Who Hates Ethanol?

In the article below I argued that the best thing the government can do to reduce CO2 emissions is enact a carbon tax and then back off. When government tries to micromanage the process it fails to reach its objective and ends up creating unexpected costs. “Ethanol’s Growing List of Enemies” gives an example of why this is so.

Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute raised the alarm early. Ethanol is a good idea, but we live in a political environment. When the government mandates something, the fat cats of established interests are the first to belly up to the table and slurp down all the cream.

As any good moonshiner knows, you can make alcohol out of almost any product of mother earth, but not all are equally appropriate. It is relatively easy to make ethanol out of sugar cane. That is what the Brazilians do. They have developed a thriving industry that could help supply our ethanol needs. What do we do in America? We put a $.54/gallon tariff & a 2.5% duty on Brazilian ethanol because we cannot grow sugar cane in most of the U.S. We grow lots of corn and that is what we want to use to make ethanol, not because it is an efficient way to make ethanol, but it is our way. Our government protects us from inexpensive Brazilian ethanol and then it takes more of our tax money to subsidize ethanol made out of corn. This makes sense to the government planners who figured out this system & it makes even more sense to the lobbyists and politicians who put them up to it.

Since Iowa is home to the first presidential caucuses you can expect all the major candidates from both parties to genuflect to the corn god - and its profit corn ethanol - sometime before early December.

Corn is a great crop, but it requires significant inputs of land, water, fossil fuels & fertilizers. It is a wonderful feed for livestock and a basic food for people. Under normal market conditions, we would not make much ethanol out of corn and corn based ethanol is not the future. If we eventually make ethanol a major part of our fuel mix, it will be made out of sugar or cellulose. Government subsidies, plans and programs will ensure that happy day is a little farther off. We can thank our elected officials - and this was a bipartisan effort - for the qwerty solution.

Posted by Jack at March 23, 2007 11:20 PM
Comment #213449

Is this about a UN carbon tax transfer to multinational interests for use in China?

China collects over 40% tax on the credits per the Washington Post which may act as a bribe to gain China market access for multinationals.

Ethanol may result in more oil use and profit.

The UN carbon tax goals of $trillions may increase China multinational corporate business

Posted by: Charlie Peters at March 24, 2007 4:22 AM
Comment #213450

Carbon tax is no panacea anymore than ethanol is. I personally am buying no more corn. The price is getting too high, and there are other starch and yellow vegetables just as good, and they will be increasingly cheaper than corn.

The deal here is, energy is a complex problem requiring somewhat complicated thinking skills to address the problem with holistic and comprehensive solutions. Republicans want to drag everyone’s feet on this by arguing that conversion to alternate fuels through regulation MUST NOT precede the technology to make such alternatives available cheaply.

DUH! Do Republicans need to go to economics 101 classes to learn that new technology costs, but, its price drops overtime with increased demand, supply and amortization of the R&D costs?

Democrats are not much better. They want to argue for auctions of Carbon emission licenses under a set of caps for such emissions. As if the corporations are going to eat the costs of saving the planet. What a bold face lie that is. But they prefer that lie to the more obvious truth of a carbon tax which implies that regular consumers will pay more for energy. Either way consumers will bear the cost for consumption, while the corporations will reap the rewards of exports.

But, it is dishonest of BOTH Republocrat partisans to make proposals without the Truth attached. Altering our course toward global warming is going to be VERY expensive and we are ALL going to have to sacrifice to make it happen.

I am also tired of Republocrats touting the low cost of nuclear produced electricity. Their quotes DO NOT include the costs to taxpayers for storage, monitoring, and cleaning up Nuclear waste, and permanent solution to nuclear waste has yet to be found despite 100’s of billions spent already at tax payer expense.

One of the cheapest and easiest beginning steps toward dealing with the energy crisis is inviting, nudging, coercing, or forcing developers from car manufacturers to home construction companies to adopt already proven technologies for dramatically reducing energy consumption as well as saving enormously in other ways.

Did you know an earth bermed home:
1) consumes about 60% less energy
2) is tornado proof
3) is inordinately quiet (no noise pollution)
4) is structurally fire proof
5) and can cost no more than conventional structures.

