The Auto Channel
The Largest Independent Automotive Research Resource
The Largest Independent Automotive Research Resource
Official Website of the New Car Buyer

Response to THE CASE FOR CLIMATE ACTION


PHOTO (select to view enlarged photo)


A Plan from a "select committee of Senate Democrats" - Isn't that an oxymoron?

By Marc J. Rauch
Author of THE ETHANOL PAPERS
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL


A few days ago, on August 25th, a group calling itself Senate Democrats' Special Committee on Climate Crisis issued a report titled "THE CASE FOR CLIMATE ACTION - Building A Way To A Clean Economy For The American People."

PHOTO (select to view enlarged photo)
Marc Rauch
The plan is a subterfuge to keep the status quo while attempting to make it look as if the Democrats (or any single political party) has a legitimate understanding of the issues as well as a solution to real and imagined problems. This fantasy proposal relies on assumptions that are either untrue, will never become true, or that don't take into account the detrimental impact that such a plan will have on the economy.

Firstly, the plan supposes that catastrophic man-made climate change is real. In actuality, there is no proof that the climate is changing in any un-natural existential manner. There is no proof that any daily, weekly, monthly, or annual shifts are catastrophic beyond the level of catastrophe caused by any extreme commonplace storm or condition that Earth hasn't already experienced countless times over millions of years. The information that is touted by climate alarmists today is no different than the baseless predictions made by alarmists numerous times over the past century, and indeed over all recorded history. There is merely conjecture based upon the presumption (or misguided hope by nihilist misanthropes) that human development must result in deadly consequences.


Moreover, there is no proof (regardless of if and why the climate is changing) that humans can stop the change and mitigate any effects caused by such change. Again, there is merely conjecture (and maybe some misguided hope) that increased use of solar cells, wind turbines and electric vehicles can bring about desired mitigation. While I like and believe that solar power and wind turbines can play a part in providing energy, they can only do so as supplemental energy sources and not primary ones. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural, life giving gas. Making CO2 into a villain is an absurdity. Without it life on Earth would not be possible, just as life without oxygen (O) would be impossible. One of the largest contributors to the production of CO2 is from the normal breathing process of all living creatures. Humans will never be able to eliminate breathing, nor will we be able to eliminate wild fires, volcanic activity, and animal flatulence - creating 'natural' pollutants that will always present challenges.

The production of electric vehicles and the production of the electricity needed to operate them brings about an entire set of conditions that exacerbate, not alleviate, the problems caused by abiotic fuels (petroleum oil and coal fuels).


On top of this, the actual state of technology is such that reliance upon electric vehicles is much too premature. It is likely that total conversion to electric vehicles will take the better part of a century, if not more, to complete. Until that time the poisoning caused by petroleum oil fuels will continue. When the time finally comes that it can be claimed that 50% or more of all new vehicles sold are electric, it will still not be a time to celebrate because it means that a significant portions of new vehicles sold globally (tens of millions) will still be powered by internal combustion engines. And during this time, much of the existing vehicles in operation will still be powered by internal combustion engines using deadly gasoline and diesel fuel.

The realities of pollution from the use of petroleum oil fuels are horrendous, without the fictional specter of Anthropogenic (human-originating) Global Warming. And the horrendous realities of this pollution should have already been enough to bring about the total elimination of these fuels. If, on the other hand, catastrophic man-made climate change is real, then immediate all-encompassing action must be taken to stop the continuation of abiotic fuel poisoning. Waiting 25 years or 50 years or 100 years is not an option. If the authors and supporters of the plan offered by "Senate Democrats' Special Committee on Climate Crisis" are serious (or seriously believe their own BS) then they must opt for an immediate solution to mitigate the affects.

The only solution is to mandate world wide use of safe alcohol-based fuels. All internal combustion engines can and should be powered by such fuels, and the fuel shouldn't be a blend of gasoline and alcohol, it should be nearly-pure alcohol with a small amount of a cold-start additive. This can be accomplished virtually overnight with little or no cost. All new internal combustion engines should be built to optimize the use of alcohol fuels. This can be done with little or no increase to the cost to build engines. But the plan that's proposed by the "Select Committee" doesn't do this. Their plan relies on daydreams. Their plan doesn't even sincerely acknowledge the potential of ethanol/alcohol fuels, which is how I know that the authors and sponsors aren't serious and they don't know what they're talking about.

