Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,012
    Images
    15

    ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    Go here and read info in the box,

    Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Fairfield (Cincinnati), OH
    Posts
    8,190
    Images
    1

    Arrow Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    The US government, until September 26, 2012, is asking for public comment on the proposed waiver to the Renewable Fuel Standard, the regulation that mandates ethanol in U.S. fuel stocks, due to reduced corn crops from this summer's drought.
    There's an important missing word there that the anti-biofuels lobby left out to delude people (or at least left out by this web site on their behalf) . It should read: "The US government, until September 26, 2012, is asking for public comment on the proposed emergency waiver to the Renewable Fuel Standard, the regulation that mandates ethanol in U.S. fuel stocks, due to reduced corn crops from this summer's drought."

    This is a mechanism built in to the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 that created renewable fuel standards to begin with. This is a temporary measure to meet an emergency. Don't expect anything permanent to change when (or if) it starts raining again in the mid-west.
    Last edited by Dave@Moon; September 6th, 2012 at 18:12.
    "The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."--Issac Asimov

    "Whisper words of wisdom"--Paul McCartney

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    South Central Pa.
    Posts
    6,351

    Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    Some might say that this "emergency" presents a convenient opportunity for the current administratio/EPA to bail out of the wildly unpopular ethanol regulations without seeming to cave in to reason.
    1932 Packard 900 Conv Cpe
    1955 Jaguar XK-140 Drophead
    1948 Buick Woody
    1931 Model A Tudor
    :o All unrestored, shoemaker's kids, you know?

    Senior Master Judge 87 Credits

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Fairfield (Cincinnati), OH
    Posts
    8,190
    Images
    1

    Thumbs down Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    Quote Originally Posted by Restorer32 View Post
    Some might say that this "emergency" presents a convenient opportunity for the current administratio/EPA to bail out of the wildly unpopular ethanol regulations without seeming to cave in to reason.
    Do not confuse unpopularity here with unpopularity at large. This group, and the people most of us hang out with, are not a representative sample of the public at large by a long shot. Public support for ethanol production has been polled extensively, and has been consistently between 60% and 70% of the U.S. population at large for years with no differences correlated to political party affiliation. Opposition to ethanol polls at most at 30%, and usually less. ( https://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentm...poll_71508.pdf ) The impending implementation of cellulosic production, which eliminates food production concerns, can only increase that approval.

    The implementation of the emergency provision in the face of this years drought is no slam-dunk either. In fact odds are against it, with conflicting projections as to corn price effects (high corn prices affect ethanol plants just as much as agriculture, albeit less so on the demand side, and have already idled 3 plants in the U.S. this year) and the political implications of denying the will of 60-70% of the population in an election year. ( Biofuels: Drought, searing heat reignite food-fuel debate -- 07/27/2012 -- www.eenews.net )
    Last edited by Dave@Moon; September 7th, 2012 at 10:37. Reason: fixed link/ d@mn auto-correct
    "The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."--Issac Asimov

    "Whisper words of wisdom"--Paul McCartney

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    South Central Pa.
    Posts
    6,351

    Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    If you pay a farmer a premium to grow corn for ethanol production of course he will support ethanol. Let's see how ethanol fares when they stop subsidizing it.
    1932 Packard 900 Conv Cpe
    1955 Jaguar XK-140 Drophead
    1948 Buick Woody
    1931 Model A Tudor
    :o All unrestored, shoemaker's kids, you know?

    Senior Master Judge 87 Credits

  6. #6
    Sr Mbr -- BCA 20811
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DFW, TX
    Posts
    5,839

    Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    Subsidies have already or will stop with the next round of payments. Too early to gauge the total future situation, but with several ethanol plants idled due to lack of corn products (from the current "dry" situation) to run them, the future affect might come sooner than later.

    Many times, these "public input" times are not well-puiblicized. Thanks to Dave for bringing this to our attention.

    Similarly, the oral "public input" times and locations seem to be highly-oriented toward those in favor of the proposed legislation. This is apparent from their posted witness lists . . . posted AFTER the particular hearings are held. Unfortunately, there is a public perception that immediately as soon as a particular regulation or legislation is passed, the atmospheric effects will be sudden and immediate . . . when, in fact, they might take the better part of a decade (or more) for the effects to become as operative as might be desired. Almost as if there is more of a psychological affect than a tangibly-viable physical affect!

