News-Record.com

This ought to be good...........

I don't think any administration can be directly responsible for much, but our current ethanol/food costs problems can be easily attributed to one. And one person, at that. It looks like the editors probably trimmed it out (trying to get your LTE to fit the word restrictions, most likely), so I'll help out and post it here. I'm sure it was originally there, though. Wouldn't want an incomplete view, right?

From the NY Times, 1994:
"With a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Al Gore, the Senate upheld today an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring that ethanol and other renewable fuels get a share of the gasoline additives market."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E1D61231F937A3575BC0A962958260

"Our administration's goal is to triple the use of biomass technologies, ethanol, gasoline additives, plant-based textiles and other environmentally friendly products by 2010"
-Al Gore, 1999, Sustainable Energy Coalition, media backgrounder #2 Nov 18, 1999 (keep reading on the link and you'll see him admit to voting for "agricultural interests")
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Jobs.htm

Good LTE though. Sorry they edited out the all parts about the folks who mandated the laws, laid the foundation, and then celebrated as they hung the plaque. Your first three words are great, btw.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

Roger

My personal fave:

"President Bush: We must commence drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive Alaska.
Oil companies: Don’t worry — their supertankers are now double-hulled."

Yep, who has an oil tanker named after her??? You righties know, so I'll leave it at that.

Considering over 1/2 a trillion gallons of oil are moved each year in tankers their safety statistics are very good.

LC at this very moment is using a product made with oil shipped in a tanker.

Oh, forgot the ANWR comment. ANWR is an area the size of the state of South Carolina. The proposed drill field there would be no larger than a contiguous 2000 acre tract which is approximately 3 square miles.

Scaled down, that is comparable to a 7 acre drill field placed into Guilford County. 7 acres is about 1/2 the size of the Greensboro Coliseum complex.

hugh,

"The Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA, www.ptia.org) is a 3,700-acre campus"
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-526714/Smooth-operators-electro-hydraulics-at.html

So we'd be disturbing a site about half the size of PTI? If we stick with the Greensboro line of thought, won't wildlife in Raleigh suffer from such massive intrusion? Not to mention Asheville...

Or, for something more memorable, usage-wise, that's close to what John Edward's home and surrounding land occupies in Orange County, NC. I'd bet folks in Mebane can't get to sleep what with all the noise of the Edwards playing racquetball in their heated/cooled indoor court every night. Oh the humanity.

This is fun. Let's think of more. And I liked the coliseum example.

I don't think it's an ultimate solution (I'd much rather see people who complain about other people driving permanently give up their own cars and airplanes), but I really enjoy perspective.

Roger

John,

You spent your whole letter putting words in other people's mouths.

I bet you know what everyone is thinking all the time.

You should have your own cable TV show. It would be a hoot!

Bennett, imagine the paradise NC would be if there were no development in the entire state except for an isolated tract 1/2 the size of the PTI airport.

A few comments are in order about ANWR:

First, the ecology issue pertains more to the roads to the oil fields than the oil fields themselves.

Second, as it stands, ANWR is a strategic oil reserve that can't just be tapped quickly at a politician's whim to get gas prices down before the next election. That's not a bad thing to have in case there really is a devastating shortage.

Third, some gratitude is in order to the environmentalists for blocking the sale of ANWR drilling rights in recent years while oil prices were cheap. Think of how much higher a price taxpayers will get for drilling rights in the future as compared to then (assuming, of course, rights don't go to a Bush crony in a no-bid contract.) Had we capitulated to the hard right-wingers, we would have gotten pittance for the oil.

Great comments, Kornbluth.

Oil deposits are, obviously, finite. Easily accesible oil deposits are even more so. I think most would have to agree that true solutions would be one or both of the following: less consumption, viable alternatives.

Since accesable deposits are finite, I see little problem with using other's oil deposits first, and saving ours for when it is really needed. Maybe I'm kind of a jerk like that, though.

But I do believe that much of the talk of opening ANWR ammounts to political posturing.

I dislike paying high gas prices as much as the next fellow, but it does restrict useage, which isn't a bad thing at all. Hell, I've even taken to riding the bus to work on occasion, a tactic I haven't used since I lived in a major metropolitan area.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside when I do. Almost enough to make me forget the untold numbers of animals slaughtered yearly so I can revel in my glorious carnivorousness. Almost.

Just Some Dude & Kornbluth,

Great points! They shoot down the unadulterated 'CRAP' offered up by Hugh aka "Mr. Popular Mechanics".
Sheesh!
Roger and Hugh remind me of Laurel and Hardy! Every now and then Roger at least offers reputable links, but Hugh is still best known for admitting that he gets his political information from Popular Mechanics Magazine. 'Nuff said!

SOME MORE WORDS TO LIVE BY!

"We are the party of family values"
-----Newt Gingrich, Republican, GA

And just when you think there are no more GOP hypocrisy scandals, one just rears its ugly head!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-08-congressman-affair_N.htm

Say it isn't so!!!
Not another baby born out of wedlock to a drunk driving "Family Values Republican"!

NO! It can't be!

Not the party of "family values"!!!

Rush, Hannity, Bortz, Savage, Brit Hume, and Bill O'Reilly said the Democrats were the Godless ones!!

This can't be!!

: )

Roger:
I think you are mixing apples and oranges.

The “fuel oxygenate” issue (see
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/oxypanel/rec721.pdf ) ...
... is different than “alternative fuels” (see http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/ )

I'm stepping beyond myself .. advise if you see otherwise

Kornbluth – “ .. blocking the sale of ANWR drilling rights in recent years while oil prices were cheap. Think of how much higher a price taxpayers will get for drilling rights in the future as compared to then … "

A freakin' men ..

.. you think oil is expensive now? Wait a couple decades … meanwhile hang on to your personal stash .. smoke the other guy’s reefer.

I knew it wouldn't last. Demon Deacon went about 12 hours, well maybe not that much, and actually stayed somewhat on topic without insults.

Alas, I was right. The LTE subject is energy, gas, oil. Instead of any lucid comment or argument even REMOTELY related to the subject, we get an insult directed to Roger and Hugh. As a predictable bonus we get a link about an eeeeevvviiiiillll Republican politician who fathered a child out of wedlock. Whoop de do.

Oh, oh wait, wait, wait.......there IS a link Demon Deacon....you are absolved!! Fossella serves on the House Committee on ENERGY and Commerce!!

***************************************************

I finally retired the SUV to family trips only, it was getting too expensive to use as a business vehicle. Last week I bought a small car, great decision. It went on it's first road trip today and got 38.5 mpg on the interstate. Just doing my part to save the planet :)

Dan,
Congrats on doing your part.
I never got off topic:
SOME MORE WORDS TO LIVE BY!

"We are the party of family values"
-----Newt Gingrich, Republican, GA

note that is the headline of this letter and I just gave you another one!

Just doing my part for America....NOT the GOP.

Kornbluth,

How many square miles of roads are we talking about? More than what runs around Yosemite National Park?
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&q=yosemite+par k&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&cd=3&ll=37.840157,-119.542236&spn=3.019172,7.338867&z=8 &iwloc=addr&layer=c

Or Saguaro National Park?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Saguaro+National+Park&sll =37.840157,-119.542236&sspn=3.019172,7.338867&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=32.170963 ,-110.618591&spn=0.809054,1.834717&z=10&iwloc=addr

Or Niagara Falls?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Niagara+Falls&layer=c&ie= UTF8&ll=43.07711,-79.07526&spn=0.698159,1.834717&z=10

Or Cape Hatteras?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cape+hatteras&sll=35.0333 7,-75.966339&sspn=0.391317,0.917358&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=35.259077,-75.52225 1&spn=0.097558,0.22934&z=13&iwloc=addr

Or the Blue Ridge Parkway?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=blue+ridge+parkway&sll=35 .259077,-75.522251&sspn=0.097558,0.22934&ie=UTF8&mrt=kmlkmz&layer=c&ll=36. 141895,-81.752701&spn=0.096484,0.22934&z=13

Oh, wait. That last one IS a road.

