Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Fears. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Fears. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 7 tháng 5, 2013

FUEL FEARS: Automakers Warn Ethanol Mandate Could Hurt Cars

Detroit says it will ruin your engine. The EPA says it's safe. 

Farmers say it's better than foreign oil. Oil companies say it's more expensive than gasoline. 

But as Washington looks to compel refiners to blend more and more ethanol into gasoline, consumers are still left with the basic and critical question -- how much ethanol is safe to put in their cars? 

Automakers warn the government's ethanol mandate could damage vehicles if it continues to grow.

"We just feel that it is not safe for the consumer. It's not safe for their engines," said Charles Drevna, executive president of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.

The questions about ethanol arise after Congress first mandated it in 2007. Ninety-six percent of gasoline sold in the U.S. is now 10 percent ethanol, a high-octane fuel derived from corn. But under that bill and rules favored by the Environmental Protection Agency, refiners are now being forced to blend up to 15 percent ethanol into gasoline sold at stations around the U.S.

The auto industry, though, says E-15 -- as the blend is known -- corrodes pumps, fuel lines and injectors. And manufacturers say they won't cover damages caused by the higher blend.

The American Automobile Association agrees.   

"Ninety-five percent of today's cars are not suited for E-15 based on what people who make those cars say," said AAA CEO Robert Darbelnet.

The ethanol lobby claims automakers and refiners are overreacting.

"E-15 has been sold in this country for the past nine months with no issues whatsoever. This is a lot of hysteria that's being driven by the oil companies," said Bob Dinneen, head of the Renewable Fuels Association.

While there have been no issues reported so far, the new blend has only been sold in a handful of stations in the Midwest. But refiners are mandated to use 13.8 billion gallons ethanol this year requiring the 15 percent blend. The EPA says it is safe for cars built after 2001, but acknowledges it is inappropriate for boats and small motors, including lawnmowers and chainsaws.

Automakers advise new owners not to fill up on E-15 and say doing so may violate warranty terms, leaving customers to pay costly repair bills. Toyota and Lexus even placed warning labels on gas caps and owner's manual instructions caution not to use E-15.

"We think ethanol is a pretty good product, up to a point," said Drevna. "But when Congress mandates such massive quantities that we can't put into the fuel system, that the autos and the lawnmowers people and the marine manufacturers are saying 'We won't warranty, we won't put this in our engines, there is a problem'."

Ethanol supporters dispute that and claim studies back them up. Ethanol blends of 25 percent have been used for years in Brazil with no ill effects on the same cars sold in the U.S.

"We support what the EPA did because we know that E-15 is safe for the vehicles for which they have approved," said Dinneen."Let the marketplace decide. Let consumers that have a newer vehicle, that want to use E-15, give them the choice. If they want to use E-15 because it is lower cost, because it's domestically produced, because it's the only thing we have that's going to reduce greenhouse gases, then they ought to have that choice."

After a lengthy comment period, the EPA is expected to decide soon whether or not to relax the blend mandate. Some lawmakers are considering similar legislation should the EPA fail to do so. Right now, it is a lobbying war pitting farmers against oil refiners and automakers.

"Look, this is pretty simple," said Dinneen. "It's about a battle for the barrel. Ethanol, renewable fuels, have been phenomenally successful over the last several years, and we are now 10 percent of the U.S. motor fuel market. And the refiners are saying, 'no more'. They don't want to see E-15 succeed. I think the American public still understands the value in reducing our dependence on imported oil and seeing more domestic renewable fuels used."


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 5 tháng 5, 2013

Security fears prompt Aerosmith to drop Indonesia concert

  • Philippines Aerosmith_Angu.jpg

    May 5, 2013: Steven Tyler of the famed Aerosmith rock band is mobbed by reporters as he makes his way to his waiting van upon arrival from Melbourne in Manila, Philippines. Tyler and his entourage are here as part of their band's world tour concert.AP

Aerosmith canceled a show in Indonesia after authorities there said they had foiled a bomb plot targeting the Myanmar Embassy.

Concert promoter Ismaya Live cited safety concerns as the reason for the cancellation, but it wasn't clear if there was a direct connection to the alleged embassy plot.

The American rockers were scheduled to perform this coming Saturday for a nearly sold-out crowd of 15,000 in the capital, Jakarta, said Helmi Sugara, event organizer spokesman.

The statement about the cancellation carried an apology from Aerosmith also saying they hoped to make it up to the fans one day. There was no immediate indication they would reschedule.

Indonesian police said Friday they had arrested two suspected militants and seized bombs the suspects were plotting to use against the Myanmar Embassy in Jakarta to protest Myanmar's treatment of Muslims.

Aerosmith started an Asia-Pacific tour in April with their first-ever concert in New Zealand and several shows in Australia. They're scheduled to play Wednesday in the Philippines.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 15 tháng 4, 2013

GUN BILL HURDLE: Senate Bill Backers Try to Ease 'Registry' Fears

As debate begins this week on sweeping firearms legislation, supporters are running into renewed concern from conservatives that the bill could lead to a gun "registry" despite adamant pledges to prohibit this. 

Fear of a national registry has remained even after two influential senators last week proposed a compromise on background checks. The proposal, which will be voted on as an amendment, would expand background checks to gun shows and Internet sales while exempting personal transactions like those among family members. 

The provision, meant to ease concerns about the checks becoming too pervasive, also included language to bar the creation of a federal registry. 

But the language was not enough. Some gun-rights supporters continue to worry about a slippery-slope scenario, where a background check expansion sets the stage for a national registry -- which could then be exploited to seize weapons from individuals. Despite the fact that licensed dealers already keep records of their sales and a national registry has not yet been created, the Second Amendment nightmare scenario has lived on. 

"Once you get these lists out there, once you have a gun dealer keeping lists for lots of other people, the only way that works, frankly I think, is if you keep the paper," Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told Fox News on Monday. "And if you keep the paper, eventually, somebody's going to ask for it." 

Concerns about gun seizures were stoked most recently after a New York gun owner had his weapons mistakenly seized. They were later ordered to be returned. 

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who drafted the background check amendment, insist a registry is expressly prohibited. 

The language of the proposal says the Justice Department "may not consolidate or centralize the records" on firearms sales or possession. It goes on to say nothing in the proposal would allow the establishment of a "federal firearms registry." 

Manchin, speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," reiterated that sellers can do a background check and keep a record -- but the proposal would prohibit a national registry, punishing anybody who tries creating one with up to 15 years imprisonment. 

Despite the assurances, some lawmakers were skeptical. 

"It has been said on the floor recently that background check legislation cannot lead to gun registries because federal law prohibits that. But current federal law can be changed," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said last week, calling recordkeeping a "step toward registration." 

He cited testimony that gun registration is important to ensuring a system of universal background checks works. 

Those concerns were echoed Monday by Blunt, who said he plans to oppose the bill. He cited reports last week that said 185,000 people in his state were affected after a list of concealed-weapon permit holders was given to federal officials. 

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., also said in a statement last week that the Manchin-Toomey proposal "prioritizes collecting records over protecting citizens." 

David Addington, with the conservative Heritage Foundation, argued that while the new proposal prohibits a federal registry, it also includes language that could create wiggle room for the Justice Department. 

Yet supporters of new gun legislation are slowly peeling off votes in favor of the bill. The Senate voted 68-31 last week to advance to debate, easily clearing the 60-vote threshold. 

The bill will have to clear that bar once more before earning a final vote -- and some of those who voted "yes" last week could vote "no" the second time around. 

But over the weekend, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he was "very favorably disposed" to the Manchin-Toomey amendment. 

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., as well as Toomey, have also signaled support from the Republican side. 

Democrats have a 55-vote majority in the Senate, including two independents who typically caucus with Democrats. If all those Democrats vote for the bill, they would still need five Republicans. 

But Democrats could lose a handful of their own -- for instance, two Democrats facing reelection next year opposed last week's motion -- which would require even more Republican support. 

It's not yet clear whether Democrats can garner enough of it. Another prominent Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced Monday that he will oppose the Toomey-Manchin amendment. 

"Instead of expanding a broken background check system, let's fix it," he said.


View the original article here