Is the war on fossil fuels detrimental?
A recent headline reads “Manufacturer: EPA against all fossil fuels, not just coal.”
This is true, but the article suggests to me that Mr. Drevna has forgotten history or hopes that we have, and that we don’t know what other countries are doing with ethanol.
In 1973, President Nixon mandated that starting in January 1983, all leaded gasoline will be phased out. Nixon gave engine manufacturers 10 years to re-tool their factories.
This was due to the EPA belief that the lead from gasoline was making its way into our water and food supply. We now know this to be true, but we also know that there are other causes as well.
Forget the fact that if we demanded that the U.S. convert to 100 percent ethanol, what Mr. Drevna is not telling us is that West Virginia, eight other states, and the U.S. government wouldn’t be able to collect any gas taxes from 100 percent ethanol, or from hydrogen for that matter.
The oil companies are reduced to refining only motor oil, grease, tar, and asphalt. Oh, wait a minute; we already have synthetic oil and grease, oops.
To boost his nuclear power agenda, in December 1981 President Reagan cut the funding for federal mine inspectors, starting the war on coal.
Is the war on fossil fuels detrimental to national security? Absolutely not, the U.S. military will always have all of the fossil fuel it needs. Any jet engine can be modified to operate on ethanol, propane, butane, methane, or hydrogen. Diesel engines were originally designed to run on vegetable oil.
The high spike in food prices in 2008 was due entirely to the high cost of oil which caused shipping prices to rise.
Brazil has already mandated that all engines sold in Brazil are to be able to operate on 100 percent ethanol.
General Motors Chevrolet Division already makes a car with an engine that runs on 100 percent ethanol, but is sold only in Brazil.
I just want you to remember the facts, Mr. Drevna.