Fuel Economy Rules are a Hoax/ Ethanol Harms the Environment

Dave Boyer at the Washington Times reports:

The Trump administration moved Thursday to freeze fuel economy standards, saying that suspending higher Obama-era mileage requirements will give drivers access to “more affordable” vehicles and boost the economy.

The Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency proposed the change as the first step in setting new mileage standards for auto model years 2021 through 2026. The plan would freeze Obama-era requirements that are set to take effect after 2020. The Obama administration had set a 54-mile per gallon standard by 2025, up from the current average of 38 mpg.

Good for the Trump administration. These fuel mileage standards are more ‘green’ nonsense. First, all Americans, including wealthy liberals who donate heavily to ‘green’ causes, can automatically get better fuel mileage by buying lighter and smaller cars that already exist today. But they don’t. Such cars do not appeal to them, or to most Americans.

In fact you may have noticed a classic paradox: Wealthy environmentalists, like those in Hollywood, use more fuel than any other Americans – they drive bigger cars, they travel more miles, they use private jets more often, and they live in bigger houses that need more heating and air conditioning, etc. Al Gore’s Tennessee mansion consumes 30 times as much electricity as the average American home. Gore uses private jets often and he travels frequently.

Gore also owns a massive $9 million beachfront mansion in California that he purchased just a few years after warning us that the sea levels were going to rise up 17 feet and swallow coastal cities.

What a phony, just like all environmentalists are phonies.

The fake ‘green’ Hollywood actor Leonardo Di Caprio flits around his his private jet like he is going to the store for a loaf of bread. Here is the British Independent website reporting:

Oscar-winner Leonardo DiCaprio flew an additional 8,000 miles from France to New York and back to accept an award on climate change.

The actor suffered a massive blow on his carbon footprint when he took one jet from the Cannes Film Festival to New York City to attend the green awards ceremony, before hopping on board a second jet for a fund-raising event back in Cannes the following evening.

It is important to remember that transportation accounts for just 27% of US energy consumption. This includes all transportation forms – airplanes for both passengers and cargo; freight railroads; trucks; buses; passenger trains and commuter trains; barges; boats; pickup trucks, cars and motorcycles, etc.

Therefore these federal fuel standards for cars address only a tiny amount of our national energy consumption.

It gets much worse since the issue is moot anyway. Here is a little-known fact that most Americans don’t know: Fuel-efficient cars don’t save fuel; such cars actually lead to increased overall fuel consumption since owners generally drive a fuel-efficient car more miles, canceling out the energy savings from the more efficient engine.

This is a statistical fact and we all have witnessed it personally in ourselves or in friends, i.e., a car gets great mileage so the driver will take that long trip that he wouldn’t take before. If the government really wanted to reduce fuel consumption it should mandate that cars get 2 miles to the gallon, not 54.

Small cars are also less safe and they lead to more deaths and injuries, which ‘greenies’ don’t care a whit about. They also offer less space for passengers, tools, luggage, etc. and are tiring to ride in over long distances.

Meanwhile environmentalists promote other policies that increase transportation inefficiency and energy consumption. For instance electric cars are extremely inefficient. Nikitas3.com calculates that electric cars consume 2 to 10 times as much energy as gasoline-powered vehicles to cover the same distance.

This happens since electricity is the most highly ‘refined’ energy resource and it is a law of physics that “it consumes energy to refine energy”. Electric car batteries are also extremely heavy and can lose half of their energy in frigid weather. Thus valuable electricity should not be squandered on inefficient cars.

‘Greenies’ also vocally promote another grossly inefficient form of transportation – passenger trains – which generally use more or much more energy per passenger than buses, cars or airplanes. Passenger trains are very heavy and require a lot of fuel along with big taxpayer subsidies.

Flying is vastly more fuel-efficient than a passenger train since airplanes are much lighter than trains. An empty Boeing 737 (60 tons) weighs 8% as much as an average empty Amtrak train yet they often carry the same number of passengers. Airliners also travel 10 to 20 times faster than trains.

A Boeing 747 is actually more fuel-efficient per passenger than a Toyota Prius. Here is the analysis of the 747 fuel efficiency from a website called science.howstuffworks.com:

A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing’s Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).

This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let’s call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour…

And if the 747 is fully loaded its efficiency increases by 14%. These are the types of facts that environmentalists are desperate to keep from us so that they themselves appear to have all of the answers. Meanwhile the Toyota Prius needs a big taxpayer subsidy while getting 48 miles per gallon at 45 miles per hour with a go-kart engine and the world’s worst handling. Big deal. Try driving your Prius from New York to London.

Nikitas3.com has calculated that one single 30-mile stretch of commuter passenger railroad in New York state wastes 185 million ton-miles of energy every single year since it moves an 800-ton train on 13 round trips a day with few passengers except at the morning and evening rush hours. Every empty seat represents wasted energy.

So-called “hybrid cars” are another crazy idea from the ‘greenies’. Hybrid cars are much more expensive than non-hybrids and they need big taxpayer subsidies to survive in the marketplace. They are more complex and expensive to maintain. They may save fuel, but they only save small amounts of fuel at very high cost.

A Toyota Prius hybrid may get 48 miles to the gallon but it is a small car with awful handling that is dangerous in a crash. Meanwhile the much bigger, more comfortable and safer Toyota Camry can get up to 40 miles to the gallon without all the hybrid nonsense and with no subsidy needed.

These hybrid systems also need big batteries and the manufacture of batteries is notoriously bad for the environment.

The Washington Times reports about the Trump administration’s action to repeal high auto fuel-mileage standards:

Myron Ebell, director of Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, called the action “good news for consumers.”

“It means that the federal government will have slightly less control over the kinds of cars and trucks people can buy,” he said. “It might even cause car prices to stop increasing so rapidly. Even better news is the decision to take California out of the driver’s seat for setting CAFE standards for the entire country. Letting one state make decisions for people in other states makes a bad program even worse, especially since the state is California, which has been pursuing an anti-car agenda for decades.”

Tea Party Patriots President Jenny Beth Martin praised the administration’s move, saying the free market should determine what types of cars are available.

This is very important. Environmentalists claim that ‘green’ issues are the only one that we should be concerned about. That is because ‘green’ issues enrich and empower environmentalists.

But there are other more important issues to think about like the freedom to choose the cars we want to buy and the types of cars that we really need. And the safety and comfort of bigger cars.

Meanwhile the Trump administration wants to stop radical California from setting fuel standards for the rest of the nation. Good. California is a crazy place full of ‘green’ hypocrites like Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio.

EPA: Ethanol Harms the Environment

Nikitas3.com has said for years that virtually all of modern-day environmentalism is a fraud. For instance, ugly windmills destroy the natural environment while producing very small amounts of expensive energy, and only intermittently when the wind is blowing.

Nikitas3.com has said for years that ethanol (alcohol) fuel is also a massive fraud. Ethanol is made by distilling corn into alcohol, like making whiskey from corn mash. That ethanol is then blended with gasoline and sold nationwide. 17.1 billion gallons of ethanol were consumed in the US in 2017. It is produced at huge distilleries in the Midwest.

While ‘greenies’ claim that ethanol increases our fuel supply “naturally”, Nikitas3.com believes that it does the opposite, that the production of ethanol actually consumes more energy than it produces, or at best breaks even.

In other words the energy content in the alcohol fuel that is distilled from 100 acres of corn is less or the same than the amount of energy needed to plow the field, plant the corn, irrigate the corn, apply herbicides and pesticides (both petroleum-based), harvest the corn, transport the corn to the distillery and then operate the distillery to make the fuel.

So then why would ‘greenies’ support ethanol?

Answer: Because it is really a government-funded program that increases environmentalists’ economic and political power.

An article called EPA Released a Long-Delayed Report Showing Ethanol Hurt the Environment recently was reviewed by Jason Hopkins on The Daily Caller:

An extensive report from the Environmental Protection Agency found that including ethanol into the U.S. gas supply is wreaking havoc on the atmosphere and soil.

In a study titled “Biofuels and the Environment: The Second Triennial Report to Congress,” the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that ethanol derived from corn and soybeans is causing serious harm to the environment. Water, soil and air quality were all found to be adversely affected by biofuel mandates.

“Evidence since enactment of [the Energy Independence and Security Act] suggests an increase in acreage planted with soybeans and corn, with strong indications from observed changes in land use that some of this increase is a consequence of increased biofuel production,” read a portion of the 159-page report. Other findings from the study show: More ethanol from corn has resulted in greater nitrogen oxide emissions, greater demand for biofuel feedstock has contributed to harmful algae blooms, and increased irrigation has placed greater stress on water sources.

Essentially, the study found that biofuel mandates are boosting production of corn and soybeans. Large-scale production of these crops is causing environmental degradation. The EPA also found that — at least in some instances — using ethanol in lieu of gasoline resulted in worse air emissions.

The mandate in reference concerns the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a 2005 law that requires oil refineries include a certain amount of ethanol in their fuel mix. The law was passed with the intention of aiding in climate change efforts. The RFS has proven to be controversial, with oil producers deriding the mandate as costly and unneeded. Corn growers, however, support the mandate as it drives demand for the product.

During his time leading the EPA, Scott Pruitt became an adversary of ethanol proponents after granting more RFS waivers and pushing for a rollback of the law altogether. It’s not immediately clear how the Trump administration will handle the RFS debate moving forward. Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has suggested he will continue seeking changes to the mandate…

Notice that it says, “The law was passed with the intention of aiding in climate change efforts.” This is the usual baloney, i.e., ethanol is supposed to save the world.

In fact the law was passed in order to give environmentalists another group of voters to buy off with taxpayer subsidy dollars – Midwestern corn farmers, who are normally pretty conservative.

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.