Ethanol is controversial enough, but when you add the fact that the Obama Administration failed to implement the follow up studies, every three years to see whether adding the ethanol to gas has effected the air and water quality, the issue deepens.
Given the ongoing debates on the subject, up to and including arguments between the presidential candidates all through the primary battles of both parties for two straight election cycles it’s rather amazing that the EPA could simply blow this off. The topic has made it into the platform committee discussions for both parties and it engulfs a variety of questions ranging from environmental impact to government mandates. There have been hearings held on the hill and endless scholarly papers penned on both sides of the debate.
Ethanol is hardly without controversy. On the production side it’s been repeatedly shown that it uses up to 300% more water than anyone expected. Vast amounts of land were converted to corn fields in the rush to cash in on the government mandate, causing all manner of environmental havoc. And the resulting fuel has been problematic at best. Consumer Reports has been warning for years that ethanol blends can destroy small engines and boat motors. In fact, this mandate has spawned an entire new industry which produces additives specifically designed to remove the ethanol which the government insists must be added to our gasoline. (There’s an unexpected government stimulus program for you.)
How did the EPA not do the mandated study? How can they get away with ignoring the law? The EPA claims it is too expensive and the window of time is not long enough to have good results. Isn’t the overall expense to the economy and environment even more important? If this law needed modifying, shouldn’t the EPA have sought out Congress to have the legislation amended to meet actual and workable standards?
The Obama administration has failed to study as legally required the impact of requiring ethanol in gasoline and ensuring that new regulations intended to address one problem do not actually make other problems worse, the Environmental Protection Agency inspector general said Thursday.
This is not surprising that the administration that turned a blind eye to Hillary’s server and a multitude of many other things, would also drop the proverbial ball on this ethanol study.
Source: HotAir
EPA should be abolished, they are just allowing our destruction
Not to get all political and$#%&!@* they shut down the lead plant in Missouri, now we buy it from China, they sucked the oil out of Dakota and left bad water, also Colorado and California, reopened the uranium mines in Colorado and polluted it there, sold out the country to the Iranian government, shipped more jobs to cheap labor countries and took away work here. Bringing in refugees to take the jobs that are left, gave druggies free medical and food…..
And I promised to not get political on this Facebook anymore…I guess I have been taking lessons from the government…. I lied.
I did research paper on this topic 5 years ago for my an envruonmental studies class. Based upon the research at that time it cost more to produce (ethanol from corn) and significantly lowered gas mileage, in addition to being bad for engines. My opinion based on my own research from punished materials at that time if I can avoid buying it I do. In I cannot avoid I only buy gas with additives to counter act the damage. (Chevron, Texaco, 76) in addition my mechanic also recommended (independently) the same.
Here’s a more in-depth article covering this… http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/ethanol-higher-emissions-or-lower/
After doing my OWN research I just would like to point out two things:- 1. Yes, the EPA missed their last report deadline of 2014 but did issue a report in 2011. 2. If you read the OIG report yourself (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/_epaoig_20160818-16-p-0275.pdf) here is the link. You will see that studying air quality is INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED that a mandatory “three year” report deadline to Congress is a bit simplistic if you want to gather meaningful data and have a meaningful analysis.
We could fuel the planet with the biofuel that comes from the Obama Administration BS.