Gasoline Whores Engage in Catfight to Try and Keep Ethanol Off The U.S. Market
Meanwhile, Edmunds' CEO proves, once again, his lack of understanding of any issue of substance
By Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/ Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL
For the second time in just a few weeks a Washington, DC-based orifice for the petroleum oil and gasoline industry has gotten themselves into a hissy fit trying to badger the EPA into stalling on giving an okay to mandating 15% ethanol in regular gasolines.
The group, which calls itself “FollowTheScience.com,” should really be called “Follow The Money – the Gasoline Industry’s Money.” They are purveyors of lies, distortions and gross misconceptions. They continue to claim that ethanol could harm engines and that it is untested. UNTESTED! Ethanol has been used as an engine fuel for more than 100 years in America and around the world, and had been the fuel of choice by virtually every leading automotive engineer and car designer. You couldn’t find a more tested and proven engine fuel if you had Aladdin’s Lamp and TEN wishes.
Incidentally, the only reason why gasoline became the primary engine fuel in the 1920’s is because General Motors realized they could earn billions in profits from their patented leaded gasoline innovations. These profits would be earned regardless of what brand of vehicles consumers purchased, and it eliminated any serious desire to make engines more fuel efficient.
Ethanol does not harm engines, it cleans them. Racing teams use high level alcohol fuel because it delivers better performance. And nearly every vehicle built since the early 1990’s can use varying blends of ethanol/gasoline up to e85 without problem. Oh wait, that’s not entirely true, there is a problem - for OPEC and gasoline companies who would stand to lose some of their obscenely gluttonous profits if Obama would ever get off his ass and do anything he promised to try and make America energy independent. But if that’s a problem, then it’s a problem that we must have now.
If ethanol was unsafe or if its use damages engines we would hear of tens of thousands of negative stories from Brazil, where ethanol has been widely used for many years. We would hear tens of thousands of negative stories about ethanol from Europe, Asia, and other parts of South America. If ethanol fuel created problems, Volvo, the car manufacturer long considered to make the safest vehicles in the world, would not be building their cars to run on ethanol; and Bentley Motors, the makers of one of the finest and most expensive car brands would not now be marketing their cars as flex-fuel vehicles. Additionally, it appears that the Volvo vehicles built in Scandinavia and sold in the United States are the exact same cars that are sold in Sweden – the only difference is that Volvo markets them in Sweden as being flex-fuel, but doesn’t say a word about their flex-fuel capability for the same cars they sell here.
On February 3rd of this year, Obama’s Energy Policy team staged an amazing major press conference in which they revealed that after extensive study that ethanol was safer and more environmentally friendly than had been thought. The government’s representatives included EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. The Auto Channel recorded the entire press conference and you can hear it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZWhfb5LTQU.
But even more amazing is that even though this rather game-changing announcement was made in February, the Federal Administration has continued to stall on mandating an increase in the amount of ethanol that must be added to all gasolines.
Two days ago I published a story on how much money could be saved by any consumer by using e85 in place of regular gasolines. Right now, today, regular gasoline users can save about 20% on every gallon of e85 they purchase. Premium gasoline users can save even more, around 30%. This story can be found by CLICKING HERE. These are significant savings, which when calculated on an annual national basis would result in the savings for consumers of about $250 billion in actual out-of-pocket expenses. Add to this the amount of American dollars that would not wind up in the pockets of foreign dictators and terrorists, the number of jobs that would be created domestically, and the societal benefits we all receive from less gasoline pollution.
Meanwhile, Edmunds.com released a story yesterday in which they say that their company CEO, Jeremy Anwyl, wrote a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, wherein he first asks that the EPA allow consumers the option to choose to use a higher gasoline/ethanol blend than e10, but then states that he doesn’t think that the EPA should advance the mandated standards for pretty much the same empty reasons cited by the clowns at FollowTheScience.com. He would like to see the decision put off until next year (which is already far too late). Then, Mr. Anwyl dances back to say that if e15 was to be approved this year that it should be done by using a separate grade of fuel. Of course, he doesn’t address the cost issues of changing out existing pumps to accommodate an additional fuel, not to mention the ill-effects that such an apathetic government commitment to improving our economy and environment would have on consumer action. The whole point of needing a government mandate is to ensure that we get on the road to energy independence. This seems to me to be the rather classic Jeremy Anwyl dumb thinking that I’ve previously written about. He appears completely clueless.
We at The Auto Channel urge you, our audience, to make some noise and do the patriotic thing: support getting rid of gasoline. Call, write, scream, and find out how you can best use your vote to make something happen. If you need more information about ethanol we invite you to peruse the many, many stories and videos that we have on the subject.