Comment Log Display

Will California make the right environmental/energy/health/climate
choice?

If you scrutinize the information provided by the links at the end
of the article, you’ll learn there’s no actual energy or
environmental crisis in the US or anywhere else in the world. It’s
real but there are ways to avoid it that have been ignored,
technologies we can still latch onto to solve our energy problems
while at the same time changing our health, pollution, and global
warming equations dramatically. 

These four points are at the core of the most important issues we
face today;

1- The weather pattern changes we call global warming are not
caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) but rather methane(CH4), low level
ozone forming pollutants (VOC’s), low level ozone (O3), and their
reactions with sun light and atmospheric water vapor (H2O). 

2- Gasoline and diesel fuel can be refined to give 20% more
mileage with 70 percent less pollution using polymer additives that
are produced in the same kinds of refineries that gasoline is. 

3- Anhydrous (water removed) ethanol, the kind of ethanol added to
gasoline now, causes high emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC’s), a low level ozone precursor. It also causes loss of
mileage, produces huge amounts of ozone forming pollutants where
it’s refined while pumping billions of tons of water vapor into the
atmosphere mixed with pollutants, and has to be transported in
trucks, trains, or barges because it’s too corrosive for pipelines.


4- Hydrous ethanol (water left in or added) can be used as fuel by
itself or mixed with gasoline while causing no mileage loss, no
increase in emissions, and can be transported through pipelines.
It’s also cheaper to produce greater volumes of it while causing
fewer emissions at the refinery. 

Four points, it’s just that simple. The story of why we aren’t
using them is too politically sensitive and convoluted to explain
in a encyclopedia/news format. In reality, Barack Obama can solve
most of our problems without reading the rest of this article if he
looks into the four facts laid out above. But it would help him
understand why this would work if I better explain it. 

Politics of Global Warming

The politics of global warming isn’t as complicated as it is made
out to be. It was first debated in the 1980’s. There were many
theories on what might cause it. Europe liked James Hansen of
NASA’s idea that CO2 would change our climate by dramatically
warming it. This was because they were already heading in the
direction of a more efficient energy and industrial infrastructures
which reduced their CO2 emissions. 

The popular solution for controlling CO2 emissions is called ”cap
and trade.” It works by setting a standard for CO2 emissions that
gives credits to industries who meet it. Then they can sell them to
other companies who can’t live up to the regulated CO2 emission
levels. In order to get a program like this started without
shutting down any industry that can’t meet the new criteria,
someone has to have CO2 credits to sell. Since Europe was the only
league of nations that had industries that already met the standard
for CO2 emissions, they stood to make a great deal of money under
that kind of system. 

Since our Democratic Party has close ideological ties with many
European countries, liberal politicians chose CO2 to build
legislation around to prevent a future global warming. Republicans
and moderate Democrats either took a stand that there would be no
global warming or that they would believe it when they saw it.
After that, other actually more plausible climate change theories
like that of Drew Shindell, also from NASA, were banished from the
mainstream popular global warming debate. 

After that, climate science legislation and funding focused on CO2
even as there were no discernable signs of an impending global
warming coming and no science that proved CO2 was going to bring
it. Then when extreme weather patterns started to repeat themselves
year after year starting in the mid-1990’s, more Americans started
to believe that anthropogenic (caused by human beings) global
warming was real. Since liberal Democrats had been the first to
claim it was on the way and would be caused by CO2, which is a long
term gas that stays in the atmosphere for more than a hundred
years, naturally everyone believed they were right about it all
along. 

But as weather patterns have been changing, so have our emissions
of short term non-CO2 gases. These short lived gases had been
forecast to change weather patterns, not on a global scale but
regionally on a global scale, by Professor Shindell in the same
1980’s debates that Hansen’s CO2 theory was chosen as the winner of
by nonscientist politicians.  But Shindell’s theory was dismissed
in favor of CO2 for political reasons. Now Shindell is back on the
front pages with even the CO2 believers standing behind his
science. Only now his computer model science supported by new
satellite technology much more profoundly proves what he has been
saying all along. And finally the world is starting to listen. 

Shindell: US “surface transportation sector” biggest threat to
climate change

The changes in our emissions of VOC’s from automobiles has been
causing the changes in climate that is forcing many Americans to
believe global warming is real. This originated primarily from an
additive to gasoline called MTBE. It was mandated as an oxygenate
to get rid of smog in the Clean Air Act of 1990. It was able to do
this by causing high emissions of formaldehyde, a VOC that when
combined with nitrogen oxide (NO) emissions from diesel engines and
coal burning (smog) in the suns rays, dissolves the smog, or rather
ignites in an invisible chemical reaction resulting in low level
ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate (PANs), both tragically bad for
human health and the natural environment. 

Although ozone and formaldehyde emissions are more dangerous than
the byproducts of diesel and coal burning, it’s less visible.  So
it impressed Americans concerned about pollution with the notion
that air quality was safer. This satisfied the needs of the oil
industry that lobbied congress through Enron corporation to mandate
MTBE to be added to gasoline so they did not have to deal with
getting rid of the smog themselves but rather put the burden on the
gasoline consuming surface transportation sector . 

Since the government had adopted CO2 as the culprit of future
climate change, when MTBE use lead to changes in weather patterns
wherever it was used, MTBE wasn’t suspected as the cause. Rather
when MTBE use first started, it was reported that nationwide
weather pattern changes were the result of a natural phenomenon
called El Nino, a slight warming of Pacific Ocean coastal currents
that migrate up from the southern hemisphere in the winter months
every so many years. 

After El Nino passed while weather patterns remained changed,
global warming caused by CO2 theories, which is a change in climate
that is supposed to happen on a global scale from collective
manmade emission buildups of CO2 that there would be nothing we
could do to stop once it occurs, became the sole popular suspect of
climate change. Since there was a time lag by first reporting El
Nino as the problem when MTBE use first began and when global
warming beliefs grew into a national debate, curiosity about what
was causing weather patterns changes didn’t look at MTBE. This
served to validate CO2 theories that were politically motivated
while keeping the science of Drew Shindell from coming to light.  


Personally, I’ve always questioned how El Nino was forecast to
bring changes in weather pattern that were going to be caused by
MTBE. Then when it happened, no one questioned how slightly warmer
ocean waters off California’s coast could cause horrendous changes
in climate in the Northeastern states in the middle of winter. It
just doesn’t make sense. Winter isn’t caused by cooler ocean
waters. It comes from the northern hemisphere moving further from
the sun as the earth orbits the sun tilted on its axis. Warmer
ocean waters can affect coastlines it’s moving off the shores of
but not on the other side of the continent. So I can only assume it
was known what the true cause was going to be in order for it to be
said it was coming before it happened. In fact it only makes sense
for me that way, that the El Nino forecast was provided as cover
for what was known to be going to happen. 

Regardless of what the truth of that matter is, we now know that
MTBE did cause those changes in weather patterns because science
shows that there is no way it couldn’t since the pollution it
creates do in fact cause those same kinds of weather pattern
changes, unseasonable warming, drought, flooding, and violent
storms. 

NASA climate science politics: Hansen –v- Shindell

Professor Shindell’s work was well known in Washington DC and
easily accessible at the time MTBE was first proposed to be
mandated by federal law to be added to gasoline. In fact it wasn’t
long after Shindell had been providing wide access to his research
around Washington that the idea of using MTBE to get rid of smog
arrived in the Clean Air Act of 1990. So it’s entirely possible
that his work provided the inspiration for using MTBE to get rid of
smog, which would mean it was decided that climate change science
could be used to create emissions that would get rid of smog while
knowing that it would effect weather patterns as well. 

Perhaps the political choice of forecasting CO2 to be the sole
factor in climate change gave some of our leaders the impression
that Shindell’s work was failed climate science but could still be
used for other purposes like using nuclear technology to produce
bombs instead of energy.  

The first MTBE theory sold around Washington was that its emission
would mix with smog causing it to rise into the upper atmosphere
and be carried away on the jet stream to be dumped in the Atlantic
Ocean. That’s the same story we’re hearing from Shindell now about
what’s causing weather pattern changes. Only now he can prove it
where initially he was looking for funding for research to prove
that his theory was correct, just like Hansen was. Hansen on the
other hand can still only call his science a theory while Shindell
has proven his to be in fact reality.  

In the 1980’s climate change debate, everyone in Washington knew
that James Hansen’s work had been chosen over Shindell’s for
political reasons. No one was seriously looking at CO2 as
problematic when the future of climate change debate ended with CO2
being chosen as its future mascot. In fact Hansen himself changes
the focus of his publishing’s to reflect Shindell’s science
whenever the true story of climate change looks like it might
surface in a public way. Then he goes back to talking about CO2
when the coast is clear as if he had never suggested that long term
CO2 gases are not a problem while all our attention should be
devoted to short term gases are. 

Hansen is right to project support for the short lived gas view as
geological studies are showing more evidence every day that the
earth has been through more then a few apocalyptic changes in
climate that begun with short term gases causing small warming
patterns that set in motion a kind of domino effect that leads to
methane melting from under the ocean floors and frozen tundra’s of
the northern hemisphere. But when he goes back to pretending CO2 is
what we should be focused on because it makes him popular in
Hollywood and the liberal environmentalist community, he risks the
future of life on earth.    

In August of 2000, Hansen told CNN that "If you add up the sum of
other gases, methane, tropospheric ozone, chlorofluorocarbons and
nitrous oxide, they cause a slightly larger forcing (warming) than
you get from carbon dioxide.” In the same article he also said "It
makes a lot of sense to try to reduce these gases because, in some
ways, it's easier and some have undesirable effects. Tropospheric
air pollution is harmful to human health and agricultural
productivity."

In August of 2000, he also published a paper titled “Global
warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario” where
he writes “A common view is that the current global warming rate
will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in
recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases
(GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4 (methane), and N2O
(nitrous oxide), not by the products of fossil fuel burning” and
also “If sources of CH4 and O3 (ozone) precursors were reduced in
the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the
next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of
black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2
emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline
in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic
climate change.”

In August of 2000, the politics surrounding MTBE nearly lead to
the truth about its effects on climate change coming out. After the
threat had passed, Hansen went back to talking about CO2 and global
warming supporting the political notion that it was the sole cause
of weather pattern changes we were already experiencing that most
Americans were becoming deeply concerned about. In fact he was the
lead climate advisor for Al Gore in the production of his 2006
Nobel Peace Prize/Academy Award winning documentary “An
Inconvenient Truth” which focuses primarily on CO2 being the
culprit of climate change. 

In July of 2006, Hansen writes “Methane (CH4), which is "natural
gas" that escapes to the atmosphere from coal mines, oil wells,
rice paddies, landfills, and animal feedlots, is also an important
greenhouse gas” and “Further global warming can be kept within
limits (under two degrees Fahrenheit) only by means of simultaneous
slowdown of CO2 emissions and absolute reduction of the principal
non-CO2agents of global warming, particularly emissions of methane
gas. Such methane emissions are not only the second-largest human
contribution to climate change but also the main cause of an
increase in ozone—the third-largest human-produced greenhouse
gas—in the troposphere, the lowest part of the Earth's atmosphere.”
This was in an article titled “The Threat to the Planet.” 

May of 2006 was when MTBE was replaced with ethanol, which is now
wreaking havoc across the Midwest where ethanol refineries spew out
tons of VOC and NO emissions mixed with billions of tons of water
vapor from their distilling towers. When it looked like the story
of what really causes weather pattern changes wasn’t going to make
it to the front pages of most major news sources, Hansen appears to
have gone back to publishing articles that only talk about CO2. 

The 2006 changes in climate were easily evident by simply
following national weekly rain patterns that followed a Monday to
Friday workweek schedule as pollution levels rise and fall with the
days we pollute the most when we work to those when we don’t work
or drive as much like Saturday and Sunday. This is shown to be true
by another NASA scientist named Thomas Bell in his paper titled
“Midweek increase in U.S. summer rain and storm heights suggests
air pollution invigorates rainstorms.” His focus on this new area
of climate concern began in 2006. But he sites pollution effecting
atmospheric water vapor cycles going back over a decade to when
MTBE was at the height of its excessive use. 

So before 2000, Hansen says CO2 will cause global warming. In
2000, he says it has nothing to do with changing weather patterns
where it will rather be caused by “non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs),
such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of
fossil fuel burning.” Then he reverted back to CO2 until 2006. Now
he’s back to saying it’s caused by CO2 again, or was the last I
read anything he wrote. 

Shindell’s climate record

Professor Shindell, who works out of the same NASA office as
Hansen, has only ever sighted one cause of climate change, the one
that Hansen talks about when it looks like the cat’s going to get
out of the bag about what really causes it. Shindell was recognized
in 2004 for being among the top fifty scientists in the US by
Scientific American, the only NASA scientist to ever receive this
honor. So in December of 2004, Scientific American was saying that
the person the world should be listening to on climate change
issues was Drew Shindell.  

In January of 2005, a few weeks later, Hansen launched an attack
against George Bush claiming he was censoring his work preventing
him from telling the world how CO2 was causing climate change. The
administration responded by saying they had not stopped him from
talking about his science but from deciding economic policies. Bush
had just put together the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development joined by Australia, China, India, Japan, and South
Korea, to help those countries reduce emissions of methane. He also
created a program here called Methane to Markets that works by
inspiring investment in capturing methane for energy production
that would otherwise become a greenhouse gas. Hansen supported both
moves. 

But with regards to his stand on CO2, Hansen came out with a
public relations campaign against Bush that effectively undercut
Professor Shindell from getting his 15 minutes of fame after he was
chosen as our top climatologist. As stories of Shindell’s
recognition by Scientific American became the focus of reporting on
climate science taking away the attention usually reserved for
Hansen, Al Gore, and their CO2 theory, the story about Bush
censoring the truth about CO2 causing global warming was just what
the news media needed to put Hansen back in the global warming
limelight. 

Mainstream worldwide news sources have generally always, and
apparently still do, support the politically correct version of CO2
being the cause of global warming. With Bush’s popularity back then
being at all time lows (not as compared with today), a NASA
scientists coming out claiming his science was being repressed made
Hansen the new man of the hour on climate issues once again. 

In January 2007, Shindell testified before the Congressional
Oversight and Government Reform Committee that his work was being
censored by Bush administration hacks from the oil industry. But
even then, Shindell’s words were twisted around by Democratic
members of the committee to reflect the view that it was CO2
related global warming science was being altered by the Bush
administration in order to downplay the significance of its effects
on global warming rather than what he was trying to say about how
climate changes are being caused by pollutants when and where they
are emitted.   

In January 2008, Mark Bowen published a book titled “Censoring
Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the
Truth of Global Warming.” It’s about how Bush dropped compromises
that Bill Clinton had made on CO2 emissions with the EU when he
took office in 2000. Bowen makes no mention of the Asia-Pacific
Partnership on Clean Development which the Kyoto Protocols/CO2
crowd says is an attempt by Bush to deny global warming. His book
does however support James Hansen’s CO2 view but makes no mention
of ozone’s effect in changing weather patterns as they are emitted
into the atmosphere.      

Is there any evidence to support my claims?

I remember reading an article in 1990 in The Washington Times
about an additive to gasoline that was being considered to be
mandated for use in our national fuel supplies by our political
leadership that would created emissions that would blend with smog
causing it to dissolve into gases that would then float high enough
into the atmosphere to move into the jet stream where it would be
carried out over the Atlantic Ocean and dumped there in rain. The
idea was troubling to many in congress and was never brought up
again. 

Some months later, the Clean Air Act of 1990 debate began. The
debate began just after it was reported in The Washington Times, in
articles I’ve never been able to retrieve copies of, about an
additive to gasoline called polyisobutlyene (PIB) that would give
20 percent more mileage with 70% less emissions. This lead to calls
for then president  George HW Bush  to force the oil industry to
use it. When he put pressure on them to agree to go along with a
PIB program, they refused. But they hinted they would be willing to
use MTBE which was claimed to be almost as good as PIB and even had
PIB in it. But then just about everything made from crude oil has
some form of PIB in it, including gasoline. The new PIB additive to
gasoline simply came in a slightly longer molecular version. 

So MTBE was settled on as the additive of choice against the
beliefs of the scientific community who thought it would be bad for
the environment with some even having concerns for how it would
effect the atmosphere. As it turns out, the way MTBE works to get
rid of smog, or oxygenates including anhydrous ethanol, is to cause
smog to dissolve into thinner gases that then rise into the upper
atmosphere where it’s carried east by the jet stream and dumped in
the Atlantic Ocean, unless of course it falls somewhere else. I’ve
been contested on this memory many times since I started writing
about it in 2000 so I offer this evidence to support my
recollection of these articles that have apparently, along with
many others relating the MTBE/Clean Air Act of 1990 story, been
removed from The Washington Times archives. 

In April of 2006, Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark
Jacobson published his findings that anhydrous ethanol added to
gasoline as an oxygenate, which is also what MTBE is, worsens air
pollution. He goes on to report that although it does get rid of
nitrogen oxide smog when its VOC emissions blend with it in UV sun
rays, the result is low level ozone and peroxyacyl nitrates
(PAN’s), both which are very dangerous for human health and the
environment. He’s in the process now of publishing another paper
that shows his past findings to have underestimated the negative
effects of ethanol on human health and the environment, including
its effects on climate change. He also argues it’s the worst
possible alternative source of energy we could choose while it
receives the most funding and positive attention from the
government. 

MTBE creates even more VOC emissions (formaldehyde instead 
acetaldehyde) than ethanol. Oxygenates were mandated to be used
initially only during the winter months to aid engines that were
too old to have been required to have emissions systems on them.
Oxygenates were only supposed to help when these old vehicles
engines were warming up on cold days where they are prone to emit
high levels of carbon monoxide. 