    Similarly, the designation of a particular item as "Harmful To The Environment" gives the regulatory administrators REASON to implement controls upon the production of the particular item . . . even if it's been a part of our lives for eons of time. IF it's also declared an "emergency", just that much more reason to control it's production! This very thing happened recently with CO2, for example. THEY determine the "Emergency" status and THEY determine the related actions to address the "emergency" . . . which seems to be far too easy, in many aspects, for false or "politically correct" situations which might need some attention to progress immediately to "Emergency" status. This can become a strong "point of reference" situation as what some might term "emergency" as "not that critical now, but let's watch it for the need of future action" might be more accurate. So, proposed implmentation levels . . . "On the List", "Watch how it progresses", "Future considerations for addressing risk factors and implementation time schedule", "Action level will be reached on ______", "Reassessment and Re-evaluation of progressing situation", "Future needs and possible relationship to economic factors", "Consideration of visible improvements", "Economic assistance programs, if needed", "Possible default measures", "WILL IT WORK? AT WHAT COSTS to consumers?"


    Interestingly, nobody seems to consider the effects of how many trees are cut down to produce paper to print all of the necessary copies of this legislation. Nor the ink to print them with . . . I guess all inks are now VOC-compliant? Whoops! Those are industries just as corn ethanol is . . .

    Although it's not in the EPA's original justification, one "Emergency" waiver should be to add a cost vs. benefit orientation into their regulations. I seriously doubt that their recent desire to regulate CO2 and further tighten ground ozone levels will not result in miraculous decreases in healthcare costs or miraculous decreases in "days lost" due to such situations. From my own observations in a non-attainment area, IF the "days lost" from the prior ground ozone regulations . . . regulations which were on the road to be ATTAINED in a very short time, even the 8-hour standard, in our and similar areas . . . were accurate, then these days lost would be apparent in ANY company with over 100 employees. But I've not seen that happen in the company I work for, with over 300 employees. To me, this makes the EPA's $$$ figures as to how much the old regulations cost the economy compared to how much the proposed regulations will save the economy . . . just don't add up, even with "new math" applied. Or might these allegedly ill and in-discomfort people be soldiering on so they can keep their present job? If so, then where's "big pharma" with a magic bullet medication for the discomforts?

    CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS and SEND YOUR "INPUT" TO THE NOTED GOVERNMENT AGENCY! plus EVERY MEMBER OF THE SEMA "LEGISLATORS WHO ARE FRIENDLY TO THE CAR HOBBY" LEGISLATORS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.! (list at www.SEMA.org)

    One thing which might help industries better get behind such environmental efforts would be to allow the money being spent, become a part of their natural equipment upgrades AND allow the additional cost of upgrades (compared to non-upgrades) to become depreciatable on their federal corporate income taxes . . . just like a regular equipment purchase would be for normal companies. OR for the companies selling the "environmentally-upgraded" items to lease the equipment rather than sell it. At the end of the lease period, when new upgraded equipment is needed, they could then ship their "lease-return" items to developing nations for their own industrial developments, at reduced prices . . . similar to a lease-return police car being shipped overseas to a new owner/leasor. I know that each industrial facility is somewhat different, but I would suspect the particular "business end item" would need to somewhat consistent in all applications, but what it attaches to could be differently-configured. "Standardized parts" = less ultimate costs = less affect upon consumer prices for the refined products . . . possibly?

    If this is currently being done, why is there such a big deal about plant upgrades costing so much and, resultingly, being resisted as it appears they are? Or might corporate financial entities be figuring these upgrades as a normal business cost, planning for it, but hoping to delay it with legislative resistance, which is allegedly supposed to allow "trickle-down" profits for investors?

    Just some thoughts,
    NTX5467
    Last edited by NTX5467; September 8th, 2012 at 15:17.

  7. #7

    Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    NTX, thank you for a very well thought out response to those Politically Correct EPA types who have no idea of the ramifications of many of their ill-conceived directives. They have obviously never lived in the real world and seem to thrive on ways to create more problems such as you point out in your post. Although the ethanol disaster is one of the EPA's worst debacles, I am amazed at how they have ruined something as simple as a gas can by not allowing an air vent. I would love to take an EPA approved non venting 5 gallon gas can, fill it up with just less than 5 gallons, leave it in the sun for a couple of minutes, and then have a high ranking EPA official open the "EPA Approved" cap and try and pour gas without pressureized gas spewing every where ! Do these people live in the real world?

    I really have to wonder as to how and why Dave Moon is so enamorate with ethanol, especially since the extremely adverse effects to antique cars have been well documented.

    Just think, if the EPA had been around in the late 1800s early 1900s there would never have been an American automobile industry.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    albany NY
    Posts
    1,370

    Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    government thinks we are to dumb to own/use a real gas can.
    1966 Chrysler Newport 2dr ht, 383 Automatic
    1966 Ford Mustang coupe, 200 L6 Automatic
    1968 Chrysler 300, convertible, 440 automatic
    1970 Dodge Challenger R/T , 440 Automatic
    1973 Dodge Dart Swinger, 318 Automatic
    1974 Plymouth Cuda, 360 Automatic
    1991 Chrysler Lebaron, convertible, 3.0L automatic
    1994 Ford Taurus SHO., 3.2L Automatic
    2001 Ford Mustang GT Convertible, 4.6L atomatic
    2006 Ford Mustang Coupe, 4.0L Automatic
    1977 Buick Electra Limited,403 automatic

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Fairfield (Cincinnati), OH
    Posts
    8,190
    Images
    1

    Thumbs down Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    This is a request for comments regarding the temporary suspension of the quantity requirement for ethanol production this year due to an expected reduction in the corn harvest. They are looking for information relating to demands on the harvest, related costs (if any, and believe it or not that is debatable), and the ability of today's infant biofuels infrastructure to absorb/survive any production reduction (especially regarding job losses and restarting concerns).

    It is not an opportunity to re-argue the the whole global warming/carbon footprint debate. That debate ended years ago in all educated circles. If you want to have your words be discounted as a fringe extremist, by all means use this and every other vaguely related opportunity to attempt to assert your scientific judgement over that of the professional scientific community. There's nothing legislators like more than hearing from constituents whose concerns are simultaneously unreasonable and irrelevant.

    Like I recently noted on another thread, Dupont just this week gave up a very popular/profitable and historically important paint business to devote their company largely to the biofuels industry. If the 86th largest corporation on earth can risk its existence (and it's investors' future) on this science, then it is science. Anything else is wishful thinking.

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

    BTW 1, 5 gal. unvented gas cans have about a 1/2 gal. extra capacity for thermal expansion (at least all 4 of mine do, from 3 different manufacturers). Do not overfill.

    BTW 2, There isn't an aspect of this issue that hasn't been number-crunched to death*, including tree loss for paper production. The fact is the young trees planted to replace those harvested initially collect and process more CO2 than large/mature trees. ( Can growing trees for fuel actually cut down CO2 emissions? | The Charcoal Project )
    *Ditto for every imaginable "cost to the regulated community" impact. It's mandatory to include detailed projections for every proposed action the EPA does. But then again the cost of doing nothing in those analyses can't be zero when your job is not to ignore problems. For instance just how expensive would it be to live in a world without a reliable climate for planting crops?

    BTW 3, Mitigating carbon emissions will be the mission of the next few generations, taking decades. Anyone who doesn't appreciate that fact hasn't been paying attention, and probably isn't realistically aware of the problem in the first place. The highest concentration of CO2 the atmosphere can absorb and still provide a stable climate is believed by scientific consensus to be about 350 PPM. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations were about 275 PPM 150 years ago (and 80 million years ago), and presently they are 392 PPM and are still rising rapidly. ( 350 Science | 350.org ) Painful, almost draconian measures to reduce CO2 emissions to bring them down enough to maintain 350 PPM might make that happen by 2050 at the earliest. Weaker measures will take much longer, if they result in a reduced CO2 concentration at all. If you're looking for "tangibly-viable physical affects" in Climate Change, none of us are going to see them in our lifetimes (outside of the eyes of our grandchildren).
    Last edited by Dave@Moon; September 9th, 2012 at 11:45. Reason: Fixed awkward sentence
    "The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."--Issac Asimov

    "Whisper words of wisdom"--Paul McCartney

  10. #10

    Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    Dave, why not a "permanent" suspension of ethanol in gas intended for use in automotive, marine, and small internal combustion engines ? Would such an action be acceptable to the "fringe element" that constitutes the EPA ? Why is a request for a suspension needed ? Can't these bureaucrats use common sense and see that requiring corn in gas, especially when there is such a dire shortage, only serves to drive up gas AND food prices ? How can these people claim to be part of your "educated circles" group ?

