EPA Increases Amount of Renewable Fuel To Be Blended Into Gasoline (arstechnica.com) 351
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Last week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final renewable fuel standards for 2017, requiring that fuel suppliers blend an additional 1.2 billion gallons of renewable fuel into U.S. gas and diesel from 2016 levels. The rule breaks down the requirements to include quotas for cellulosic biofuels, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and traditional renewable fuel. Reuters points out that the aggressive new biofuel standards will create a dilemma for an incoming Trump administration, given that his campaign courted both the gas and corn industries. While the EPA under the Obama administration has continually increased so-called renewable fuel standards (RFS), the standards were first adopted by a majority-Republican Congress in 2005 and then bolstered in 2007 with a requirement to incorporate 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel into the fuel supply by 2022, barring "a determination that implementation of the program is causing severe economic or environmental harm," as the EPA writes. Some biofuels are controversial not just for oil and gas suppliers but for some wildlife advocates as well. Collin O'Mara, CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, said in a statement that the corn ethanol industry that most stands to benefit from the EPA's expansion of the renewable fuel standards "is responsible for the destruction of millions of acres of wildlife habitat and degradation of water quality." Still, the EPA contends that biofuels made from corn and other regenerating plants offer reductions in overall fuel emissions, if the processes used to make and transport the fuels are included. "Advanced biofuels" will offer "50 percent lifecycle carbon emissions reductions," and their share of the new standards will grow by 700 million gallons in 2017 from 2016 requirements, the EPA says. Cellulosic biofuel will be increased by 81 million gallons and biomass-based diesel will be increased by 100 million gallons. "Non-advanced or 'conventional' renewable fuel" will be increased to 19.28 billion gallons from 18.11 billion gallons in 2016. Conventional renewable fuel "typically refers to ethanol derived from corn starch and must meet a 20 percent lifecycle GHG [greenhouse gas] reduction threshold," according to EPA guidelines. Other kinds of renewable fuels include sugarcane-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol derived from the stalks, leaves, and cobs leftover from a corn harvest, and compressed natural gas gleaned from wastewater facilities.
And everyone's fuel mileage goes down. (Score:5, Insightful)
A bigger percentage of less energy-dense material per unit volume means more volume gets burned to create the same amount of energy. Add to that the amount of energy needed to create the ethanol, and does this actually make any difference whatsoever? Could it possibly actually make more total overall emissions?
Re:And everyone's fuel mileage goes down. (Score:5, Insightful)
The total amount of fossil fuels needed to produce one gallon of ethanol is (counting everything, like fertiliser, cultivation, water provision, ...) is quite close indeed to one gallon. Increasing the amount of renewables without specifying total efficiency is simply and purely a subsidy giveaway to farmers and with only negative consequences to the environment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] - chinese paper.
Re:And everyone's fuel mileage goes down. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If that part of the mandate is true and enforced (including all "externalities") then it forces no ethanol to be used as none of it meets that target when costs of production as listed by queazocotal are included.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And everyone's fuel mileage goes down. (Score:5, Insightful)
To understand the politics of ethanol, you only need to answer two questions.
1. Which state benefits the most from corn subsidies?
2. Which state holds the first presidential caucuses?
This explains everything.
Re: (Score:2)
This guy gets it.
Re: (Score:3)
"The total amount of fossil fuels needed to produce one gallon of ethanol is (counting everything, like fertiliser, cultivation, water provision, ...) is quite close indeed to one gallon"
Energy balance is 1.3 for corn ethanol specifically. Sugarcane ethanol, OTOH, is at 8 which is comparable to new oil discoveries.
Re: And everyone's fuel mileage goes down. (Score:2)
That's pretty interesting. I assume you meant 0.8 in your post above.
Isn't there still a massive import tariff on sugar cane, mostly to make corn ethanol and corn syrup more competitive in the "free" market?
Sounds like Congress is fucking the dog yet again...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we stop saying "farmers". Yes these are crops, grown on land, but these industries have as much in common with farmers as Apple has in common with George's BBQ in that both are businesses. Jim Bob growing 40 acres of cranberries is a far cry from Megaconglomerate Inc growing 40,000 acres of them. And just like with Apple and George, Jim Bob ain't getting shit for a subsidy while M Inc is getting billions.
Its just another corporate subsidy aka businesses that don't need more money being given money while
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the link? It says corn-based fuel ethanol.
It certainly isn't the case for all ethanol. Brazil was using ethanol back when they neither had oil nor the money to pay for it.
Re:And everyone's fuel mileage goes down. (Score:5, Funny)
Stop looking at the big picture, it messes with the black and white that makes up the world.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ethanol The Engine Mutilator!
It's What Cars Crave!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
.... and food prices go up if the ethanol supply is coming from a crop (e.g. corn, soybeans, sugar cane, etc.).
Re:And everyone's fuel mileage goes down. (Score:5, Informative)
The bored bureaucrats at the EPA need to feel useful.
Ethanol subsides are not something dreamed up by the EPA.
They are mandated by Congress.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are mandated by Congress...
... in response to lobbying by...
Re:And everyone's fuel mileage goes down. (Score:5, Interesting)
... in response to lobbying by...
Corn subsidies are not a result of lobbying, they are a result of electoral politics. They primarily benefit sparsely populated red states which have disproportionate power in the Senate. No red state senator can possibly get elected by supporting a free market for farm products. Blue state senators are happy to cave in, because it doesn't really cost all that much, and they can horse-trade the subsidies by tacking them on as an amendment to other bills. Also, corn subsidies benefit some blue states too, such as Illinois.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And everyone's fuel mileage goes down. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can thank the agriculture lobby for this. (Score:5, Interesting)
and when their ethanol (Score:3)
Do you still call something a dilemma.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the choice between any two options, Trump will invariably choose the one that generates more revenue. Like *absolutely* invariantly.... he might as well be a computer program with a single if statement and a loop.
Re: (Score:2)
He'll pick the option that generates short-term revenue. The costs in the medium and long term of basically allowing all emissions to run amuck with little in the way of federal regulations will be astronomical, but I guess for a 70 year old guy worth billions of dollars, who the fuck cares? His kids will never want for anything, so they can buy fresh spring water and move to nicer climes, so basically selling the future off in return for short term gains probably is a great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that the universe doesn't give a flying fuck about your political beliefs, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly we have too much land and too few starving (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me see if I understand the sheer genius of this move: we're going to be legislated into reducing millions of acres of food crops while millions the world over are starving, reduce those millions of food acres to fuel additives and then burn them to increase greenhouse gasses. Brilliant!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the stuff that should be plowed back in or allowed to decompose in place in to become next year's fertilizer?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. The incoming president will make sure we have plenty of fertilizer.
Bzzzt! Wrong direction! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ethanol costs more gasoline to make than energy it produces. It decays small engines and breaks things like weedwhackers. It lowers your gas milage. There is no positives at all in ethanol in our gasoline. It should have been banned a long time ago.
Dear EPA.... (Score:5, Informative)
Force gas station to post in HUGE LETTERS the percentage and warnings against using it in cars older than 2003. 15% and higher will cause hell in older cars with shitty ECM's
Re: (Score:2)
I just this weekend saw my first 15% pump - it clearly had a warning that you should only use it in 2002 & later vehicles. It was only $1.49 a gallon, so I can see it would tempt some people to give it a try voluntarily.
BTW, ethanol washes away oil (Score:2)
No dilemma for Trump (Score:2)
Reuters points out that the aggressive new biofuel standards will create a dilemma for an incoming Trump administration, given that his campaign courted both the gas and corn industries.
There's no dilemma. Corn prices already dropped [nasdaq.com] because the subsidies dried up. He can reverse the the standards as easily as Obama set them.
Biofuels are the stupidest idea ever (Score:2)
They're not energy efficient, they're expensive (when you count the subsidies), they lead to excessive levels of pesticide, and amount to nothing more than a stealth subsidy of agriculture.
Brilliant policy, should do more.
Cheaper solution: all electric (Score:2)
A far cheaper solution which helps the economy transition from 17th Century fuels like gasoline, ethanol, and benzene is to just buy a plug-in electric car.
Ranges tend to go up to 300 miles.
They work everywhere.
Maintenance is half that of fossil fuel old grandpa cars.
Energy cost for an all electric car is either zero (if you put some solar panels or wind turbines on your roof and have any 2000 or more recent building, which in most cities has to be wired and built to handle these by zoning codes) or 1/10th
How about offering a choice? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason burning food for fuel is a thing is because Iowa and other farm states ensure they vote early and often in primaries, so those for sale pander as hard as their pandering asses can pander to these 2-3 states. The rest of the country gets the shaft.
Hopefully Trump will break this. I'm hoping the bull in the china shop will break more bad stuff than good stuff.
FAIL (Score:2)
OMG, they are just determined to destroy as many engines as possible, aren't they? Ethanol has been such an utter failure it is unreal. And yes, I had a motorcycle engine pretty much destroyed due to ethanol. And my current one has constant issues with the gas cap corroding due to ethanol. It attracts water, it gives LOWER miles per gallon, it costs more, it eats up the fuel system in many vehicles, it currently pushes up food prices, actually doesn't reduce dependence on fossil fuels (fertilizer and pr
I, for one, don't want this s@$t in my gasoline. (Score:2)
Why are these people further polluting my gasoline with this crap? Today's cars are designed for 10% ethanol in the gasoline. What's going to happen when they keep polluting the fuel? Broken seals? Broken fuel pumps? Outright degradation of the metals used in the engine?
Fuck congress. Electing Trump was throwing an (figurative) (ethanol-polluted) Molotov Cocktail at the white house, now Congress must be cleansed as well.
Anything I can do with my 96 beater? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bond interest is already somewhat up this year
While for personal reasons I am all for higher bond rates, higher bond rates due to concerns over the country's credit rating are not a good thing. It's better if the rates are high because private bond interest rates are also high and providing competition.
Anyway, any work done to reduce the country's carbon footprint will be undone by Trump simply because he sets so many pairs of his own pants on fire.
Re:At least Trump may actually do some good (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of middle-class people will see their taxes increase. I am looking forward to the squealing of the Trump voters as they realize that they are paying for the ultra-wealthy to get a tax cut.
Re: (Score:3)
Many of these people have been happily voting in Republicans for years, if not decades, thus being party to their incomes being redirected to the wealthiest, so how could they meaningfully object now?
Re:At least Trump may actually do some good (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would they complain about money being redirected to the wealthy? They're going to be among them when the man stops holding them down.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. I mean, really, they all suck.
Re:At least Trump may actually do some good (Score:4, Insightful)
You strike me as the kind of person who probably believes the Articles of Confederation where a better constitution than the US Constitution.
But yes, completely destroying the Federal Government and allowing polluters and emitters free reign will just be such a boon to America. Yeah, lots of people will die from environmental poisoning, and climate change will increase its pace, costing everyone huge amounts of money in everything from higher food costs to much higher insurance premiums, but all that really counts is that your ideology wins some sort of weird hypothetical political war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, roman_mir is a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair there definitely was one good point, getting rid of the privatised Federal Reserve where those who fund government get government to borrow make believe money from them, literally completely imaginary make believe money and the government has to pay it back with actual real tax payer debt money. Now that should be fraud, not legalised theft by the 1% from the 99%, really is stupendously disgusting stuff and those ass hats have been killing people to keep it the corruption going.
Getting rid of t
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the parent's post?
Roman_mir isn't merely debating how the Government should go about its business, or what it should or shouldn't do as per environmental or energy policy. He's basically arguing that he wants eliminating pretty much everything gov
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your reading of my comment, I would prefer if the government could actually stick to the Constitution and only do the very little bit that it allows the government to do. AFAIC there shouldn't be a Federal reserve bank, which is a political ploy to monetise Treasury debt. There shouldn't be any form of business regulations, any form of government involvement in labour, business, health care, insurance, education, energy, transportation, communications.
What I see as a *legitimate* role of go
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At least Trump may actually do some good (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet the Constitution does afford the Federal government very wide powers. The IRS and the NSA aren't inherently unconstitutional agencies, even if they have been used in a fashion that many may interpret as unconstitutional. The Federal government has been doing things in ways seen as overreaching, if not outright unconstitutional since nearly the beginning (see the Alien and Sedition Acts). For chrissake, the Slave States seceded from the Union on the argument that Lincoln's election was going to lead to a massive violation of States Rights, and we all know who won that particularly argument, and, I'd argue, paved the way for the modern United States of America.
The Framers never intended that the Federal government be an impotent wart on the testicles that were the States. Quite the opposite, they had seen how an impotent Federal government in the form of the Articles of Confederation was inherently unstable and could have lead to the US flying apart, so they created a constitution that, while recognizing that internally the States did have considerable rights to oversee their own affairs, did not enjoy the sort of absolutist rights "purists" (by which I mean modern revisionists with little interest in anything the Founding FAthers may have intended) seem to believe. The Interstate Commerce Clause grants the Federal government vast powers over everything that crosses state lines (as you will note things like pollution do).
Further, if you read why the Articles of Confederation were such a failure, it was precisely because the Federal government had no power to tax, and relied upon the states, who became notorious rather quickly for not paying up, and it lead to serious currency issues. Then factor in that the idea of a central bank was first proposed by Alexander Hamilton, and the Bank Bill was passed in 1780 for the precise purposes of creating a Federally-controlled national bank to create stability.
What I'm guessing here is you know very little of the history of the UNited States, but have bought into a revisionist view as to what the Framers of the constitution and the earliest iterations of the Federal Government did to actually build a nation capable of not only sustaining itself, but enlarging its territorial and economic powers many times over. The US wouldn't exist as you recognized it if the Federal government didn't possess rather significant powers, including the powers of taxation, of having a central bank, and of being able to monitor and deal with enemies foreign and domestic.
None of that is to say that the Federal government always does right, or that citizens shouldn't demand it abide by the principles laid out in the Constitution. But the Framers were wise enough to create a series of checks and balances. They may not always work, or at least not work perfectly, but the US has endured civil and global wars with its system of government, to become the wealthiest and most powerful polity that has ever existed.
Wealth had nothing to do with constituton (Score:3)
Both those factors are what led to the US enormous wealth. Other countries, neither had those opportunities of resource, nor were spared by the war of 1870Ies, 1910ies, 1930ies.
Re: (Score:3)
You're so out to lunch, you're not even wrong.
A couple of observations:
1. The slave states did not secede because them thar evil Yankees wanted to end slavery within their borders, they seceded because they were losing the argument that the Western Territory, when it was carved into new states, should have an equal measure of slave states. They did this because within a few decades there would have been enough free states to push through an amendment abolishing slavery. Lincoln himself said that he would ha
Re: (Score:2)
This message brought to by American Nazis for Trump. Tune in next week when AC Nazi describes how to build your own Zyklon B delivery system, to get rid of Liberals and people with Jewish-sounding names.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that wasn't the intent of the Framers, not at all. While certainly they didn't likely conceive of the enlargement of the Federal government on the scale even seen by Lincoln's time, they hardly intended the Constitution to be a dead document that reflected only their views. You can see they had even from the beginning at least some intent for a proactive federal government, as the Interstate Commerce Clause makes pretty clear. And since all the things you don't believe the Federal government should
Re: At least Trump may actually do some good (Score:5, Insightful)
American pollution was bad enough that rivers were catching fire. That's why the EPA was created.
Want to depoliticize the EPA? More power to you. Want to destroy it? That just makes you a shitty human being.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the EPA prevent the situation in Flint with their water supply?
Did the EPA prevent the BP disaster in the Gulf?
I remember after the first blended gas was sold seeing nearly everyone's old lawnmowers out with the trash because it ruined their engines to the point where it wasn't worth trying to repair them. Same thing with diesel and some pickup truck engines, the blended diesel was shown to reduce the life of the engine, but no attention was paid to that. I have a hard time believing that junking all
Re: At least Trump may actually do some good (Score:2)
Re:At least Trump may actually do some good (Score:5, Insightful)
You are either young, stupid or a troll. Possibly all three.
I lived before the EPA and the clean air and water acts. I lived near many refineries and factories back in the 60's and 70's. The toxic crap that poured from the smokestacks and drain pipes of these places was horrible. Have you ever seen bright yellow toxic sludge draining directly into a bay? It is not pretty, especially with all the dead sea life floating in it. Cancer rates were astounding, respiratory illnesses were through the roof back in those days.
So you want to kill the EPA. Go ahead. I no longer live near those places, but you should move there and enjoy what you want. Raise your kids there! It's what your heroes want.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
He is at least two out of those three, which is why he is in "Foes" list.
guh, kids these days (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At least Trump may actually do some good (Score:4, Insightful)
So your solution to corporate pollution is rescind all the regulations that currently prevent them, disband the organisation that enforces those regulations, wait until after the newly-unrestrained corporations have inevitably polluted everything nearby - then hope some nearby affected citizen is willing & and able to fight them in the civil courts (hopefully with sufficient legal resources to match the corporate legal team), then winning convincingly enough to a) stop them polluting, b) force them to clean everything all up & fully compensate any affected parties (possibly for decades to come - assuming they don't go bankrupt beforehand), and c) recover all legal costs on top of all that. Then go through the whole process again the next time some random company decides it's cheaper to pollute.
Re: (Score:2)
killing the EPA,
I too look forward to burning rivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now back to the IRS. It's literally in the constitution that the government can collect taxes and there needs to be some department to do that. Sure you may have the fantasy that you don't need the government and could do fine paying in gold or bul
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump can't kill the EPA without an act of Congress, just like the other 99% of things he's promised. And put right down to it there aren't very many congress critters that are going to vote to poison your water and air because they want to keep their jobs.
Re: It helps the economy too (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats like winning the Iowa Caucus too, especially if they only need to spend more tax money to do it.
Re: It helps the economy too (Score:5, Interesting)
Most big progressive programs transfer money from the poor to the rich. Social Security and Medicare are funded with regressive payroll taxes, and most of the benefits go to old people who tend to be richer than average. A poor black man has a life expectancy of about 69 years, so will typically benefit from SS and Medicare for 4 years. A rich white woman will live to be 82, collecting benefits for 17 years. So she gets more than four times the benefits, despite paying in a far smaller portion of her income.
... and the Democrats can't figure out why working class people don't vote for them anymore.
Re: It helps the economy too (Score:4, Interesting)
You do have a point. (I found your numbers here. [nih.gov])
However, I would like to see whether the rich recoup their contributions to the program in time-adjusted dollars, even allowing for their longer lifespan. I would guess the answer is no, and I'm fine with that BTW.
Also, the tax is progressive not regressive, because those with larger incomes pay more. And while Social Security benefits are based on contribution amounts, Medicare is not.
But the most important thing to address is why poor black males have such a shorter life expectancy than other groups. I suspect it's because of a disproportionate exposure to societal risks (violence, etc.) and that's disturbing.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the tax is progressive not regressive
No. It is regressive. Progressive tax [wikipedia.org] does not mean the rich pay more, it means the rich pay more as a percentage of their income.
But the most important thing to address is why poor black males have such a shorter life expectancy than other groups. I suspect it's because of a disproportionate exposure to societal risks (violence, etc.) and that's disturbing.
Counterproductive social programs make all these problems worse. Poor communities not only have shorter lifespans, but also higher birthrates. That means they are, on average, much younger, which means a much smaller proportion of a poor black community will be receiving government checks compared to a rich white community, while more of their income is drained away to pay
Re:It helps the economy too (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it won't ruin many engines. Certainly none built after the late 90's.
Most people don't know that the only difference between an eco-fuel ford car and its non eco-fuel badged - is a software setting.
I used to be one of the people that thought the increased alcohol content would ruin gaskets, hoses, and cylinder walls, but the auto industry has already addressed it years ago.
Also, for around 150 bucks - most cars can be converted to run on ethanol, e-85, or methanol.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgot to link this, if I remember the documentary, i'll post the name .
https://www.bellperformance.co... [bellperformance.com]
Re:It helps the economy too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to be one of the people that thought the increased alcohol content would ruin gaskets, hoses, and cylinder walls, but the auto industry has already addressed it years ago.
So it does do that, just not with your current car, so everything is cool?
Re:It helps the economy too (Score:4, Informative)
Outboard boat motors, Chainsaws, String trimmers, Lawn Mowers, ATVs, Jet Skis, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, etc.... None of them were designed to run on ethanol.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn skippy. If they are going to do this, they need to start -- start -- 3 to 5 years ahead by requiring ALL small motors to be built so that they can run on ethanol. And bear in mind that there are other problems with ethanol-laced fuel, the biggest one to my own experience being that it sucks water right out of the air and into your fuel tank. Alcohol is hydrophilic. Gasoline is hydrophobic. Put them together and you get the worst of both worlds -- a gas tank that builds up water in the bottom just
Re: (Score:3)
Think about Outboard Motors and Snowmobiles. You are literally in a life or death situation. I spent a LONG night in a boat tied up to a offshore oil platform 45 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. The engine fuel line deteriorated and tiny pieces of rubber clogged the carburetor jets.
Re: It helps the economy too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that carburetted dirt bikes will run fine on ethanol, but you have to be very careful about either completely draining the carb before putting them away for even a few week, or (preferably and) add something like stabil to the gas. The ethanol based gas goes off in a float bowl quickly and you're stuck cleaning the jets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It helps the economy too (Score:4, Interesting)
Outboard boat motors, Chainsaws, String trimmers, Lawn Mowers, ATVs, Jet Skis, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, etc.... None of them were designed to run on ethanol.
You can also add storage tanks the list.... like those big underground tanks at your local gas station that can leak gas into soils and groundwater when a seal corrodes from the high ethanol content. To be fair, today's tank systems have leak detection systems that usually identify a leak quickly, so they get fixed/remediated quickly, but since new ethanol [and low-sulfur diesel] requirements the number of incidents with tanks has gone up dramatically nation-wide. Tank owners have been too slow to adapt to the new maintenance requirements, seals, filters, etc. needed to safely hold ethanol blended gas in tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot as well, that there's more incidences of "wet" fuel. Since ethanol wants to absorb water, if there's a problem with the tank seal it'll start taking in water from the air and you'll get that in the fuel too. This is a common problem here in Canada especially with the seasonal swings we have where the ground stays warmer for a longer part of the winter season. Around here the frostline is 6ft, and I know of two stations that have had to pull the fill pipes and have them either double insulated
Re: It helps the economy too (Score:2)
Actually, it won't ruin many engines.
Technically, no; only the injectors. Please fuck off??
Re:It helps the economy too (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it won't ruin many engines. Certainly none built after the late 90's.
Well you can get additives to add to cars for lead-only engines, and cars that can't use ethanol or methanol. There's a few cars that require methanol blends for fuel during the 90's "we're insane, let's screw around with shit" period. But this is great, my Saturn built in the late 90's still gets around 42-50mpg best I ever got was 62.7mpg, and that was when the car was only a few years old. Real world mileage with the SL and SW series was generally nothing short of amazing. Which wasn't uncommon with those cars, but now we get to spend 30% more and get less fuel, which is of course brilliant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It helps the economy too (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't we try that already? Didn't it just make it harder for the poor to keep a car because it took millions of cars off the road that otherwise would have been useable on the cheap for another couple of years?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we try that already? Didn't it just make it harder for the poor to keep a car because it took millions of cars off the road that otherwise would have been useable on the cheap for another couple of years?
Not harder to keep a car, but harder to buy one, because it reduced the secondary market inventory.
Charities also complained about the program, because it diverted cars that otherwise would have been donated to them.
The program had good intentions but got mixed results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only when we are not paying attention to the stove...
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the REpublican President-Elect, is there any reason to think that the Republicans are anything but anti-environment. The man, on the face of it, appears to largely deregulate the energy sector. And what do you think much of that regulation deals with? That's right, pollutants and emissions. For chrissakes, even Reagan understood that regulation was necessary for a clean environment, and it was Nixon who brought the EPA into existence.