At the time, most engines were new enough to have emissions
systems with fuel injected ignition systems. Oxygenates do not work
well with fuel injected systems and engines with low compression
ratios like many new models have. But unburned emissions of MTBE
and its pollutant byproducts were projected to not be a problem
because winter cold would cause it to hover near the ground waiting
to be washed away in snow and rain. That’s what was reported in The
Washington Times in 1990, then again in 1995 when they decided to
use MTBE year round all over the country at 15% instead of 11
percent. 

Really the only reason MTBE helped mitigate carbon monoxide
emissions was because it sticks to the side of cold piston cylinder
walls so the piston pushes it to the top of the chamber as the
exhaust valve opens where it ignites while mixing with gasoline
emissions turning carbon monoxide emissions into other dangerous
pollutants. The truth is there was no carbon monoxide emissions
problem in the US at that time. 

In 1995, MTBE was required to be used at 15 percent per gallon of
gasoline year round even in warm regions to get rid of smog. By
then it was largely forgotten by the public why it’s was originally
mandated to be used. This was when year round rain and flooding
patterns turned to a national drought. At that time, as it is
today, most Americans are not aware of what MTBE is, nor that
ethanol is an oxygenate. MTBE had been being credited with getting
rid of smog since its use first began even though that wasn’t what
it was supposed to do. In fact gasoline engines weren’t blamed for
creating smog while diesel engines and coal fired smoke stacks
were. But MTBE was said to be a cleaner fuel that got rid of smog
so none of the few people that knew enough to question the story
said anything about increasing its use to 15% and using it year
round.

How to clean up our fossil fuel equation

I‘ve also been challenged on the assertion that there is an
additive to gasoline that gives 20% more mileage with 70 percent
less emissions. I never knew if it existed or not, just that a
story about it giving this kind of performance was used to give the
impression to the American people, who too distracted by Saddam
Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait to pay much attention to the details
of the Clean Air Act of 1990 debate, that gasoline additives were
the key to solving the future of energy and many of our
environmental concerns. Then MTBE was substituted for PIB while
giving the impression it was just as good. 

At the same time I started trying to draw attention to what MTBE
was doing to weather patterns, on August 25, 2000, August Gibbons
of the Washington Times published an article titled “Chemist claims
fuel additive cuts pollution, boosts mileage.”  In it he told the
story of PIB and the company that held the patent on it as a
gasoline additive GTATech.com. The company has since then become
VisconUSA.com which sells its PIB additive to the state of Texas to
be added to diesel fuel so they can reduce emissions in order to
bring them into compliance with EPA air quality rules. 

Viscon is promoted to give more mileage as well as reduce
emissions but the increased mileage aspect isn’t mentioned in
reporting about its use in Texas. It’s been thoroughly tested and
certified by the State of Texas while Viscon’s owner Jerry Trippe
has been contracted to advise diesel refiners in Texas about how to
produce diesel fuel with the same properties that PIB gives it when
added to it. PIB is refined from crude oil just like gasoline and
diesel fuel are. So actually gasoline and diesel fuel can be
refined to give more mileage with fewer emissions. 

There’s another company that claims no connection to Viscon that
sells an additive called Ultimate ME2. They report it to have been
tested and approved by the EPA. They say it gives the same increase
in mileage for diesel fuel and gasoline as Vison’s PIB additive
while reducing emissions and cooling engines, which Viscon makes
these exact claims as well. It’s also mixed with fossil fuels at
the same ratios as Viscon and reported to be refined from crude oil
as well. So if it works like Viscon apparently does for the state
of Texas, whatever Ultimate ME2 is, gasoline and diesel fuel can be
refined to have the same properties it offers as well. 

Ultimate ME2 never return my emails inquiring if it’s a PIB
additive. If it is, then the EPA and the state of Texas are aware
of additives to gasoline and diesel fuel that give 20% more mileage
while causing 70 percent less emissions, which means 20% more
fossil fuels for the world with almost no more pollution from
either one. But since PIB is refined from crude oil, it means that
diesel fuel and gasoline can simply be refined to have these
properties, which is also evidenced by the fact that Viscon is
aiding the state of Texas in learning how to refine diesel fuel
with the same properties that Viscon gives it.

How to fix the ethanol equation

Mark Jacobson of Stanford University demonstrates conclusively
that anhydrous ethanol added to gasoline causes many disastrous
consequences for health and the environment. But his research
focuses solely on anhydrous ethanol. Drew Shindells research
demonstrates without a doubt that ethanol emissions cause extreme
changes in weather patterns. But it’s easier viewed first hand than
studied though NASA computer modeling because it’s been happening
on quite a dramatic scale since anhydrous ethanol replaced MTBE in
the May of 2006, especially in the Midwest where ethanol refiners
mix hundreds of millions of tons of distilled hot water vapor with
ozone forming pollutants as they are set adrift into the upper
atmosphere to come back down as violent storms. 

Anhydrous ethanol provides no fuel benefit. It was designed as an
oxygenate, not a fuel. It’s supposed to cause a loss of mileage to
create emissions that dissolve smog. MTBE was made from chemical
compounds that we have an overabundance of that are cheap and easy
to refine, or were before MTBE stopped being used. It’s made from
natural gas and left over isobutylene emissions from crude oil
refining that is too toxic to dump cheaply. Putting it into a
gasoline additive gave the oil industry a way to make money off it
rather then getting into trouble from the EPA for dumping it into
the atmosphere. When MTBE use stopped, it should have created a
vacuum that glutted the market forcing the price of natural gas
drop dramatically. But the opposite happened with none of our
leaders ever questioning why. 

Ethanol made from corn and is very difficult to deal with. In fact
since the price of oil has dropped, the ethanol industry is asking
for a bailout along with our automakers and big banks, even as
ethanol is so heavily subsidized by the government. So it’s really
not ironic that the value of the dollar started to decline at the
same time ethanol replaced MTBE, which caused the price of crude
oil to rise because it took more dollars to buy a barrel. This had
a cascading effect on the economy that many believe will end the US
as we know it unless Barack Obama can fix it.

What seems to have been overlooked is that although we used
Brazil’s independence from foreign energy sources as a model for
our anhydrous ethanol program, they mostly use hydrous ethanol in
engines designed to run on it or have had convertors install on
them so they can. Hydrous ethanol is what anhydrous ethanol is
before it is distilled a few more times to get all the water out of
it. This is what makes it so expensive to produce and hard to
handle as anhydrous ethanol is highly corrosive and evaporates
easily. It also causes dangerous emissions and mileage losses. So
although we’ve gone the wrong direction using the EPA’s mandated
oxygenate program as a source of domestic fuel that doesn’t do
anything but pollute and ruin our economy, we’ve also built so many
ethanol refineries to meet this unrealistic goal that we can
actually take a huge step in the direction of energy independence
if we change our focus from anhydrous to hydrous ethanol because we
have an exiting infrastructure that can easily accommodate this
move. 

No Magic Silver Bullet

If we change our use anhydrous ethanol towards now focusing on
hydrous ethanol, we could begin to turn our oil dependent economy
around in a matter of months. Hydrous ethanol mixed with gasoline
doesn’t cause a loss of mileage, doesn’t require engine
modifications, does not pollute, can be transported though
pipelines, is safe, cheap, and does not pollute as much at the
refinery when producing. The list goes on and on about the benefits
hydrous ethanol can afford us to the point that it requires another
article be written about it. 

It is realistic to pursue a hydrous ethanol direction with the
intent of getting our economy, not just back up and working again,
but to make stronger than it has ever been before. And this could
be done in a very short period of time because we already have the
ethanol refining capacity to do it. In fact if we don’t do
something to rescue the ethanol industry soon, there will be
nothing left of it but a bunch of bad memories and billions of
dollars worth of rusty mothballed distilleries. 

On top of what hydrous ethanol could give us, we could also lessen
our dependence on foreign oil 20 more percent while getting rid of
70 percent of the pollution caused by diesel fuel and gasoline with
PIB technologies. Of course there’s still all the other clean
sources of energy out there that we have yet to tap. But we can do
these right now and still working towards clean sources of solar
and wind power.  

As Drew Shindell explains in his new campaign to change the focus
of global warming from CO2 to ozone forming pollutants, the savings
from future health care expenses is enough to make changing our
unrealistic political focus on CO2 to a more scientific direction
targeting ozone forming pollutants from our “surface transportation
sector” worthwhile, to say nothing of the fact that so many people
won’t have to get sick and or die if we stop polluting so much. 

This can all be done without making our current leaders out to be
liars for not having brought this to our attention in the past.
They’ve been telling us all along that that there’s no magic silver
bullet that will cure our energy markets, health needs, economy, or
global warming. And they’re right. These are golden bullets that
can bring new life and liberty to a country on the verge of
forgetting why we are the most powerful nation in the world that
stands for the highest most honored principle ever conceived,
Freedom. So choices like these are the only direction our new
President can take and I have every confidence that he will.      

Sources for hydrous ethanol PIB article

2007 Mark Jacobson of Stanford University shows ethanol worse for
air and health
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418072616.htm

December 2008  - Mark Jacobson of Stanford University research
shows ethanol worst alternative fuel polluter
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/power-010709.html

Audio of Mark Jacobson of Stanford University telling his ethanol
story
http://www.podtech.net/home/2646/mark-jacobson-the-truth-about-ethanol

Climate forcing and air quality change due to regional emissions
reductions by economic sector
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Shindell_etal_3.pdf
Abstract – 
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Shindell_etal_3.html

Midweek increase in U.S. summer rain and storm heights suggests
air pollution invigorates rainstorms.
http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/viewPaperAbstract.php?id=1096

2007 United States greenhouse gas report does not mention low
level ozone, VOC’s, or NMVOC’s  
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057307.pdf

Idahoans go out of their way to get non ethanol gasoline because
of mileage and poor performance
www.idahostatesman.com/235/story/592396.html

Poisoning for profit - the tetraethyl lead story  - part 1
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/poll-f02.shtml

Poisoning for profit -  part 2
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/poll-f03.shtml

4 – 7% water hydrous ethanol blended with gasoline better for
mileage and emissions than anhydrous, good for engines
http://www.heblends.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=25

2004 Every gallon of fuel sold in Brazil is bended with at least
25 percent hydrous ethanol
http://www.ethanol-producer.com/article.jsp?article_id=948

Blending 96% ethanol 4% water hydrous ethanol with gasoline first
discovered 
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3981

2004 article - GM to produce Brazilian vehicles to run on hydrous
ethanol-gasoline blends or natural gas by 2007
http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=951

Ethanol makers want to add more than the legal limit of ethanol
even though it doesn’t work
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/pummeled-by-wall-street-crisis-ethanol--producers-turn-to-washington-for-help-2008-12-02.html

MTBE causes 12% increase in formaldehyde emissions; cold starts
produce emissions of MTBE; MTBE used to reduce carbon monoxide
emissions during winter
http://www.tsrtp.ucdavis.edu/public/mtbe/mtberpt/vol3_1.pdf

MTBE required for ozone nonattainment regions
http://epw.senate.gov/105th/sul_9-16.htm

Clean Air Act admits severe problems with low level ozone (search
ozone)
http://www.american.edu/TED/clean.htm

Role of aerosols in climate, weather, and hurricanes -
http://www.essl.ucar.edu/LAR/2006/strategic-goals/sp7/sp7.htm

Search “Texas air quality study” (bottom of the page) -
http://www.essl.ucar.edu/LAR/2007/strategic-priorities/sp2/index.php

2007 research on aerosol affects on cloud formation -
http://www.ral.ucar.edu/lar/2007/goal_1/

Tropospheric Photochemistry -
http://www.acd.ucar.edu/ASR/2003/ASR2003ACDnarrativev11.htm

Historical Overview of Climate Change Science -               
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

Autumn Foliage May Affect Air Quality and Climate -
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/newsreleases/2001/leaves.html

Warm air from cities can collide with water vapor from a near by
source causing rain downwind of a city and affecting winds hundreds
of miles away - 
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0603/cities.shtml

Aerosols emissions from both manmade and natural sources cause
different kinds of cloud formation  -
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html

Ozone peaks at the end of the day and rises into the upper
atmosphere -
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20080922/NEWS/809210262/1042?Title=Speakers__Air_quality_in_WNC_is_poor

Volatile Organic Compounds, VOC’s from trees mix with manmade
gases to produce low level ozone -          
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/chemistry/pollution.php

October 2008 article - Ozone issue needs its own 'Kyoto'
-http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/06/ozone.pollution

California government resource page for oxygenates
-http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/oxy/oxy.htm

U.K. - Institute of Science in Society  - “burning ethanol
produces carcinogens and increases ozone levels in the
atmosphere.”- Dr. Mae-Wan Ho -                
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ECBNESEB.php

Missouri Drops Ethanol Blends Causing Gas Prices To Plummet
-http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7013205894

Brazilian ethanol to sponsor Indy races -
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081121/NEWS/81121025/1002/NEWS01

U.S. and Brazil sign pact in 2007 to work together to advance
ethanol technology -                                               
                                                        
http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/11/21/us-dept-of-energy-and-brazil-to-commercialize-biofuels/

EPA’s hydrous ethanol engine low emissions high mileage -  
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/sae-2002-01-2743-v2.pdf

Study comparing Wisconsin fuel efficiency before ethanol to
Minnesota’s after -
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/09/wisconsin-tops-minnesota.html

Drew Shindell testimony Congressional Oversight and Government
Reform  Committee, Jan. 30,2007, U. S. House of Representatives -  
  http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070130113315-90082.pdf

