True, in fact it is more polluting than gas without it.
And of course gov wants to destroy old cars so poor people won't be able to drive.
The want us all to live in heavily densly populated areas one on top of the other and use busses and bicycles instead of cars.
Cruz is pandering to Iowa to get votes. For shame.
And he wants to EXPAND the use of that useless substance.
Years ago in Calif we got MTBE banned, gas additive that poisned the water supply.
Canada sued the USA through the NAFTA thingie because we were buying MTBE from them.
Took YEARS after it was banned to get them to stop using it.
BTTT.
He wants to remove artificial supports AND artificial restrictions on the industry, and then let the market take control. If the market is demanding more ethanol, Cruz is in favor of that - but the market should not be forced to use ethanol. I know this may be a strange concept for some Trump supporters, but it is called letting the free market decide...
Of course, his critics are now saying that Cruz is pandering, that he’s gone soft, even flip flopped on ethanol in order to get the Iowa vote. But this is simply not the case.
Once again, Amanda Carpenter steps in to explain that Cruz’s support for a 5-year phase out is simply nothing new:
“I just listened to the Cruz audio. He said what he’s always said. RFS should be a 5 year phase out. It’s what his legislation said in 2014”
Even liberal reporter Dave Weigel is flummoxed by those alleging that Cruz is flip-flopping
“Don’t understand the “Cruz flip flopped on RFS” charge. He’s always been for a 5 year phase out. If he takes office in 2017, that ends 2022. It honestly feels like a pressure group trolled Cruz and asked reporters who don’t cover ethanol (uh, hi) to fall for it.”