    I may not be as good as NTX5467 in refuting your claims, but I stronly feel that the case for the ethanol mandates were made by a number of self serving biased people who had already decided what the results of their studies would be prior to doing their reports.

    Like many of your fellow ethanol advocates, I am sure that these comments will simply be shrugged off as coming from someone who is a charter member of your lowly fringe element group. Please remember that there are still a lot of us who don't subscribe to the "Washinton bureaucrats know everything" theory. If that is what you consider the fringe element circle, than I am happy to be part of it.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Skyking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    4,025
    Images
    70

    Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave@Moon View Post

    Like I recently noted on another thread, Dupont just this week gave up a very popular/profitable and historically important paint business to devote their company largely to the biofuels industry. If the 86th largest corporation on earth can risk its existence (and it's investors' future) on this science, then it is science. Anything else is wishful thinking.

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


    They for the most part are just jumping on the Ethanol bandwagon. It reminds me of how Toyota and Honda jumped on the tax incentives to build cars in this country. It worked for them!!! They are all in it to make money............most times at our expense.
    Bob
    1962 Buick Invicta Convertible
    1954 Metropolitan Convertible
    1957 Metropolitan Coupe
    1960 Metropolitan Coupe (Gold National Winner) 399 1/2 points out of 400
    2000 Buick Century
    2000 Dodge Ram 1500

    MOCNA/Yankee Mets

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Fairfield (Cincinnati), OH
    Posts
    8,190
    Images
    1

    Unhappy Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    Quote Originally Posted by A. Ballard 35R View Post
    Dave, why not a "permanent" suspension of ethanol in gas intended for use in automotive, marine, and small internal combustion engines ? Would such an action be acceptable to the "fringe element" that constitutes the EPA ? Why is a request for a suspension needed ? Can't these bureaucrats use common sense and see that requiring corn in gas, especially when there is such a dire shortage, only serves to drive up gas AND food prices ? How can these people claim to be part of your "educated circles" group ?

    I may not be as good as NTX5467 in refuting your claims, but I stronly feel that the case for the ethanol mandates were made by a number of self serving biased people who had already decided what the results of their studies would be prior to doing their reports.

    Like many of your fellow ethanol advocates, I am sure that these comments will simply be shrugged off as coming from someone who is a charter member of your lowly fringe element group. Please remember that there are still a lot of us who don't subscribe to the "Washinton bureaucrats know everything" theory. If that is what you consider the fringe element circle, than I am happy to be part of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyking View Post
    They for the most part are just jumping on the Ethanol bandwagon. It reminds me of how Toyota and Honda jumped on the tax incentives to build cars in this country. It worked for them!!! They are all in it to make money............most times at our expense.
    I've been responding to posts like these for years, citing hard facts on the degree of consensus in the scientific community and the number of unopposed respected institutions that back the conventional view of Climate Change with decades of scholarly research that virtually no other subject can match.

    No one cares. It's pointless to try any more. Anyone making these kinds of angry arguments lives in a set of facts that do not correlate to a place where real understanding can occur. There is nothing that can change or beat the lure of Denialism ( Denialism - RationalWiki ) . It will be a great day when our species learns the difference between that and real skepticism.
    Last edited by Dave@Moon; September 9th, 2012 at 17:51. Reason: split into 2 paragraphs
    "The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."--Issac Asimov

    "Whisper words of wisdom"--Paul McCartney

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    South Central Pa.
    Posts
    6,351

    Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    Consensus does not equal truth. More often than not one can predict the outcome of a "scientific" study simply by oting who provided the funding for that study. Scientists jumped on the Ethanol bandwagon because that's where the grant money is. Anyone who has been involved in higher education at the graduate school level or above, regardless their field, understands how grant applications are tailored to appeal to those providing the money. It's not that those scientists alter their data it's more than research proposals that seek to refute "consensus" aren't funded as well. The old adage "Follow the money" is more true in these times of limited research funding than ever before.
    1932 Packard 900 Conv Cpe
    1955 Jaguar XK-140 Drophead
    1948 Buick Woody
    1931 Model A Tudor
    :o All unrestored, shoemaker's kids, you know?

