Posted on 01/29/2004 12:39:28 PM PST by ambrose
Feinstein Asks EPA to Waive Rule on Fuel The agency may drop some gasoline additive regulations in New Hampshire; the same is sought for California.
By Elizabeth Douglass, Times Staff Writer
Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Wednesday called for the Environmental Protection Agency to waive some federal gasoline rules for California after the EPA proposed dropping certain pollution restrictions for gas sold in New Hampshire.
The EPA last week proposed that fuel producers in New Hampshire could make reformulated gasoline without adding in an "oxygenate," such as ethanol or MTBE, as required under the federal Clean Air Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
During the last Democratic debate, John Kerry said that the producers of MTBE should be held responsible and punished for the negative effects of the chemical on the environment. I'm not real familiar with the history of this additive. Any idea why Kerry thinks the MTBE manufacturers should be held responsible when it is the EPA who is mandating its addition to gasoline?
This whole MTBE business makes me sick. I remember back in the early 90's when reformulated gasoline was being forced on Dallas. The Dallas Morning News had information in it every day about the hazards of MTBE. Didn't make a difference, Eco freaks claimed the industry was crying wolf and pushed it anyway.
Even so, why does that make the manufacturers liable, if it's the EPA who forced its use? Did the manufacturers lobby the EPA for the mandate, saying MTBE was a cure-all? Or did the bulk of the MTBE problems occur prior to the EPA mandate?
The industry tried to point out the problems before hand and they were accused of "crying wolf". The eco lobby pushed the EPA to mandate MTBE. Now the Eco lobby will push to punish the fuel industry for contamination. Isn't political power without responsibility wonderful?
The manufacturers and the EPA defrauded the public because that is what environmental regulation largely is: the use of government regulation to make a secure and ill-gotten buck. EPA knew as early as 1981 that MTBE was a threat to groundwater. When ADM first proposed ethanol as an oxygenate, the oil companies (primarily ARCO Chemical (now Lyondell), largely owned by the British royal family) brough forward MTBE in order to keep market share. The oil and gas legal racketeering arm, the Natural Resources Defense Council was the only NGO present at the EPA hearings, at which a former (and later to be) NRDC attorney (and now Arnold confidante) Mary Nichols figured prominently. The Schwarzenegger administration is even more rife with these creeps than was Davis.
MTBE was a criminal scam from the start. We shouldn't be talking liability, we should be talking jail time.
Did the manufacturers lobby the EPA for the mandate, saying MTBE was a cure-all?
Yes indeed.
Or did the bulk of the MTBE problems occur prior to the EPA mandate?
No. The oil companies have admitted under oath that it was their idea. Interestingly, they also demanded and received indemnification for liability associated with oxygenates in the amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1991, signed by our "Environmental President" George Herbert Walker Bush. Why would they make such a demand if they knew it was safe?
For more information on this history, read this post.
The manufacturers and the EPA defrauded the public because that is what environmental regulation largely is: the use of government regulation to make a secure and ill-gotten buck. EPA knew as early as 1981 that MTBE was a threat to groundwater. When ADM first proposed ethanol as an oxygenate, the oil companies (primarily ARCO Chemical (now Lyondell), largely owned by the British royal family) brough forward MTBE in order to keep market share. The oil and gas legal racketeering arm, the Natural Resources Defense Council was the only NGO present at the EPA hearings, at which a former (and later to be) NRDC attorney (and now Arnold confidante) Mary Nichols figured prominently. The Schwarzenegger administration is even more rife with these creeps than was Davis.
MTBE was a criminal scam from the start. We shouldn't be talking liability, we should be talking jail time.
Did the manufacturers lobby the EPA for the mandate, saying MTBE was a cure-all?
Yes indeed.
Or did the bulk of the MTBE problems occur prior to the EPA mandate?
No. The oil companies have admitted under oath that it was their idea. Interestingly, they also demanded and received indemnification for liability associated with oxygenates in the amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1991, signed by our "Environmental President" George Herbert Walker Bush. Why would they make such a demand if they knew it was safe?
For more information on this history, read this post.
You are totally wrong. See Post 26 and the reference link.
ADM is a buch of crooks. They are trying to force everyone in the country to have to use ethanol mixed into their gasoline. Ethanol is rather expensive. Yes anyone with a knowledge of organic chemistry and hydro-geology could explain why MTBE would be a problem if it got into ground water.
You should read my previous post #8. The regulation requiring the use of oxygenates was unnecessary. I oppose inflexible rule based enviromental regulations on principle. Regulators are more interested in compliance with rules than actually reducing pollution. Instead of requiring expensive oxygenates added to fuel to reduce unburned hydrocarbons primarily from old cars, it would have been cheaper to create incentives to get old cars off the road. That's why Senator Feinstein wants to waive the rule for California. Even if oxygenates are required, I oppose the government telling me it has to be ethanol (which is expensive has lots of environmental costs associated with its manufacture, and was mandated for purely pork barrel political reasons). I also oppose the government reneging on previous commitments. The government specifically exempted refining companies from liability so the government should be liable.
The state of Maine paid for the installation of public water to my home, and about 20 others, in the wake of a gasoline spill that resulted in MTBE contamination. The government accepted the mantle of liability in my case.
Duh. That doesn't mean that the oil companies had MTBE forced on them by the EPA.
I oppose inflexible rule based enviromental regulations on principle.
So do I. More important, I did something about it.
Regulators are more interested in compliance with rules than actually reducing pollution.
It's more complex than that. Go read that post.
Instead of requiring expensive oxygenates added to fuel to reduce unburned hydrocarbons primarily from old cars, it would have been cheaper to create incentives to get old cars off the road. That's why Senator Feinstein wants to waive the rule for California.
Given that Feinstein is a total crook, but occasionally makes an objective environmental call, it's hard to divine her motives.
Even if oxygenates are required, I oppose the government telling me it has to be ethanol (which is expensive has lots of environmental costs associated with its manufacture, and was mandated for purely pork barrel political reasons).
Given that they are unnecessary, why should they be required? Stick with that and don't go to the latter.
I also oppose the government reneging on previous commitments. The government specifically exempted refining companies from liability so the government should be liable.
That is more complex. I suggest you read that post.
FRom the Merc News
First, Feinstein, and now Arnold
Governor asks feds to waive gas additive requirement
Chuck Carroll
Mercury News
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked the Bush administration to waive a gasoline additive requirement that California officials believes will cause a huge and wasteful increase in prices at the pump while impeding the state's air pollution efforts.
Under current federal law aimed at curbing smog, the state must add an ``oxygenate'' to gasoline. But in 1999, California banned the oxygenate methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or MTBE, because it was polluting drinking ground water across the state. The primary additive besides MTBE available to meet the federal requirement is ethanol, which is made from corn.
Corn Belt states, where ethanol is primarily made, have lobbied hard against California's attempt to get the Clinton and Bush administrations to grant it a waiver.
Billions of dollars are at stake, pitting California consumers against Midwest agribusiness.
Schwarzenegger's appeal to federal Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael O. Levitt, expressed in a letter sent Wednesday, puts the Republican governor in a fight started under Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.
Gasoline with MTBE can no longer be sold in California after March and has already stopped being produced here.
Some oil industry analysts expect prices to start climbing very soon as long as the federal additive requirement remains in force.
I do believe there are several proposals for ethanol plants around Calif...
Beijing plans to put corn in the tank
I probably shouldn't post this one but.. hic ;-}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.