So 100 years from now...etc.
OK. I see what he seems to be saying. If we keep up this ethanol nonsense for x number of years we will have ruined billions of automobiles. I like to use hyperbole when debating issues as appropriate, but I think this is not a proper argument in this case. It is also the straight-line fallacy regarding trends.
Why stop at 100 years? Let’s push it out to a full millennium. “By the time we enter the next millennium, 100 trillion automobiles will be ruined by ethanol.”
There are good arguments for ending this ethanol policy, but this seems like a weak one to me.