President Bush and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development - http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/50314.htm
  
Hansen lashes out at Bush for censoring his work in January of
2005 -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19162-2005Jan18.html

January 2008, Mark Bowen publishes book – “Censoring Science:
Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of
Global Warming.” -
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17926941

NASA Climatologists Named in Scientific American Top 50 Scientists
- http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everydaylife/sa_top50.html

Hydrous ethanol injected into air intake of diesel engine to
produce 40 % better fuel efficiency -
http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5054

Mechanics Blame Ethanol Fuel for Engine Woes - 
http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7846462&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Advancing the understanding of ground-level ozone pollution -
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_ozone.html

Viscon testing in Texas to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and
provide new technology to refiners -
http://www.tercairquality.org/NTRD/Projects/N-029

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Viscon PB additive to
gasoline approval notification -
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/texled/viscon_approval_letter.pdf

NASA says low level ozone causing 50% of arctic warming -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11838578/

German research: adding hydrous ethanol to gasoline -
http://www.heblends.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=27

Germany: Gasoline blending with hydrous ethanol reduces costs and
saves energy -
http://www.mindsinmotion.net/index.php/mim/themes/alternative_fuels/news/gasoline_blending_with_hydrous_ethanol

Ford Promises 30% Better Mileage Using Ethanol Injection -
http://gas2.org/2008/09/03/ford-promises-30-better-mileage-using-ethanol-injection/

Typical mileage loss story about ethanol -
http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S656290.shtml?cat=300

Hansen - Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? -
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

Article on Hansen’s new publishing; CO2 with no mention of other
gases -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081108155834.htm 

Australia socialists: Hansen says ten years to stop global warming
- http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/774/39930

NASA Measurements Show Greenhouse Gas Methane on the Rise Again -
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/10-29-2008/0004914146&EDATE=WED+Oct+29+2008,+11:16+AM

Who Killed the Electric Car? -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car

James Hansen in 2000 on methane and ozone being worse than CO2 -
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/08/16/nasa.greenhouse.enn/index.html

James Hansen: “The threat to the planet” – July 2006 -
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131

Ethanol vehicles pose significant risk to health, new study finds
-              
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/april18/ethanol-041807.html

GTA Fuel Enhancer with Viscon -
http://www.need4speedpower.com/gtafuel.html

Ultimate ME2 article - http://www.enn.com/press_releases/2408

EYI Announces Ultimate ME2 Receives EPA Registration -
http://www.collagendiet.com/ultimateME2.htm

How Ultimate ME2 works -
http://test.myultimateme2.com/products.php

Put a polymer in your tank -
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3739/is_/ai_n8926653

EcoSense Solutions develops ethanol combustion carburetor -
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=2442

Mix 20% water with pure ethanol and efficiency in the combustion
chamber doubles – gasoline made from garbage and biomass -
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/25/everyday-waste-to-become-gasoline/

China debuts reformulated hydrous ethanol; can blend with any
concentration of gasoline -
http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/07/03/chia-debuts-reformultaed-hydrous-ethanol-can-blend-with-any-concetration-of-gasoline/

Hydrous ethanol alternative costs 60 percent less to produce -
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/01/07/china-car-maker-achieves-breakthrough-on-hydrous-ethanol-alternative-to-ethanol-costs-60-percent-less-to-produce/

Emissions from hydrous anhydrous ethanol –ozone/PANs - 
http://74.125.45.104/unclesam?q=cache:No9IXgzbnNAJ:www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/70761-IYKlDc/webviewable/70761.pdf+hydrous+ethanol&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

Anhydrous ethanol can’t be transported in pipelines -
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm

Ethanol causes 20 to 30% mileage loss -
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml

Louisiana adopts advanced biofuels initiative -
http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1766

Hydrous Ethanol Can be Effectively Used in Most Ethanol/Gasoline
Blending Applications -
http://renergie.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/hydrous-ethanol-can-be-effectively-used-in-most-ethanolgasoline-blending-applications/

US EPA on oxygenates - http://www.epa.gov/MTBE/gas.htm

Ohio – Gasoline requires 10 percent anhydrous ethanol additive -
http://74.125.45.104/unclesam?q=cache:YZgo-wBA6ugJ:www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/regs/3745-72/3745-72-07.pdf+anhydrous+ethanol+gasoline&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

Ethanol mandate for gas dropped: CRITICS APPLAUD CHANGE, SAY
ADDITIVE NOT NEEDED. -
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12748729_ITM

Ethanol added to gasoline causes low level ozone problems in urban
areas -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/16/BAG04H9IQG1.DTL&type=printable