air Force! So I am familiar with the chemistry involved.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Yes, ethanol has only 80 percent of the energy that gasoline does. Ethanol in gasoline is a major reason that food, especially meat, costs so much more today. It should n\be ended and the various seasonal cocktail fuel mixes should be halted too. It cannot happen soon enough.

ankerdahl

The ethonol industry srvives only because of the multi billion dollar subsidies. Hence the epa mandates. This is why I hope that President Trump's epa chief does sideline the B/S. My Old engines run better on straight gasoline. Ethonol is ok for NASCAR racing cars. Those engines spend more time on the work bench than they do racing down the track, also each car has several engines. Each cars tanks are drained after each race. Let's face it when there is more than one hundred thousand plus dollars spent to produce those cars you are going to be able to have teams of mechanics to care for the cars, nobody in an average income situation could possibly afford that kind of maintenence.

mcmlx

Are they sneaking the levels up?

hprinze Loc: Central Florida

=============================================

I have a farmer friend who grows con for ethanol. He has about a dozen vehicles, ALL DIESEL

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

One really has to look past the "junk science" which is used to facilitate political agendas. Scientifically, real science, ethanol is an excellent fuel for engines designed to burn it, but has serious limitations - which why there are no alcohol burning vehicles outside of the racing circuit. This "mandate" was created specifically to woo Iowa
corn farmers for political purposes, i.e., win an election - and nothing else. There was no science behind it, other than junk science, which is developed by PR firms.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Time for Iowa and other farmers to become patriots again!
Grow food again.
Feed our livestock with the corn, not gas tanks.

Any one give thought to the price of our beef, pork, chicken, etc; if that feed grain was used to feed them.
Those subsidies have been used to raise the price of our food.

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

Great idea! Go back to growing corn for food and send it to the Middle East instead of billions of dollars. Maybe some of the illegal immigrants can hand deliver it.

cephusbob

I agree eliminate ethanol mandates , they are bad for your engine and gas mileage. They also cause a huge increase in the price of corn and a shortage of the same.