Biden's America: Young 27 year old woman with baby behind on rent and bills walks in front of a train.

Ethanol a carcinogen?

Alcohol can cause cancer by: ethanol (pure alcohol) and its toxic by-product acetaldehyde damaging cells by binding with DNA and causing cells to replicate incorrectly.

Acetaldehyde comes from drinking ethanol, not from burning it.
It can be absorbed in the skin, and also Ethanol has to have certain additives in it which are also carcinogens.
I could care less what you burn in your car as long as The GOVERNMENT isn't mandating it like they are trying to do now.
Let the Free Market decide like they are about EVs. They don't want them.
 
The dilution effect still exists and Ethanol Engines do not have the lifespan of Petro Engines, and there is no reason to switch unless you believe in the fairy tale that CO2 is bad for the environment.

The other issue is that where are you going to get enough biomass to fuel 300 Million cars in the US every day?
Same question could be said for producing batteries and rare earth minerals etc. for EVs
Why do we have to switch every vehicle? What if we first tried replacing enough to stop importing oil from OPEC+?
 
It can be absorbed in the skin, and also Ethanol has to have certain additives in it which are also carcinogens.
I could care less what you burn in your car as long as The GOVERNMENT isn't mandating it like they are trying to do now.
Let the Free Market decide like they are about EVs. They don't want them.
Gasoline is a toxic carcinogenic mix of chemicals.

Studies in humans and animals have shown that gasoline contains a number of cancer-causing and toxic chemicals such as 1,3-butadiene, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, isoparaffins, methyltert-butylether, and others.

Ethanol is safer than gasoline.

But that's just the science talking.
 
Why do we have to switch every vehicle? What if we first tried replacing enough to stop importing oil from OPEC+?
His argument is like the idea of forcing everybody to own an AR-15.
Not everybody wants or needs or can use an EV. But those that do, should be encouraged to get one.
 
Why do we have to switch every vehicle? What if we first tried replacing enough to stop importing oil from OPEC+?

What if we just allowed the consumers to lead the way instead of government and quit using our tax dollars to subsidize all this green garbage?
 
Let the Free Market decide
It's not a free market. Oil has the market cornered. The world runs on oil.
What if we just allowed the consumers to lead the way instead of government and quit using our tax dollars to subsidize all this green garbage?
it's not a level playing field. "Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund."

 
incorrect. The federal law requiring seat belts in automobiles took effect in 1968.
Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Safety Standard,

Perhaps but what we were really referring to was the mandate to use them. I started driving in 1976 and never used them and I still don't. In our state non use of a seat belt is a secondary offense.
 
Because they did. Is corn the best for alcohol % in a mash? I donno.

Well it is kind of obvious that's we'd have to have energy farms separate from, above and beyond the food supply.

Ethanol was use as motor fuel before we were born.

Not nearly on the massive scale we are using it today. Around here you can't find any gas stations that sell gasoline without 10% ethanol. The guy that came out to fix my snowblower told me to see if I can find a station that sells pure gasoline because the ethanol was screwing up my engine performance. No such luck.
 
it's not a level playing field. "Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund."

That goes towards energy and not the cars or trucks themselves. Apples and oranges. Providing subsidies to energy creators is designed to encourage production and research which benefits all Americans. Using our tax dollars to subsidize EVs is using our tax money for political purposes and does nothing for the people outside of those that buy energy efficient or alternative products.
 
That goes towards energy and not the cars or trucks themselves. Apples and oranges. Providing subsidies to energy creators is designed to encourage production and research which benefits all Americans. Using our tax dollars to subsidize EVs is using our tax money for political purposes and does nothing for the people outside of those that buy energy efficient or alternative products.
It is nothing but a hypothetical, especially considering the interconnection with those industries, which is why I don't believe they will stop selling gasoline engines. Cutting the subsidies and see which fuel product the consumers would rather buy, ain't gonna happen.
 
It is nothing but a hypothetical, especially considering the interconnection with those industries, which is why I don't believe they will stop selling gasoline engines. Cutting the subsidies and see which fuel product the consumers would rather buy, ain't gonna happen.

And why wouldn't that happen? Because very few people want EV's. Keep subsidizing them while at the same time keep making fossil fuel more expensive and you'll force more and more people into submission.

It may be hypothetical but making law that no ICE vehicles allowed to be sold after 2035 is not. It's only two states now but look for the entire north-east and west coast to make the same laws.
 
While I might tend to agree with you I am not really seeing a huge difference. I mean I will admit, I was surprised that Wyoming was at the top of the list. Hell, I was even more surprised that New Jersey was at the bottom. Hell, if I had to listen to those people talk all day, I would probably put a bullet in my head. But the blue state red state dynamic really plays out here.
The population disparity is the only thing that plays out.
 
I already showed you the obvious correlations of time, entities and territory involved, plus a clear motive. Same protocol of things that would used to identify a suspect in any crime or act of sabotage.
So you admit you have nothing AGAIN!

What were those two NATO countries you mentioned? You were wrong on that point, so you are likely wrong on all the others.
 
It's not a free market. Oil has the market cornered. The world runs on oil.

it's not a level playing field. "Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund."

So, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You said the world runs on oil. That's about the first thing I have ever seen that you got correct!
 
Perhaps but what we were really referring to was the mandate to use them. I started driving in 1976 and never used them and I still don't. In our state non use of a seat belt is a secondary offense.
Ray, pardon my saying, but you are an idiot for not using seat belts.

When I was in college, before seatbelt laws, I didn't wear a seatbelt. I was traveling to my in-laws in Birmingham, and was attempting to turn left into a convenience store when an 18 wheeler failed to see me and plowed into the left rear quarter panel of my big-assed Ford LTD. Apparently, the driver saw me at the last minute and just clipped the rear of my car as I was turning. The impact threw my wife into the passenger floorboard, and knocked me out of the driver's seat on top of her. My car was hurtling across a parking lot headed straight into a Greyhound bus station, I managed to get back under the wheel in time to apply the brakes and stop the car just short of the plate glass window of the bus station, which was crowded with riders waiting on the next bus.

I have been in several accidents since then, and never got a scratch.

Seat belts serve a purpose. I had seatbelts on my chairs on my submarine's control station and at my missile launch station of my cruiser. In rough weather, we used them!
 
And why wouldn't that happen? Because very few people want EV's. Keep subsidizing them while at the same time keep making fossil fuel more expensive and you'll force more and more people into submission.

It may be hypothetical but making law that no ICE vehicles allowed to be sold after 2035 is not. It's only two states now but look for the entire north-east and west coast to make the same laws.
They will all starve to death when they can't get food delivered from outside their blue state cities!
 

Forum List

Back
Top