ANWR isn't a good solution for high gas prices (high gas prices are their own best solution - they'll work the same way the foreclosure "crisis" does and get people out of things they can't afford to begin with. Maybe we'll get a candidate calling for a six-month moratorium on all SUV repossessions soon), but I'm not following the "roads" argument. I looked at Leahy's website when it came up on an ANWR+roads+ecosystem google:
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/environment/anwr.html

It's great. The same folks who are supposed to have oversight on how environmentally safe road (and other) construction is, stamping permits and approving quarrying sites and practices, will sometimes come right out and subtly admit that they can't control any of it and don't have the slightest idea what they are doing. They're lawyers, after all. All they know how to do is influence and be influenced. And you should let them write more laws.

Or cast more tie-breaking votes.

But I don't get the roads argument. Do we expect airbrushed T-shirt shops and places to buy ANWR shot glasses and sombreros to suddenly fill an underserved niche?

"My congressman tapped the strategic oil reserves and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."

--

J.D.R.,

From what I can tell it only depends on who is giving the lecture. Or campaign speech. I might agree if you said it was like comparing Red Delicious and Golden Delicious apples, but, unlike throwing an orange in there, it's mostly just words separating the two. Specifically the part where ethanol as an oxygenate is a low-percentage blend, but any blend above a certain percentage qualifies as an alternative fuel. "Qualifies." Not "is." E10 = oxygenated, while E85 = alternative fuel, but both are considered blends of gas, not actual types of fuel.

I know you know, but for readers who might not- E85 is 85% ethanol/15% gasoline. The 15% of gasoline in a gallon of E85 isn't considered the additive, but the 85% of ethanol in the same gallon is. Even though there's five and a half times more ethanol in the gallon, it can be considered the lesser of the two. The additive. The line between additive and blend is invisible and depends solely on context. And Gore was a tie-breaker ensuring a 30% non-market driven mandate for blends, ringing Pandora's doorbell and asking, absent-mindedly, if she had any boxes laying around.

Notice in the second link Gore's comma - "...triple the use of... ethanol, gasoline additives... by 2010."

I'll give links because I think you're one of the unusual ones who might actually read them. They're not NPR, but I'd say they're fairly reputable. And really short:

Low-level blends, up to E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline), are classified as "substantially similar" to gasoline by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency... E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) qualifies as an alternative fuel under EPAct.
(There's that "qualifies" bit)
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/blends.html

Intermediate ethanol blends have an ethanol content greater than 10% and less than 85%. Commonly considered blends include E15 (15% ethanol, 85% gasoline) and E20 (20% ethanol, 80% gasoline).
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/blends_e15_e20.html

EPAct Alternative Fuels:
Blends of 85% or more of alcohol with gasoline (note "blends")
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/epact/about/epact_fuels.html

Put everything in the context of the Clean Cities Initiative as an umbrella to accomplish the goals of the Clean Air Act and EPAct and there you are.

One last link from the EPA:
"WASHINGTON, March 20, 2000 -- EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner and Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman today announced actions by the Clinton-Gore Administration to significantly reduce or eliminate use of the fuel additive MTBE and boost the use of safe alternatives like ethanol. The Clinton-Gore Administration is taking these actions in order to protect drinking water, preserve clean-air benefits, and promote greater production and use of renewable fuels like ethanol."

Read that last sentence again. And this one from further down:

"First, the Clinton/Gore Administration is providing Congress with a legislative framework, which, if fully adopted, will significantly reduce or eliminate MTBE while preserving clean-air benefits by ensuring the use and growth of ethanol and other safe renewables in fuels."

Ensuring the growth of...

Only one person was a tie-breaker.

Roger

... yea but ethanol was then an Oxidizer .. an additive in the fuel assuring 2% O2 to promote cleanier burning, less pollution ... the primary additive Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) was clearly bad thing ... and that's what the ADDITIVE they were substituting with ethanol .. "...triple the use of... ethanol, gasoline ADDITIVES ... by 2010" ... is a completely different situation than the "BLENDS " that substitute ethanol for gasoline.

Again .. we're saying the same thing .. but I maintain these clearly separate issues are being muddied ... don't join the lemmings, please!

