We Need A Lasting Solution To The Lies Told By Big Oil and API

A Response to Jack Gerard and the American Petroleum Institute

By Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL

Marc J. Rauch

Yesterday, June 14, 2018, my very good friend - the president and CEO of American Petroleum Institute (API) - sent me a letter headlined "We Need a Lasting Solution to the Broken Renewable Fuel Standard."

I say "my very good friend sent me a letter" because the email was addressed to me specifically, and the letter itself starts with the words "Dear Marc."

Anyway, the first paragraph reads, "Without reform, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is headed down a path that could limit consumer choices, raise their fuel costs and could even damage their vehicles."

I thought to myself, "Hallelujah, Jack Gerard and I finally agree on something!"

Not only was it Flag Day, but a special "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FLAG DAY!!!"

If the American flag outside my house wasn't already flying high and proud I would have run out and run it up the flag pole.

Yeah baby, we need to reform the RFS, to extend consumer choice, lower our fuel costs, and stop using that garbage (gasoline) that has been shoved down our throats for more than 100 years. Let me say it again: "HALLELUJAH!"

But then I read the second paragraph; my buddy Jack writes:

"Based on decade-old fuel consumption projections that have missed the mark, the RFS forces increasing amounts of ethanol into the fuel supply each year, regardless of market realities..."

"Unless ethanol volume requirements are adjusted to reflect actual fuel consumption trends, we could end up breaching the blend wall..."

"The problem: Almost three out of four of vehicles on the road today are not manufacturer-approved to use higher ethanol blends like E15 (15 percent ethanol fuel)..."

"Extensive testing by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) -- the gold standard in vehicle research -- has determined E15 could damage engines and fuel systems..."

"When the RFS mandates were developed more than a decade ago, the mandated use of corn-based ethanol seemed to some like a viable option to lower fuel costs and imports while reducing emissions. Now that the United States is the world’s largest producer and refiner of oil and natural gas, we’re in a new era. We’ve transitioned from a net importer of refined petroleum products to a net exporter, and U.S. carbon emissions have reached 25-year lows due primarily to greater use of clean natural gas."

So instead of Hallelujah, I now think, "Oy Vey."

Then it dawned on me that this letter wasn't simply a personal message from one friend to another, it was just a form letter and it probably went out to API's entire list of people named Mark, but who spell it with a C instead of a K.

On second thought, I realize the letter was probably sent to everyone on API's email list, regardless of their name and how they spell it.

Now I get it... Jack was just trying to butter me up before launching into the same old despicable ignorant lies that the oil industry and the American Petroleum Institute have been telling us for decade after decade. Yeah, yeah, CEO - Chief Equivocation Originator. No wonder his name was at the bottom of the letter, it's a fitting title.

Well, while the job title may be correct, nothing else in this letter was. The RFS doesn't "force increasing amounts of ethanol into the fuel supply each year (regardless of market realities)." The Renewable Fuel Standard called for the use of a biofuel to be added to gasoline for non-flex fuel vehicles of about 10%. Ethanol didn't have to be the biofuel, it just happened to be the best, the safest, and the least expensive to use. And between the time that the RFS was enacted and today, the mandated percentage has not changed. Therefore, the words "force increasing amounts of ethanol into the fuel supply each year" is a lie. And since ethanol did not have to be the biofuel used, it's an exaggerated lie; and since market realities could have impacted the use of 10% ethanol in the primary internal combustion engine fuel supply, it's an exaggerated lie with a rotten cherry on top.

Jack is worried about "breaching the blend wall," but the blend wall is a scam. It doesn't exist: It's a scam, wrapped in deceit, inside a fraud - created and perpetuated by the goons who work for the petroleum oil industry and API. Every single gasoline-powered passenger vehicle on the road today can safely and reliably use E15, E20, E25, E30, E35, E40, E45 or E50 or higher. The only engine and fuel system issue that might occur is that the Check-Engine light might illuminate, or that the ethanol does such a good job at cleaning the gunk-goo-crap off the engine walls (formed from years of gasoline use) that a filter might have to be changed. So if all gasoline-powered passenger vehicles can use blends between E15 and E50 (or higher), then the pretend E10 blend wall isn't just a figment of someone's imagination, it's a delusional nightmare propagated to keep us addicted to the poison known as gasoline.
            SEE: The Figurative Ethanol Blend Wall is a Fictional Ethanol Blend Wall

Jack claims that the "extensive testing" done by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) is "the gold standard in vehicle research." Yeah, if the gold is fool's gold. He says that the CRC has determined that E15 could damage engines and fuel systems. You know what can and does cause damage to every single gasoline-powered engine? Gasoline. Making a broad statement like "E15 could cause damage..." is as pointless as saying that "If you go outside without an umbrella and it rains, you might get wet." On the other hand, there is no equivocating over my statement that every single gasoline-powered engine has been damaged by gasoline; it's a fact!
        SEE: Every Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engine Ever Produced Has Been Damaged By Gasoline

I guess no one ever told Jack that the extensive testing of ethanol by true 24kt gold labs and research teams (that were not connected to the oil industry) have proven again, and again, and again that ethanol is beneficial to engines and does not harm engines and fuel systems (certainly not to any degree more than the damage caused by gasoline or petroleum diesel in diesel engines). I know this for a fact because not only do the reports from these organizations tell me so, but the oil industry itself has said so:
            SEE: The Hypocrisy of Big Oil
            SEE: Ethanol Special Motives

Next, Jack writes about why the RFS mandates were developed more than ten years ago and suggests two incredibly dopey things: First, that the biofuel mandates aren't needed because the U.S. is the world's largest producer and refiner of oil and natural gas; and second that U.S. carbon emissions have reached 25-year lows due primarily to greater use of clean natural gas.

But what good does it do us in being the world's largest producer and refiner of oil and natural gas? Gasoline prices are still high, we still have to import a sizable amount of foreign oil, and we still embroil ourselves in the affairs of other countries because of their petroleum oil resources. The only thing that can really be said for our production and refining capabilities is that we may once again be the world's largest provider of poison to the world. "Hey world, looking for a little more respiratory illnesses, autism, and wildlife disasters? Look no further than the good ol' U.S. of A." But this distinction is not something to brag about.

As for the claim that U.S. carbon emissions have reached a 25-year low due to greater use of clean natural gas, I just have to laugh. The overwhelming largest contributor to carbon emissions is the burning of so-called fossil fuels (abiotic fuels) that includes gasoline, petroleum diesel, natural gas, and coal. While it is true that natural gas produces less carbon than coal, and the switch from using natural gas to generate electricity is helpful, the worst cause of air pollution in cities like Los Angeles was/is the result of the transportation use of gasoline and diesel. The reduction of harmful vehicle emissions is not due to any increased use of natural gas, but to the use of catalytic converters, improved MPG efficiency, and ethanol blended with gasoline. Natural gas, in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG) could have played a larger role in reducing harmful vehicle emissions, but API's denigration of CNG as a vehicle fuel was so successful that engine conversions from gasoline to CNG was (for all intents and purposes) made illegal and uneconomical, and all regular production of CNG-powered passenger vehicles for the United States ceased several years ago.

In the meantime, the number of vehicles on the road using gasoline or petro diesel continues to increase, and that means that more and more harmful emissions are being produced. To continue making significant reductions in emissions requires a significant lowering of emissions from the vehicles currently on the road in a sensible time frame. This can only happen by increasing the percentage of ethanol used in the fuel to power these vehicles. The move to E15 and beyond is the only realistic, quick, and workable solution - for the next several decades at the least.

Consequently, this puts Jack and I back to agreeing on something: A change in the RFS is needed. The question is should the change be to pour more petroleum poison down our throats and into the air - which is what they want; or a change that gives us what any sane person would want: A healthier, cleaner, and safer environment? This should be a rhetorical question.