• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in Hi

Cal

Well-known member
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Sunday, November 11, 2007
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Intro by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap, CCM
I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend. See John’s full blog story here.. See John’s forecast blog on the KUSI site here.
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
This guy was on Rush Limbaugh's talk radio last Friday, he (Rush) had a substitute in there for him. AWESOME dialog......this guy knows what he is talking about, AND he has nothing to lose as he is retired.

I absolutely agree with John Coleman, Global Warming is the biggest Scam in History!!!!!!!!!!! :!: :!: :!:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I knew it was going to air on TV, but I missed it. Glad I got to read the gist of it here.

AND:

:agree:

Several years ago the owner of the newpaper I worked for did his
own bit of investigation. Although his research couldn't compare to some,
he came up with the same conclusion. Global Warming is BOGUS.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Once it is realized the earth is in no danger the Libs will spin it into that they saved the planet. All the carbon credits Al Gore bought so he could leave the hundreds of lights on at all his numerous homes were the savior of the planet.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Why Do you people fight against this so much...

Rivers are polluted,Emissions from cars to industrial stacks are not good to breath in,the ozone layer has been diminished and I could go on for hours about how polluted the earth is now...So I wonder why so many fight Global warming.How about you call it "global pig sty" well you accept that? ..What does it hurt to have people work to clean up this place we call earth? So what if its done because some folks believe in the Climate being affected...No one can be certain why the earth lives out its life the way it does,so why not at least help it stay healthy,no matter what your reason for doing so?......I do not understand why so many here care if it affects the weather or not..pollution kill regardless of the weather........
 

Tex

Well-known member
Whatever your belief on what will happen if "global warming" is true, everyone has to acknowledge the facts that are happening in current time.

I happen to like the "global warming" idea because it has the ability to change public perception about energy and help us get a real energy policy other than "find oil and use it up" as has been the attitude of Senators on the Energy Committee in the Capital.

France uses nuclear energy for 75% of its electricity. This helps them get energy security and not have to fight wars in the mid east to have it.

France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricité de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there. In 2005 French electricity generation was 549 billion kWh net and consumption 482 billion kWh - 7700 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr.

The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.

As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.

We need to get our energy security out of the mid east, nigera, s. america, and elsewhere. If we don't, we will continue to have to have a military and world policy that allows us to get the oil. It costs too much in blood and treasure. We could spend that money here at home much better and to better ends.

Energy is the lifeblood of the economy. Energy security is therefore that important.

Here is the full article of the one quoted:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

Making energy policy into a "liberal" vs. "conservative" issue will do nothing to promote energy security. It will promote oil company's profits as long as we allow it.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
We not only need energy, we need refineries. Something we don't have many of...and those are aged.

Perhaps energy in the US should be diversified. Let's don't put all our
eggs in one basket.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Why Do you people fight against this so much...

Rivers are polluted,Emissions from cars to industrial stacks are not good to breath in,the ozone layer has been diminished and I could go on for hours about how polluted the earth is now...So I wonder why so many fight Global warming.How about you call it "global pig sty" well you accept that? ..What does it hurt to have people work to clean up this place we call earth? So what if its done because some folks believe in the Climate being affected...No one can be certain why the earth lives out its life the way it does,so why not at least help it stay healthy,no matter what your reason for doing so?......I do not understand why so many here care if it affects the weather or not..pollution kill regardless of the weather........

I just don't see the sky falling as you do! I look out side now and see a beautiful blue sky. I have been to most all states in the U.S. and all I remember on my drives is a beautiful America. The only filth and dirt I have seen has been in some specific ares in a few Cities such as NYC, St Louis, KC and in Mexico.

99.9999% of the time the sky is blue the birds are singing and the air is clean. The sky is not falling there is plenty of fresh air and clean America, just get out of the slums and you will find it.

There is nothing wrong with cleaning up the planet, I strongly support that crying Indian from the past. He started a strong voluntary program that got people aware of pollution and littering. But this Carbon Credit crap and doomsday attitude if the Government does not step in is for idiots!
 

Tex

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
We not only need energy, we need refineries. Something we don't have many of...and those are aged.

Perhaps energy in the US should be diversified. Let's don't put all our
eggs in one basket.

You brought up an interesting subject there, Faster horses.

Environmentalists didn't stop all the refineries from being built, although they were a factor. Policy decisions and the oil industry itself didn't build those refineries (or increase their consumption).

I drive a diesel (Ford). I bought it because I need the power but also the price of diesel was always lagging gasoline. I know that refining and making diesel costs less, and that is a fact.

Unfortunately, diesel has been higher than gas for a while now. Why? Because oil companies can restrict the amount of diesel they make and make more gasoline. That drives up the price of diesel.

I am not happy about it.

It is another case of market power raking in American's money.


By the way, BP did not upgrade or keep up its investment in the Texas City refinery. Environmentalists did not stop them.



Neither did environmentalists tell them to stop them from maintaining the Alaskan pipeline that lead to the oil spill up there.

MONEY and profits run these companies. Nothing else.
Click here for Recommendations Information Page
Incident Description
At approximately 1:20 p.m. on March 23, 2005, a series of explosions occurred at the BP Texas City refinery during the restarting of a hydrocarbon isomerization unit. Fifteen workers were killed and 180 others were injured. Many of the victims were in or around work trailers located near an atmospheric vent stack. The explosions occurred when a distillation tower flooded with hydrocarbons and was overpressurized, causing a geyser-like release from the vent stack.

Investigation Status
The Board approved its final report by a vote of 5-0 at a public meeting in Texas City on March 20, 2007.

Reports Safety Bulletin: Positive Material Verification
Reports Report of the BP Independent Refineries Safety Review Panel (Baker Panel Report)
Reports Trailer Blast Damage Information Table
Reports Final Investigation Report
Webcasts Explosion at BP Refinery, Texas City, Texas, November 10, 2005
Webcasts




Thursday, August 10th, 2006
Did BP Purposefully Allow its Alaska Pipeline to Corrode in Order to Shut it Down and Boost Oil Prices?

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
North America's largest oilfield remains shut down for a fourth day and it could remain shut down for several months. The oil company BP closed the oilfield on Sunday after discovering what it described as "unexpectedly severe corrosion" of the oil pipeline. Questions are now being raised about whether BP purposely allowed the pipeline to become corroded. We speak with longtime oil industry watchdog, Chuck Hamel. [includes rush transcript]


It is all about MONEY. It isn't the environmentalists that stopped these things, it is PROFITS.

Everything else is just a bunch of talking pints for the public to argue over.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
We not only need energy, we need refineries. Something we don't have many of...and those are aged.

Perhaps energy in the US should be diversified. Let's don't put all our
eggs in one basket.

You brought up an interesting subject there, Faster horses.

Environmentalists didn't stop all the refineries from being built, although they were a factor. Policy decisions and the oil industry itself didn't build those refineries (or increase their consumption).

I drive a diesel (Ford). I bought it because I need the power but also the price of diesel was always lagging gasoline. I know that refining and making diesel costs less, and that is a fact.

Unfortunately, diesel has been higher than gas for a while now. Why? Because oil companies can restrict the amount of diesel they make and make more gasoline. That drives up the price of diesel.

I am not happy about it.

It is another case of market power raking in American's money.


By the way, BP did not upgrade or keep up its investment in the Texas City refinery. Environmentalists did not stop them.



Neither did environmentalists tell them to stop them from maintaining the Alaskan pipeline that lead to the oil spill up there.

MONEY and profits run these companies. Nothing else.
Click here for Recommendations Information Page
Incident Description
At approximately 1:20 p.m. on March 23, 2005, a series of explosions occurred at the BP Texas City refinery during the restarting of a hydrocarbon isomerization unit. Fifteen workers were killed and 180 others were injured. Many of the victims were in or around work trailers located near an atmospheric vent stack. The explosions occurred when a distillation tower flooded with hydrocarbons and was overpressurized, causing a geyser-like release from the vent stack.

Investigation Status
The Board approved its final report by a vote of 5-0 at a public meeting in Texas City on March 20, 2007.

Reports Safety Bulletin: Positive Material Verification
Reports Report of the BP Independent Refineries Safety Review Panel (Baker Panel Report)
Reports Trailer Blast Damage Information Table
Reports Final Investigation Report
Webcasts Explosion at BP Refinery, Texas City, Texas, November 10, 2005
Webcasts




Thursday, August 10th, 2006
Did BP Purposefully Allow its Alaska Pipeline to Corrode in Order to Shut it Down and Boost Oil Prices?

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
North America's largest oilfield remains shut down for a fourth day and it could remain shut down for several months. The oil company BP closed the oilfield on Sunday after discovering what it described as "unexpectedly severe corrosion" of the oil pipeline. Questions are now being raised about whether BP purposely allowed the pipeline to become corroded. We speak with longtime oil industry watchdog, Chuck Hamel. [includes rush transcript]


It is all about MONEY. It isn't the environmentalists that stopped these things, it is PROFITS.

Everything else is just a bunch of talking points for the public to argue over.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
France uses nuclear energy for 75% of its electricity. This helps them get energy security and not have to fight wars in the mid east to have it.

The French do not have to go to the mid east to fight the Muslims they have over taken their own country. All the have to do is go out in the streets in their home town to fight them as the Muslims burn their cars and homes.

Oil is not the big problem with why we fight the Muslims and your France example is proof of it. The French have a very big Muslim problem and it has nothing to do with oil.

I am for Nuclear energy, but the same wackos that fight global warming will fight the Nuclear plants. I am for Electric cars I believe that is a big answer and one day when the free market dictates so I believe we will see many of them on the roads. But we do not need the government dictating something that the free market will eventually adjust.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
I drive a diesel (Ford). I bought it because I need the power but also the price of diesel was always lagging gasoline. I know that refining and making diesel costs less, and that is a fact.

Unfortunately, diesel has been higher than gas for a while now. Why? Because oil companies can restrict the amount of diesel they make and make more gasoline. That drives up the price of diesel.

You do not think it is possible that the EPA had something to do with this? Seems that Diesel prices became higher than gas prices and stayed there exactly at the point in time that the EPA changed the Sulfur content requirements in Diesel? No longer making it cheaper to produce.
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
I drive a diesel (Ford). I bought it because I need the power but also the price of diesel was always lagging gasoline. I know that refining and making diesel costs less, and that is a fact.

Unfortunately, diesel has been higher than gas for a while now. Why? Because oil companies can restrict the amount of diesel they make and make more gasoline. That drives up the price of diesel.

You do not think it is possible that the EPA had something to do with this? Seems that Diesel prices became higher than gas prices and stayed there exactly at the point in time that the EPA changed the Sulfur content requirements in Diesel? No longer making it cheaper to produce.

I would have to talk to some of my friends in that industry. What you are saying is a possibility but I don't really know. Gasoline is refined from the same oil. Unless there is a solvent issue, it should have the same problem.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Aplus, I was just reading the report on desulfurization at the below link. I ran across this information on the industry:

Although not discussed in the EPA’s investment analysis, the 1990s was a period of rationalization for the refining industry, marked by refinery sales, mergers, and closures. Between January 1990 and January 1999, 50 of 205 refineries were closed (4 of which were merged wth adjacent refineries).67 The NPC attributes the refinery closures to heightened competitiveness. Although the environmental requirements of the 1990s cannot be pointed to as the cause of the closures, they contributed to the inability of some refineries to compete economically. Refiners who chose not to invest in the 500 ppm sulfur limit (required for highway diesel since 1993) found it more economical to shift their existing high-sulfur diesel production to non-road markets.

Some refiners will be more able than others to obtain capital for Tier 2 gasoline and ULSD projects. Assuming that capital is accessible, a refiner’s willingness to invest in ULSD projects will depend on its assessment of the economics of the market. For instance, a refiner would be less likely to invest if it believed it could not compete favorably with others because the investments would result in a higher cost per gallon. History may lead some refiners to be cautious about investment. In the 1990s refinery upgrades for meeting reformulated gasoline requirements resulted in excess gasoline production capacity. As a result, gasoline margins were depressed, making it difficult for refiners to recoup investments.


Usually industry consolidation in competitive industries occurs when companies are run out of the business. Some are run out because of the low profits in the business and some are bought.

Based on the above information, the main talking point of Faster horses was not really applicable. It wasn't environmentalists that ran these refineries out, it was the low profits in the industry during that time. The big boys who stayed in just gobbled up some of the little guys.

Here is the full report, of which I am just reading:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/index.html

The report does say that total costs (and this is just a best guess analysis--just like global warming predictions are) are between 7 and 13 billion.

I have yet to find out if gas has the same costs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/index.html
 

Tex

Well-known member
EPA Analysis

The EPA analysis was conducted in support of the final rulemaking published in December 2000.127 The EPA analysis used a refining cost spreadsheet that included refinery-specific estimates for meeting the new highway diesel standards and aggregated them to estimate fuel cost increases at the Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD) and national levels. The costs of meeting the final ULSD Rule were analyzed without including possible reductions in non-road diesel sulfur. The EPA estimated that the ULSD Rule would increase average national production and distribution costs by 5.4 cents per gallon of 15 ppm diesel (4.5 cents per gallon for all highway diesel) during the temporary compliance period (2006 to 2010).128 The total cost after full compliance in June 2010 was estimated at 5.0 cents per gallon (Table 21).

The largest component of the costs estimated by the EPA was increased refining costs (4.1 cents per gallon for 15 ppm diesel and 3.3 cents per gallon for all highway diesel between 2006 and 2010; 4.3 cents per gallon after June 1, 2010). The cost estimate for the compliance period was adjusted downward to reflect credit trading, assuming that low-cost refineries trade with high-cost refineries at the cost of production. Cost estimates for PADD IV were 30 to 40 percent higher than costs in other PADDs. The refining costs discussed above were based on a 7-percent before-tax return on investment, but the EPA also provided costs based on a 6-percent and 10-percent after-tax rate of return. The cost estimates for a 6-percent after-tax rate of return were 0.1 cents per gallon higher than the full compliance cost calculated with the 7-percent before-tax rate, and the estimates for a 10-percent after-tax rate were 0.4 cents per gallon higher.129

In addition to increased refining costs, the EPA estimated that the addition of lubricity additives would cost approximately 0.2 cents per gallon, and distribution costs were estimated to add another 1.1 cents per gallon during the temporary compliance period and 0.5 cents per gallon after full compliance.130 The analysis behind the distribution cost estimates is discussed below.

Increased refining costs were expected to result from capital investment of $3.9 billion to meet the 2006 requirements and another $1.4 billion to reach full compliance in 2010, for a total investment of $5.3 billion.131 The EPA estimated that the average refinery would spend $43 million dollars in capital expenditures and an additional $7 million per year in operating costs.

The EPA assumed that, in order to meet the 15 ppm highway diesel requirement, refiners would need to produce 7 ppm diesel fuel on average. It was assumed that 80 percent of diesel refining capacity would meet the new standards by modifications to existing hydrotreaters and the other 20 percent by building new hydrotreaters. The analysis included cost estimates under two scenarios. The first scenario assumed that all refiners currently producing highway diesel fuel would continue to do so. The second scenario assumed that some refiners would increase their production of highway diesel while making up for lost production from refiners that would drop out of the market. The EPA did not provide analysis assuming a net loss of production, but indicated that, with the inclusion of the 80/20 and small refiner provisions, no supply problems were anticipated. The EPA also performed an analysis of engineering and construction requirements and concluded that these factors should not be a problem due to the temporary compliance provisions (see Chapter 3 for more discussion).











This doesn't explain the increase!!!!!
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Tex said:
This doesn't explain the increase!!!!!

???? Your own words show 13 cents before the cost of upgrading/building refineries which your words place in the millions at some points and billions at others, which are adders. Reread what you wrote. Am I missing something? These rules are why diesel costs more than gasoline, as explained by the folks in the industry. Your words back up what they are telling me. They are also saying bad batches and rebatching. Not enough refineries have been built in the last 30 years.
 

Tex

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Tex said:
This doesn't explain the increase!!!!!

???? Your own words show 13 cents before the cost of upgrading/building refineries which your words place in the millions at some points and billions at others, which are adders. Reread what you wrote. Am I missing something? These rules are why diesel costs more than gasoline, as explained by the folks in the industry. Your words back up what they are telling me. They are also saying bad batches and rebatching. Not enough refineries have been built in the last 30 years.

Backhoe, none of these are my words, they are the words of the study cited.

I see about a 4.5 cent/gallon increase per gallon for highway diesel and this includes profit for the upgrades. The 7 to 13 billion was an estimate for the total cost of the upgrades, which of course, is divided by the number of gallons diesel sold (cost/gallon = (amortized upgrades + variable costs ) / flow). (flow is used in amortization).

The spread right now is 27 cents between the local gas pump at 3.12/gallon regular and 3.39/gallon diesel (hwy diesel).

4.5 cents is a long way from 27 cents. It has been more in the past.

The difference can be explained away by not enough competition in the market place and concentration in the industry.

This is even without finding out if there was a corresponding increase in gas costs because of similar requirements (if they have them).

As I said, I think we are being fooled(or spun by the spinmiesters) by the talking points.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
nonothing said:
Why Do you people fight against this so much...

Rivers are polluted,Emissions from cars to industrial stacks are not good to breath in,the ozone layer has been diminished and I could go on for hours about how polluted the earth is now...So I wonder why so many fight Global warming.How about you call it "global pig sty" well you accept that? ..What does it hurt to have people work to clean up this place we call earth? So what if its done because some folks believe in the Climate being affected...No one can be certain why the earth lives out its life the way it does,so why not at least help it stay healthy,no matter what your reason for doing so?......I do not understand why so many here care if it affects the weather or not..pollution kill regardless of the weather........

I just don't see the sky falling as you do! I look out side now and see a beautiful blue sky. I have been to most all states in the U.S. and all I remember on my drives is a beautiful America. The only filth and dirt I have seen has been in some specific ares in a few Cities such as NYC, St Louis, KC and in Mexico.

99.9999% of the time the sky is blue the birds are singing and the air is clean. The sky is not falling there is plenty of fresh air and clean America, just get out of the slums and you will find it.

There is nothing wrong with cleaning up the planet, I strongly support that crying Indian from the past. He started a strong voluntary program that got people aware of pollution and littering. But this Carbon Credit crap and doomsday attitude if the Government does not step in is for idiots!


Aplus drinking water world wide is become undrinkable...Its has gone so far as that in some places they are drinking used water thats been retreated......I could care less about what you call the problem,I am just interested in fixing or at least correcting it....there are garbage dumps all over America....there are rivers you cannot drink out of..fish are non exsistent in some polluted coastal waters...San fran has a spill in its Bay as i type this post....The sky may be blue but i know for sure I get sunburned quicker today then i did 15 years ago......Now I have no idea why but maybe just maybe the ozone layer has been made weaker....either way one must clean up a little....
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
Gasoline and diesel prices are impacted by myriads of factors. For example, different crude oils have different makeup of gasoline and diesel.
(Some years ago, Chevron started to burn crude oil from its Rangely Field directly into diesel engines. It was exceptionally good oil.)

It is not cheap to get sulfur out of oil or gas. Chevron and Amoco (rest their soul) built plants in Wyoming costing over $600 million each to remove sulfur from gas produced from the Overthrust belt.

All refineries cannot use every crude oil. It would be stupid to build a refinery for light crude if only Venezualan crude or Saudi Heavy is available for refining.

Also making the gasoline/diesel question more complex is that diesel and heating oil are almost identical. A cold winter or threat of a cold winter will cause both heating oil and diesel to sell for more. Basically, oil companies are businesses - they try to sell their product to maximize profit. Surely, you don't sell your calves cheap to keep meat prices down in the supermarket.

Also, for the most part, there is no precise way of determining process cost in refineries where a plant produces both gasoils (diesel) and gasolines.

I am not going to go into a whole lot of detail, but I spent 27 years in the oil business - all the way from exploration to production to refining to marketing and pipeline. If you think the refining business is good, tell us why no one has built a new refinery in the Unites State for over 30 years.

A whole lot of our gasoline and diesel are now produced overseas as a result of our refinery situation and the price on these products is basically the world market price - probably Rotterdam based.
 

Steve

Well-known member
NoNothing
drinking water world wide is become undrinkable..

Interesting...ever ask why? In the United States we had made great progress in cleaning up our water sources...until now...

the clean air act required many states to oxygenate their fuel..

Many states choose MTBE,.. now their ground water is contaminated...

this is just one reason and example of why Honesty from the environmentalist is so important...
According to a 1998 study from the University of California at Davis it was concluded that “ there is no significant additional air quality benefit to the use of oxygenates such as MTBE in reformulated gasoline.” Furthermore, the 800 page study noted that while federal law mandates the use of oxygenates in reformulated gasoline, MTBE addition has “no significant effect” on the emissions from modern vehicles while presenting “significant risks and costs associated with water contamination.”

in a misguided ill-researched attempt to force the clean air act they have now created a major unsolvable crises, that they don't want to talk about their mistake.....so they change the subject to global warming...



MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, is an additive in gasoline used by many refiners to meet a provision of the Clean Air Act that calls for the use of oxygenates in fuels. In 1999, the Clinton-Gore Administration convened a Blue-Ribbon Panel to investigate if MTBE posed special risks to water supplies. In the Fall of 1999, the Panel presented scientific proof confirming that MTBE threatens water supplies. The Administration subsequently called on Congress to phase down or eliminate MTBE. The Administration also has begun regulatory action to control MTBE under the Toxics Substances Control Act.

Guess they should have used ethanol instead...
 
Top