As spring is here, we will soon see public service announcements on when to mow the grass and when to fill our vehicle gas tanks to reduce the pollutant ozone in our atmosphere.
In The Star I read that ethanol-blended gasoline is being mandated by the state of Missouri (4/1, Local, “KC awaits Blunt’s waiver of ethanol mandate”). According to the article, ethanol creates more smog and dirtier, less healthy air.
So with ethanol, will it really matter when we mow our lawns or fill our gas tanks if the government decrees we use dirtier gasoline? It’s “through the looking glass, down the rabbit hole, and take a seat at the Mad Hatter’s tea party.”
I am sure our expert environmental government legislators will come up with more great ideas. Perhaps they will outlaw incandescent light bulbs and replace them with a more expensive product that can only be disposed of at a hazardous waste site. Nah, that would never happen.
David P. Yurkovich
The driving and taxpaying public has been duped. Somehow our elected legislators have determined that alcohol in gasoline is a good thing, a green thing.
Alas, this is not so, Chicken Little. The mandated alcohol-in-gasoline regulation has only driven the cost of corn and wheat products significantly higher while giving us a reduced-energy product that costs more to make than it returns.
If it were not for the government subsidization of ethanol, this would never have happened. This is a failed policy that’s good for some farmers and Archer Daniels Midland, perhaps, but it’s a rip-off for drivers and taxpayers.
Ethanol has only two-thirds the energy of gasoline. It is distributed by truck, further increasing the cost of driving. One again, the poor citizen taxpayer is the victim of what’s known as the law of unintended consequences.
Worse yet, the pumps don’t have to tell you if they have ethanol or not.
This fiasco is reminiscent of the days of prohibition of alcohol, in reverse. How can we correct this dreadful mistake?