... and you are guilty as a lemming by repeating:

"Read that last sentence again. And this one from further down:

"First, the Clinton/Gore Administration is providing Congress with a legislative framework, which, if fully adopted, will significantly reduce or eliminate MTBE while preserving clean-air benefits by ensuring the use and growth of ethanol and other safe renewables in fuels."

Ensuring the growth of...

Only one person was a tie-breaker."

==

Roger is a lemming, Roger is a lemming.

But I like ya anyway. Thanks.

Hey - wasn't Roger Lemming a famous baseballplayer? That you? .. wait .. that's Roger CLEMMONS. You don't take steriods, do you?

James, great points--as usual. Revealing of how far some will "frame" the debate just to get the big oil companies some more "cheap" oil.

J.D.R.,

Heck, I don't even eat enough vegetables.

I see your stance, and, if we base it on timing, the part you accuse me of lemming-ing was said three years after Gore's full-bloom success resulting from the mandate requiring some MTBE to be replaced by ethanol. 30% of the market share, by law, already in place, up and running by 1996.

So why would Gore need to speak about increasing its use in 1999, specifically mentioning tripling its use by 2010? (hint- look down a bit to Executive Orders 12844 and 13149)

...ethanol (comma, as a separate entity from the next word), gasoline additives...

doesn't mean eg. It means we'll increase, by 2010, ethanol use. And, new noun, gasoline additives. The administration's executive order was in the works, and the downhill slope was being greased with corn oil as we watched.

Although, as was evidenced this morning, it could just be a poorly structured phrase that, contrary to successful mandates, speeches, proclamations, pending executive orders, and general pats on the back, somehow lends itself to misunderstanding. I've read and re-read and kept up ever since the corn-based ethanol mess started, but reference my "I don't think it's an ultimate solution" and "ANWR isn't a good solution for high gas prices" statements earlier. Perhaps, like what prompted the useless post and poison that came from me saying I don't think it's a good idea, I'm just not bright enough to read, pay attention, and understand something in context. But hopefully my reading comprehension skills haven't reached troll level yet.

And there's the problem of Executive Order 13149 of April 21, 2000:

"Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency"

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486), section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-388), it is hereby ordered as follows..."
http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13149.html

"Greening the government" through alternative fuel vehicles.

EPAct is pretty interesting.

As is HR 776, from 1992, passed into law and prompting EPAct:
SEC. 2024. BIOFUELS USER FACILITY.
(a) The Secretary shall establish a biofuels user facility to expedite industry adoption of biofuels technologies, including production of alcohol fuels from biomass."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102hqEfRg:e937172

That's from 1992, and they're looking to "expedite industry adoption"

Clinton's Executive Order 12844 from April of 1993:
"Federal action can provide a significant market impetus for the development and manufacture of alternative fueled vehicles, and for the expansion of the fueling infrastructure necessary to support large numbers of privately owned alternative fueled vehicles."
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12844.pdf

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/about/fleet_requirements.html
"In fiscal year (FY) 2000 and beyond, 75% of light-duty vehicle (LDV) acquisitions in covered fleets must be AFVs."

There is no innocent party. But we had at least one guy proudly stand and discuss moving our nation into this corn-based ethanol fiasco. I'm glad he stood up for what he believed in. He was, too.

So much so that he even mentioned it in a speech in 1998:
"I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in the Congress -- at one point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save it. The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be."
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/speeches/farmj.html

Again, read the last sentence. I'm not putting any words in his mouth or imagining any false actions. They had a plan. If providing links to government websites with dated energy plans, votes, and speeches that intelligent people can read and research is "framing" a debate then I apologize for my lack of understanding the rules and will try harder to throw out insults. All of this is documented, with laws passed and plans laid out.

Shame he won't talk about it much these days. But yeah, it was probably all coincidental. Like Dwayne Andreas' contributions, er, investments. Know who he is? Interesting fellow. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E4DC1139F935A25752C0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

And maybe I'll just start calling anyone who I disagree with names. Maybe throw out "racist" here and there. But I don't think it would suit me any better than it does you.

Roger