>> Ethanol is the evil one.
There’s nothing at all evil about ethanol, per se.
But there’s something quite evil about taxpayer-subsidized ethanol — and there’s something patently evil about FORCING ethanol down everyone’s gas tank through the charade of global warming prevention. It’s rather hypocritical for one who claims to be conservative to pretend otherwise.
>> This isn’t about science and facts though, it’s about religious type beliefs.
I disagree, FRiend. It’s every bit about science. The science that says that hygroscopic ethanol destroys engines. The physics that dictates that the energy density of ethanol is significantly lower than gasoline. The bogus “climate science” that drives the ethanol mandate through false claims of global warming. The political calculus that leads politicians in farm states — even supposedly conservative ones — to favor an ethanol mandate for the sole reason that its subsidies line their farmers’ pockets.
And so on.
Simple question for you: yes or no — do you favor a mandate that requires a certain percentage of ethanol in gasoline?
Put another way — are you willing to remove ALL government subsidies and ethanol mandates, and allow ethanol to stand or fall on its own merits?
If not — WHY not?
The discussion had nothing to do with the efficasy of the ethinol itself.
I’m opposed to the mandate, and always have been.
As to the nonsense you and others spout about ethanol destroying engines, nearly every gasoline engine used in the United States today runs on gasoline containing ethanol.
It may destroy the gaskets and seals in some older engines, but only a fool would use rebuild kits which aren’t resistant to the effects of ethanol.
Need I say more? I probably do, but let me know before I bore everyone else.