Packard Forum Index » General

Though the news has been around for a few days, this from today's New York Times.

You can be sure the lobbying from farmers and the corn lobby will be fierce to maintain or even extend the 10%. Most all of us have complained bitterly about it so here's our chance to add our voices and those of hobby-related organizations to support the proposal. If it fails to win support and we weren't heard, we can lay some of the blame on ourselves. Write the EPA!!!

Attach file:

---

  (129.50 KB)

Can we have the rest of the article?

Can we have the rest of the article?

I'll see if I can retrieve it from the trash can. Also I'm sure it has been or will be in most major daily papers in the country, and there is NYTimes on-line. I expect I'll be commenting in writing to EPA but there may be some provision for comment via the website, I haven't visited it in a while. Still, well-written letters with good grammar and persuasive arguments probably have more impact.

PS - got it.

Attach file:

---

  (64.05 KB)

Link to the NY Times article:

nytimes.com/2013/11/16/us/for-first-time ... l-requirement-for-gas-mix.html?_r=0

I'm really surprised! Not enough interest in supporting the move to decrease the ethanol content of gasoline for comment?

Dave I penned down a half a page last night; posted it was re-reading it and decided to delete my rambling

I went to a Sunoco station and filled up on midgrade.

I got really crappy mileage.

The next time I filled up at Clark which has been proven to sell high quality gasoline.

My mileage went up considerably.

So I think the Sunoco station stuck me with E85 at a premium price.

Hello Owen:

I have been quiet not because I am disinterested in combating ethanol in our fuel, but rather I have been busy composing a letter to my U.S Senators and Representative.

You can read my letter below. If you want like to send a similar letter to congress and the EPA, then please feel free to use highlight the text, then hit the "COPY" button and "PASTE" onto an open WORD document.

By the way, the Associated Press filed an investigative report last week that may have pressured the EPA to do something. It is eye-opening. Click on their report here:
bigstory.ap.org/article/secret-dirty-cost-obamas-green-power-push-4



Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0747

Dear Senator/Congressman Numbnutz;

Over this past weekend I read several news articles, with great interest, regarding an EPA proposal to reduce the amount of ethanol required in gasoline.

I am in favor of the reduction of the use of ethanol diluted fuels for several, important reasons:

1. The auto industry in Michigan is just now starting to recover from a disastrous five years and E85 is NOT compatible with the auto engines and fuel systems as currently designed. Our automakers have said that their warranties will NOT cover any damage caused by using E15 fuel.

2. E15 is much more corrosive than E10, and even the EPA has deemed NOT suitable for:
a. Cars built before 2000
b. Heavy-duty trucks and vehicles
c. Motorcycles
d. Boat engines
e. Vehicles for off-road use - snowmobiles, quad-trackers, etc.

3. Former Vice President Al Gore now admits that ethanol is often counterproductive as a green energy source and that its subsidized uptake has fueled price increases and Third World food shortages.

4. Ethanol production has proven to be a huge strain on our water resources. And because more than one-third of our corn crop is now used for ethanol, corn prices have risen more than double, causing a parallel rise in the cost of food.

5. An investigative report, dated November 11, 2013 by the Associated Press shows that the ethanol has done irreparable damage to the environment. Millions of acres of conserved land have been transformed into corn fields needed for ethanol. Water supplies have been contaminated and animal habitats have been destroyed, all in the name of an untested green energy solution. Please read here:bigstory.ap.org/article/secret-dirty-cost-obamas-green-power-push-4

6. Service stations are not equipped to handle the more corrosive effects of E15 and must purchase new pumping and storage equipment for a product that will see little use.

This seriously flawed government mandate is an anachronism in 2013 that puts consumers and their cars at risk.

It is now time to show a little leadership.

When the EPA asks congress if they can reduce the ethanol RFS mandate by about 16.2% for 2014, then push them to do better. Tell the EPA that consumers are tired of the broken promises and that they do not want ANY ethanol diluting their gasoline.

Sincerely,
Sheldon Breezeway



Again, feel free to use it or edit it for your taste. Either way, we all need to get behind this as Owen-Dyneto said. Just add a post here when you send out your letter.

Roger, thanks for sharing your text and for the thought you put into it, this is exactly the kind of response I was hoping to see to my posting the news from EPA. I too am preparing several letters to my Congressmen and the EPA. I think your points are entirely those to be stressed, the EPA really couldn't care less about the antique car hobby, we're somewhere between trivial and insignificant - it's the issues you identify that should for the basis for our communications.

Many thanks.
Dave

Dave:

Glad to help.

Even the Sierra Club is now calling to stop subsidies and mandates for ethanol. They believe E15 is bad for consumers, bad for the environment, and bad for safety. The Club says ethanol production causes soil erosion, water pollution, depletion of water resources, and depletion of wildlife habitat.

Carl Pope, executive chairman of the Sierra Club and others have said, "... it's time to eliminate all energy subsidies in the tax code and let the best fuel win."

Some pundits have said that the only reason ethanol subsidies/mandates have gone this far is because Iowa has the first Presidential caucus and politicians have played into this. And guess which state has the second highest corn production in the USA - yep, Illinois.