So, ethanol is identified as having higher emissions than petroleum products.......where have we heard that before we spent billions subsidizing this folly?
To: Erik Latranyi
But rather than recognize that we are being scammed, people will jump on board the swindle du jour
2 posted on
04/24/2009 6:38:31 AM PDT by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: Erik Latranyi
A clash of two con artists; The California legislature and ethanol producers.
They’ve both had more than enough taxpayer money.
3 posted on
04/24/2009 6:39:04 AM PDT by
SJSAMPLE
To: Erik Latranyi
Bwahahaha! Now even lib whacko California is admitting ethanol is crap. It was never about the environment folks, it was always about the money and the ethanol pushers have been exposed.

4 posted on
04/24/2009 6:40:20 AM PDT by
icwhatudo
To: Erik Latranyi
IIRC in the total picture Ethanol in materials growth, or production of materials consumed plus the manufacturing process, as well the burning of the product in our engines out pollutes standard fuels is what I have read.
This potential was all cited during the debates prior to subsidizing Ethanol IIRC.
5 posted on
04/24/2009 6:41:37 AM PDT by
rockinqsranch
(Dems, Libs, Socialists...Call 'em What you Will, They ALL have Fairies Living In Their Trees.)
To: Erik Latranyi
which will require the states mix of fuels to be 10 percent lower in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Is this in any way possible to meet or is it engineeringly unfeasable?
7 posted on
04/24/2009 6:55:32 AM PDT by
sr4402
To: Erik Latranyi
I recommend that California water down its fuels with - water. I’d say about 10% watered down by 2020 should do the trick. This will definitely produce fuels with 10% less carbon output, probably a whole lot less, actually.
Water is a very beneficial substance (so far at any rate), being natural, renewable, and plentiful.
I’d suggest that the introduction be done very slowly so that the current generation of carbon-burning power plants and engines have a chance to get use to the full 10% amount. By 2020, with a full 10% dilution, Californians will have tremendous reason to rejoice from the low amount of carbon emanating from their engines and power plants.
In short, I could go on and on about the virtues of water as a fuel additive for California, but I think that most right-thinking people will agree with me that this is the fuel additive most suited for California.
9 posted on
04/24/2009 7:08:54 AM PDT by
catnipman
(Cat Nipman: Made from The Right Stuff)
To: Erik Latranyi
The drive to force the market toward greater use of alternative fuels will be a boon to the states economy and public health it reduces air pollution, creates new jobs and continues Californias leadership in the fight against global warming, said the California boards chairman, Mary D. Nichols, in a statement. It's hard to fathom that these idiots actually believe their own blather.
10 posted on
04/24/2009 7:24:48 AM PDT by
VeniVidiVici
(Sprechen sie Austrian?)
To: Erik Latranyi
Perhaps if businesses such as Big Oil and Big Ethanol stopped selling their products in California, there would be a quick recalibration of attitudes by the scumbag politicians. Let ‘em walk!
14 posted on
04/24/2009 9:01:51 AM PDT by
TexasRepublic
(I am inconsolate over the death of our country.)
To: Erik Latranyi; FrPR; enough_idiocy; Desdemona; rdl6989; Little Bill; IrishCatholic; Normandy; ...
15 posted on
04/24/2009 11:38:59 AM PDT by
steelyourfaith
("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -Lady Thatcher)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson