To the editor:
We should never accept a time where we have to compromise safety and economic security for ideological purposes — especially when it comes from an overreaching government body.
Which is why I found it troubling when the EPA made its intentions known to push the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) from the current E10 fuel to E15. As it currently stands, the U.S. government and most consumers use internal combustion engines that can run on E10 fuel — meaning 10 percent of the fuel blend comes from ethanol. With this new RFS push, the EPA is creating problems for engines ill-equipped to burn the fuel mandated.
This new plan also discounts the fact that more hydrocarbons are burned when creating ethanol compared to normal gasoline, but I guess this is something they must’ve conveniently skipped over.
As the recent terror attacks have showed us, the battles are far from over. Our allies need assistance. Our citizens need reassurance. Is this the right time to mandate a new RFS? If enacted, this plan would be extensive, dangerous and costly for our military and the equipment they use on a daily basis.
The new mandate would involve replacing all government vehicles and machines with E15-certified engines or retrofitting the entire fleet to get up to the new code. Since standard engines cannot use these fuels without inevitable problems, neither choice seems fiscally smart, nor does it help us win the war.
The EPA also doesn’t seem concerned with the damaging economic impact it will create with these mandates. With the national debt up to $19 trillion, is this the appropriate time to impose a large tax on small businesses to get our nation’s 150,000 gas stations up to code? Keep in mind, these are privately owned businesses — not extensions of the big oil companies.
It would be unfair to impose such a substantial tax at a time when wages are stagnating across the board. This would also force everyday citizens to update their cars to fit the new environmental standards. But that’s not the worst part.
According to a report from NERA Economic Consulting, these mandates could: lead to fuel supply disruptions, cause the cost of diesel fuel to rise 300 percent along with raising the price of gasoline by 30 percent, decrease U.S. GDP by $770 billion while reducing worker pay by $580 billion. As of this article, the U.S. national debt sits at $19 trillion. As any economist that can put two and two together will tell you, this makes zero fiscal sense.
We can save the environment, create jobs and keep our troops safe. But when one looks at the facts, this plan won’t help anybody.
Michael Wherry
Greenfield