Their plan ignorantly incorporates the current circumstances brought about by the Covid-19 virus and they've co-opted some of the terminology to make the plan seem oh-so-cool and timely. The Covid-19 virus is an irrelevant consideration: Respiratory illnesses and other health risks related to petroleum oil fuels, tetraethyl lead, and coal didn't suddenly appear with the invention of this virus; and the risks won't be removed when and if Covid-19 is eradicated. People living in crowded urban environments didn't suddenly become susceptible to dirty air, water, and ubiquitous germ-infested decomposing matter - it's a millennia old problem. Therefore, it's a waste of time and money to incorporate Covid-19 into this discussion, except if the "Select Committee" wants to obfuscate contemporary life in Democrat controlled large cities.


Likewise, the plan's heightened concern for native and tribal communities is just a grandstanding pretentious extraneous consideration. It shows the short-sightedness of the plan's authors and sponsors, and it reveals the ridiculous lengths they will go to sell it. Either ALL PEOPLES' LIVES MATTER, or no lives matter. It's as if this plan originated with a strange pre-teen little girl from Scandinavia...and in many respects it probably did

The Democrats and the Republicans, and any members of other political parties, should have stopped gasoline and petroleum diesel more than 100 years ago. The poison unleashed by the use of tetraethyl lead starting in the 1920's did not end with the banning of much of its use. The lead remains on the ground, in the air, and it gets into the bodies of every new person from the moment they are conceived. The specific effects of lead poisoning are damage to the respiratory system and to brain functions. What's more, leaded gasoline is still in use around the world. Even if the "Select Committee's" plan for "A Clean Economy For The American People" had some bite and beneficial effects, the U.S. is just one of almost 200 countries in the world.

Some ethanol spokespeople have cheered the publication of this report as if it hails some breakthrough in the acceptance of ethanol fuel. It doesn't; it's a giant step backwards, subordinating ethanol to energy concepts that are (as I've stated above) third or fourth rate solutions. The entire narrative text of the "Select Committee" plan runs about 200 pages. By my count, the word "ethanol" is used only 6 times (if I missed one or two or five occasions I apologize on behalf of the word-find feature in my MS Word program). If the average page in this report contained only 300 words, that means there are 60,000 words in the report. So the word "ethanol" occupies only one hundredth of one percent (.001%) of the words in the report. By comparison, the word "electric" ("electricity") is used dozens and dozens of times (I stopped counting after 100). To paraphrase and update an old adage, this plan is thousands of days late and billions of dollars short in supporting the one viable solution (ethanol) to lowering pollution, health risks, energy dependency, and AGW climate change - if it truly exists.

The only thing this plan will do to ethanol fuel is to keep putting it on the back burner. In the relative blink of an eye, we will be decades down the road from where we are now, still talking about the promise of electric cars and the elimination of petroleum oil fuels (and all their poison) while still allowing ignorant politicians and media talking heads to misrepresent the qualities and benefits of ethanol.

The first step is to educate the public while banning the use of all petroleum oil fuels. All engine fuels should be produced from true non-crude oil/coal renewable sources. Solar and wind power will be part of the overall energy equation, as supplemental sources of energy. If future technology turns solar cells and wind turbines into super energy producers, great, we'll put them to greater use when that day comes.

The following editorials and essays elaborate on the information and points I've presented in the above paragraphs:

Debunking the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming

What Coronavirus Teaches Us About Climate Change

Climate Change Alarmism is No Friend to Ethanol

Tough Times Require Tough Resolute Action

PLANET OF THE HUMANS - A Film Review

Ethanol is the SAVIOR of the Oil Industry, Convenience Store Industry, Automotive Supply Chain Industry and Much More!

Electric Vehicles Solution or Diversion?