    Senior Master Judge 87 Credits

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Fairfield (Cincinnati), OH
    Posts
    8,190
    Images
    1

    Thumbs down Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    Quote Originally Posted by Restorer32 View Post
    The old adage "Follow the money" is more true in these times of limited research funding than ever before.

    Well, let's see. Let's say I'm 28 years old & can use my new PhD (hypothetically) to research science in the manner I love for the highest paying institute investigating Climate Change (NOAA), eventually (after decades of hard work) making it to the top as a GS-15 Senior Researcher position, or I can take my PhD (and all the ability it implies) to the local Wal-Mart and (after decades of hard work) make store manager. Guess what, both jobs pay almost exactly the same (to start and finish). There are about 15 Wal-Mart store managers in here Cincinnati, and there are maybe 10 NOAA Senior Researcher positions on earth. And at least working at Wal-Mart you're home in your own bed every night, not freezing your butt off drilling ice cores in Greenland 1/2 the year (living in a tent and eating out of cans). If you were doing this for the money, which career would you choose. ( OceanAge Careers | Goephysicist Bob Embley , Wal-Mart Salaries, Bonuses and Benefits. - Wal-Mart Jobs | Indeed.com )

    When people start telling you that scientists "do things for the money", you can bet they're doing what they do (manipulating you) for the money (and it's a LOT more money than anyone else gets in this stupid game).

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

    (The only reason I posted this is because I could cut and paste it out of another thread I posted elsewhere, and it's a slightly different tack than those already posted here. Just like pretending that the people making these observations about our globe are limited to government/EPA employees, and that whole corporations bet their fiscal lives on something akin to the political whims of the day, thinking that people are getting rich off of doing scientific research takes an absurd level of denial.

    The people who can be convinced of the real facts in this silly argument already have been. Additional material is wasted on others.

    The next step will be to find and link some semi-qualified "expert" contrary treatise as proof Climate Change is still an open question, as if every concept in science requires 100% adherence to convention to be a reality. It's all so predictable. ( Denialism - RationalWiki )

    And yes, I know not one mind has been changed by any of this. My hope is that these posts help to render the members of this hobby with some credibility when real issues come up that need to be addressed. If the more extreme environmentalist groups can accurately characterize us as irrelevant, when we really do need to have an impact to help our cars the impact won't be there.
    )
    "The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."--Issac Asimov

    "Whisper words of wisdom"--Paul McCartney

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    South Central Pa.
    Posts
    6,351

    Re: ethanol legislation citizen input requested

    I did not imply that scientists do anything for the money but they most certainly, especially in academic settings, depend on grants for their continued employment and rise up the ladder of success. How many grants do you suppose are awarded these days to PhD candidates looking to do research that MIGHT refute some of that consensus you speak so highly of ? Been there done that my friend, though in a quite different field. Why do you suppose you hear so much noise in the news every year from about now until Spring about new discoveries that might cure cancer, clean up the environment, or create a new technology that will make energy "too cheap to meter"? The answer is NSF and military grants are generally awarded in the Spring and what better way to secure one of those grants than to tie your research to global warming or a cure for cancer. Science, just like every other field is subject to fads and "group think". I'm not denying that global warming exists nor do I think we shouldn't do research aimed at cleaning up the environment but warnings that the sky is falling are premature at best. Remember, Chicken Little had a consensus as well.
    1932 Packard 900 Conv Cpe
    1955 Jaguar XK-140 Drophead
    1948 Buick Woody
    1931 Model A Tudor
    :o All unrestored, shoemaker's kids, you know?

    Senior Master Judge 87 Credits

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 1927 McLaughlin Buick Ad - Ottawa Citizen
    By imported_Thriller in forum Buick - General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 28th, 2008, 23:15
  2. AACA & Legislation
    By Terry Bond in forum Legislation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 4th, 2004, 20:42
  3. Legislation that may affect you.
    By Chuck Conrad in forum CCCA - General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 17th, 2002, 14:26

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •