Biden's EPA Shoots Itself in It's Climate-Crisis Foot
 |
Ethanol Boo-Birds Engage in Feeding Frenzy
 |
Author of THE ETHANOL PAPERS and YES, TIN IZZIE WAS AN ALCOHOLIC
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL
The latest anti-ethanol garbage comes to us direct from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and it's spreading faster than a PG&E or Maui electric-grid wildfire. The last time there was this much fuss over ethanol's supposed ineffectiveness in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) was when Tyler Lark and his band of misfits issued their bovine-manure attack in 2022. That report was so putrid that if you printed it out on paper it would not be fit to wrap decomposing fish! For those that may have missed (or forgotten) my rebuttals to Tyler Lark, et al., you can read them here:
• Faulty Outcomes From Faulty Environmental Reports
• SLAM! Shutting the File on the Tyler Lark Anti-Ethanol Study
• Argonne National Laboratory Certifies The Auto Channel's Position on Tyler Lark Anti-Ethanol Study
Coming back to the EPA report, the firestorm was ignited by a Draft Commentary dated August 21, 2023 (you can download it by CLICKING HERE).
The first funny part of the new EPA claim is that one of the resources cited for arriving at its erroneous conclusion is the rancid Tyler Lark, et al., report from last year. The second funny thing (but in a strange way), is that this EPA draft commentary does not include the Argonne National Laboratory 2022 report of just how smelly the Tyler Lark, et al., report was (and still is).
Among those entities fanning the flames and spreading the stench of the EPA Draft Commentary are Bloomberg, Reuters, and Yahoo News. They must all be delighted to do so since they all have published anti-ethanol items in the past. Writing the new anti-ethanol report for Yahoo is Jennifer A. Dloughy. Back in 2016, she penned an idiot editorial for Bloomberg News. That piece focused on a report that suggested the same fallacious conclusion that ethanol is not a safer, cleaner, healthier alternative to gasoline. I responded to Jennifer's idiot editorial at that time with my humorous, but factual, rebuttal:
The author of the new Reuters anti-ethanol is Leah Douglas. She must have been hoping that this story would redeem her for writing a piece of trash September 2022 that Reuters wound up rescinding several days later. Reuters said that story was based on:
"Flawed interpretation of data on ethanol-plant pollution and fuel-production capacity...led to inaccurate estimates of carbon emissions for individual ethanol plants named in the story." Read about this by CLICKING HERE.
 |
The reality is that if it could be successfully argued that there are “minimal or no climate benefits related to substituting corn ethanol for gasoline” it is because the entire issue of catastrophic man-made climate change is just hoax, which is something that I’ve contended since my very first “environmental” editorial that I wrote for the Orlando Sentinel in about 1973.
Since that time, particularly since The Auto Channel became seriously involved in issues related to alternative fuels, everything I’ve experienced and discovered lends credence to my initial commentary: Catastrophic man-made global cooling, and the subsequent alarm over catastrophic man-made global warming is a hoax.
This is not to say that there isn’t air pollution (in fact, terrible air pollution exists in many cities), but air pollution itself doesn’t mean the end of all human life the way that climate alarmists would like to believe.
Low-level smog is caused by petroleum-oil fuels, not by ethanol and not by E15. Why am I so sure? Here's what I wrote and published about a year and a half ago:
"Smog is not new. The blindingly dense infamous London fog was caused by smog from all the coal and wood fires used to heat, light, cook, and power the manufacturing plants of the Industrial Revolution. Smoke from the fires, plus the natural fog was linguistically combined to give us the word "smog." This type of smog is referred to as "Industrial Smog," and it began to be serious in the 1700s, almost 300 years ago. Industrial Smog was not, and is not caused by ethanol burning.
"In the early 1940s, a second type of smog, "Photochemical Smog," was given the nickname "LA Smog" because it had become so bad in Los Angeles, California. Photochemical Smog is primarily caused by emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel-powered internal combustion engines. The emissions create what is called low-level ozone. Photochemical Smog can occur anywhere where there is the right combination of low-level ozone and lots of sunshine. With so much attention being given to the "Tinseltown" glamour of Hollywood it was more fun to name it LA Smog rather than New York Smog or Chicago Smog.
"For the conditions of LA Smog to become common enough to be identified with the nickname LA SMOG, it means that the situation had to have already been present and noticed for an extended period of time. Cars and trucks didn't just suddenly appear in Los Angeles in the 1940s. According to Smithsonian Magazine, "L.A.’s population of about 600,000 at the start of the 1920s more than doubled during the decade. The city’s cars would see an even greater increase, from 161,846 cars registered in L.A. County in 1920 to 806,264 registered in 1930. In 1920 Los Angeles had about 170 gas stations. By 1930 there were over 1,500." From other sources, we know that by 1940 the number of automobiles in L.A. County was well over one million.
"The significance to all this is that ethanol fuel was not being used in any significant manner in internal combustion engines in America during the 1920s, nor 1930s, nor the 1940s, '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, or '90s.
"A 5.7% ethanol-gasoline blend (E5) began being used in California after 2003 when MTBE was banned from gasoline (poisonous MTBE was the oil industry's brilliant go-to suggestion to eliminate engine knock after tetraethyl lead was finally banned).
"Therefore, from the beginning of the Roaring 20s and the introduction of leaded gasoline that was needed to eliminate engine knock in the new high-compression automobile engines of the time, to an E5 blend after 2003, more than 80 years passed before ethanol was regularly added to gasoline. Yet in all those years of non-ethanol fuel use, the conditions of Photochemical Smog in Southern California became so terrible that it engendered a universally known nickname and it became the butt of endless late-night TV talk show jokes.
"The Renewable Fuel Standard wasn't enacted until 2005, and E10 wasn't put into regular use until about 2010. While society can, and has, laid blame for smog on gasoline and petroleum diesel fuel, ethanol was not the cause for smog - not Industrial Smog and not Photochemical Smog."
But, there are lots and lots of demented people in the world who work for the oil industry, or just choose to believe the lies about ethanol that were invented by the oil industry. Or it's that these 'dementos' chose to follow the failed doctrines of the political party that hates America and would have loved to see slavery continue in this country and the world.
If anyone is still convinced that ethanol is the cause of smog, all they have to do is watch any of a number of online videos that compare the burning of gasoline to the burning of ethanol. Here are a few of my favorites:
For those who don't want to believe these videos, they can conduct the tests themselves at home, they're very easy to do. If an ethanol-gasoline blend shows signs of unhealthy emissions, it is because there is gasoline in the blend, not because there is ethanol in the blend.
Petroleum oil fuels are poison, they cannot be produced to be un-poisonous. To be safe from petroleum oil fuels there must be the complete elimination of them. If there is anyone at the EPA who doesn’t understand this then they are either stupid or being bribed in some manner by the oil industry.
Regarding those people in the media who continue to write articles laying the blame for smog and pollution on ethanol, they must be demented or stupid or both.
If you'd like to understand my complete position on man-made climate change and why ethanol is the solution whether AGW exists or not, here are my two papers on the subject:
