Stop the mandate of ethanol in our fuel

**Ricks raft** · 06-12-2014, 10:25 PM

Done!!!!

**KAP** · 06-13-2014, 09:52 AM

Wrote a reply and submitted.

**3queens** · 06-13-2014, 02:57 PM

done

even sent a copy of link and a short message to my State Senator
that started his career in my hood

**riverrunner1984** · 06-27-2014, 09:30 AM

Anyone else get this today after signing the petition?

Dear Brian :

I received your letter expressing your concerns about the Renewable Fuel Standard. Your correspondence is important to me, and I welcome this opportunity to respond.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires that the volume of renewable fuel increase every year from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022. Each year, the RFS requires that an increasing portion of renewable fuels be low carbon "advanced biofuels," which have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are significantly lower than gasoline. However, the RFS does not include any mandate for E-15.

I do not support a mandate for the use of corn ethanol. On December 12, 2013, I introduced the "Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013" (S. 1807), which would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate within the RFS. Under this mandate, almost 44 percent of U.S. corn is diverted from food to fuel, increasing the cost of food and animal feed. I strongly support greater use of low carbon fuels, like biodiesel, E-85 made with cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity, and I share your concern that the RFS is not bringing about this shift to cleaner fuel.

Please know that I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the economic impact of corn ethanol and the RFS, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as I work to enact the "Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013."

Again, thank you for taking the time to write. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov . Best regards.

Also, may I take this opportunity to wish you a happy and healthy holiday season.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

**Eli** · 06-27-2014, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by riverrunner1984

Anyone else get this today after signing the petition?

Dear Brian :

I received your letter expressing your concerns about the Renewable Fuel Standard. Your correspondence is important to me, and I welcome this opportunity to respond.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires that the volume of renewable fuel increase every year from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022. Each year, the RFS requires that an increasing portion of renewable fuels be low carbon "advanced biofuels," which have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are significantly lower than gasoline. However, the RFS does not include any mandate for E-15.

I do not support a mandate for the use of corn ethanol. On December 12, 2013, I introduced the "Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013" (S. 1807), which would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate within the RFS. Under this mandate, almost 44 percent of U.S. corn is diverted from food to fuel, increasing the cost of food and animal feed. I strongly support greater use of low carbon fuels, like biodiesel, E-85 made with cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity, and I share your concern that the RFS is not bringing about this shift to cleaner fuel.

Please know that I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the economic impact of corn ethanol and the RFS, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as I work to enact the "Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013."

Again, thank you for taking the time to write. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov . Best regards.

Also, may I take this opportunity to wish you a happy and healthy holiday season.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Yes I did

Sent from my Bat Cave

**Brian** · 06-27-2014, 10:14 AM

Yep. I did too. Your name must be Brian too. For a second there I thought you hacked my email.

**2manymustangs** · 06-27-2014, 10:51 AM

Here is my 2 cents folks...

Here in the Midwest it is common and has been for a long while to have E-10 (10% alcohol) in our gasoline.

As you may or may not know, virtually every state in the union has their own recipe/standards for gasoline and there are ALOT of things added to the gasoline.

Previously the chemical "Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)" was added as an oxidizer and was used seasonally for winter/summer blends. This stuff was added without a lot of research and since it was part of the recipe the supply/demand on this stuff became a major factor in gasoline prices.

After a lot of research started pointing to the toxic aspects of MTBE and even the substance being considered carcinogenic some states started banning MTBE and switched to alcohol in the state approved recipe using the alcohol as an oxidizer. It wasn’t heavily advertised here in Missouri but the negative aspects of MTBE was pushed pretty hard in the news. Our fuel pumps say "a minimum of 10% ethanol" or something of that nature with regard to the blends and alcohol content.

This is a very very heavily political issue and there are so many lobbyists with their fingers in the mix, from Monsanto (chemical and seed supplier), CGB grain haulers, ADM agri products, environmentalists, anti-oil drillers, PRO oil drillers, Sierra club, auto manufacturers. You name it, this whole alcohol / "renewable fuel" thing is being batted around like a bad mitten birdy from every direction. IF .0001% of the funds spend in D.C. on this topic were spent on common sense approach to stuff like cellulose alcohol, cellulose-agri diesel, synthetic diesel AND having one standard prevailing federal gasoline recipe and let capitalism work this whole discussion would evaporate like spilled gasoline on hot concrete...

There are lots of factors at play on this subject.

I am neither PRO or against federally mandated anything in our gasoline. I just know enough to get sick when I hear the enviroWHACK jobs start touting the positive merits of yet another federal mandate. Just like they did when they were pushing for the use of MTBE back one decade ago... MANY MANY studies show that producing corn for alcohol creates more pollution / contamination of soil & ground water than any positive attributes of putting it in the gasoline in the first place, WHO are you going to believe???

DISCLAIMER, this is not a political statement

just a public service announcement...

Show me a fisherman / outdoorsman that doesn’t want clean water and healthy animals to eat/hunt/catch and I will show you a fisherman / outdoorsman that isn’t really what he claims to be.

Sorry Vic / mods if this comes across as a political statement, I didnt mean for it to come across that way. I just wanted to point out some background on the topic. You have my full support to delete this post if it comes across as a political statement.

**SnoC653** · 06-27-2014, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by riverrunner1984

Anyone else get this today after signing the petition?

Dear Brian :

I received your letter expressing your concerns about the Renewable Fuel Standard. Your correspondence is important to me, and I welcome this opportunity to respond.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires that the volume of renewable fuel increase every year from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022. Each year, the RFS requires that an increasing portion of renewable fuels be low carbon "advanced biofuels," which have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are significantly lower than gasoline. However, the RFS does not include any mandate for E-15.

I do not support a mandate for the use of corn ethanol. On December 12, 2013, I introduced the "Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013" (S. 1807), which would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate within the RFS. Under this mandate, almost 44 percent of U.S. corn is diverted from food to fuel, increasing the cost of food and animal feed. I strongly support greater use of low carbon fuels, like biodiesel, E-85 made with cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity, and I share your concern that the RFS is not bringing about this shift to cleaner fuel.

Please know that I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the economic impact of corn ethanol and the RFS, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as I work to enact the "Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013."

Again, thank you for taking the time to write. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov . Best regards.

Also, may I take this opportunity to wish you a happy and healthy holiday season.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

There is a problem with her numbers. While 41% of the 2012 corn crop was sent to ethanol plants only 28% or so is consumed by the process. The other 13% is returned to the market in such things as cattle feed. Also 2012 was a drought year, so the corn production was at a low. In a regular year, the percentage is much lower as ethanol's use of corn is a constant which doesn't fluctuate with yield.

While I don't support the bill this thread discussed, I do agree with Bruce that gov't regulation can and should be minimized. The only thing their regulations do is make someone rich. And it's never us.

I do believe in truth in facts.
Edit: The facts I discussed can be found in this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8J65JU20120808

**2manymustangs** · 06-27-2014, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by SnoC653

There is a problem with her numbers. While 41% of the 2012 corn crop was sent to ethanol plants only 28% or so is consumed by the process. The other 13% is returned to the market in such things as cattle feed. Also 2012 was a drought year, so the corn production was at a low. In a regular year, the percentage is much lower as ethanol's use of corn is a constant which doesn't fluctuate with yield.

While I don't support the bill this thread discussed, I do agree with Bruce that gov't regulation can and should be minimized. The only thing their regulations do is make someone rich. And it's never us.

I do believe in truth in facts.
Edit: The facts I discussed can be found in this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8J65JU20120808

^^^ from our resident Iowa Corn Advocate...

kidding...

Just like any industry there are areas/suppliers/producers that can produce corn in a more efficient way than other parts of the country. Iowa happens to be an ideal location/situation for AG productions due to a variety of factors, just like Kansas and wheat or Nebraska and corn or Illinois and soy beans.

China can produce the hell out of cheap steel / iron / aluminum but they take short cuts and don't give a crap about the environment OR fair trade.

The U.S. has loads of marginal / hilly ground being farmed and in production that really shouldn't. Our buddy Forkin Crazy down on the Mississippi has some great bench soil and unlimited water, that is ideal for corn/bean/cotton/grain production AND there is alot of that type of land in this country (river bottom land).

Some areas are harder to farm and require more fertilizer / pest control / cultivation. Some areas are more prone to run off and siltation of the watershed.

Iowa is ideal and some Missouri hill ground, not so much.

Missouri used to be the largest producer of HEMP in the nation back in the hemp rope / hemp fiber days... It really grows great here, lets bring it back (gubment effed that all up)...

We also used to be a HUGE producer of tomatos and there were many canneries for the tomatos, now it is NILL/gone...

You can grow a palm tree in North Dakota but it will do MUCH better in SoCal or FLA... <<<

^^^ ALL of this to say that there are MANY factors and MANY political pressures effecting all of this ethanol discussion.

**riverrunner1984** · 06-27-2014, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by SnoC653

There is a problem with her numbers. While 41% of the 2012 corn crop was sent to ethanol plants only 28% or so is consumed by the process. The other 13% is returned to the market in such things as cattle feed. Also 2012 was a drought year, so the corn production was at a low. In a regular year, the percentage is much lower as ethanol's use of corn is a constant which doesn't fluctuate with yield.

While I don't support the bill this thread discussed, I do agree with Bruce that gov't regulation can and should be minimized. The only thing their regulations do is make someone rich. And it's never us.

I do believe in truth in facts.
Edit: The facts I discussed can be found in this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8J65JU20120808

In my opinion, I have a problem with probably 99% of what she (Feinstein) says....Just saying....

I think Hotboat, is eyeballing the heck out of this thread now to see where it goes lol