So, why aren’t there whole earth boomed subdivisions going up across the country? A number of illogical reasons. First, developers haven’t worked out how to market them. (Dumb - reasons 1-5 above are all the marketing they need). Second, huge corporate lobbyists from insurance companies to wood producers see earth bermed homes as a threat to their profitability. And lastly, ignorance of the concept and benefits by consumers, which is something both the government and developers could correct in just a few years, if they were inclined.

For 10’s of millions of Americans, their homes cost them more in energy than their vehicles do. And homes create a huge premium cost at peak hours. Earth bermed homes would save homeowners 60% or more of their current energy utility bills and dramatically reduce energy demand peaks compared to their conventional all walls exposed to the elements, brethren.

The taxpayers are going to have to be willing to cough up tax increases to support government assisted R&D if we are to make progress in the time allotted to make a difference. There are no cheap solutions overall, but there are cheaper alternatives than others.

A huge sum should be invested in figuring out how to safely dispose of nuclear waste, both current and future, so that we can include Nuclear energy as part of the solution. If the disposal problem can be resolved affordably, then nuclear energy could be a big part of the solution.

But, all of these answers and potential solutions REQUIRE our representatives to address the problem and NOT the special interests preferences bought and paid for by campaign contributions. But, that isn’t going to happen until voters demand it, and replace incumbents in larger numbers until it does happen. That is the state of our politics today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 24, 2007 4:49 AM
Comment #213452


Interesting about sugar vs. corn. I had wondered why Brazil gets so much more benefit from ethanol than we apparently do.

Another reason to hope the Iowa caucuses get upstaged. (The main one being that have a knack for backing the wrong Democratic candidates.)

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 24, 2007 7:05 AM
Comment #213453


The main “marketing problem” with earth-bermed houses is that people don’t want to live underground. You don’t need a conspiracy to explain that.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 24, 2007 7:08 AM
Comment #213454

No, Woody, the main problem is that the opponents of earth bermed homes have people like you thinking they will be living underground. Earth Bermed homes are not underground burrows. From the inside there is no apparent difference for dwellers than in a conventional home. Same number of windows, doors, etc. A tunnel skylight in each room makes the rooms sunny, bright and just like normal.

It is only from the outside that one is aware that they are earth bermed. Besides, it is much more expensive to build underground, than to build earth bermed structures. The difference is the excavation costs which can be high if you live on rock. Less water tight engineering is needed in earth bermed homes too than underground housing which is built below grade.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 24, 2007 8:46 AM
Comment #213455

OK, semi-underground.

Look, in a rational world we would probably all speak Esparanto and live in earth-berm homes. I just don’t see the idea catching on.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 24, 2007 9:07 AM
Comment #213461


We agree that the energy situation is complex and requires a multifaceted approach. I just do not trust government bureaucracies and politicians to make the choices. I prefer to let consumers and intelligent people (like you) decide whether the earth home or any other technology or method is appropriate for their conditions. Government can set general direction, get some of the incentives right and then rely on the imagination of the people to do the rest.

Your faith in the government is touching. You often argue that incumbents must be voted out and that government is run by crooks or incompetents. Why do you think your going to get a significantly better group in the near future and why would you trust these guys to make complex decisions.

It is not a matter of government ideology. I have been managing a medium sized professional organization. I do well at it. I do not know what many of my people do. I take advantage of their skills, energy and imagination by setting general direction and then just trying to remove the barriers to their success. I suggest that is also the role of good government. The micromanagers work much harder and produce much less.

David and Woody

I like the idea of a earth home, but it is just one small aspect of our energy mix. Most of our energy problem relates to the production of goods and transportation. Besides, in a densely populated place, you cannot have everybody an earth home.

And in the bottom line, you can make that choice.

Posted by: Jack at March 24, 2007 10:28 AM
Comment #213462


Also, as I have read in various places, the current refining/distilling process of ethanol pretty much eliminates any environmental benefit you get from ethanol over petroleum.

We’ve traded our accident of geography of oil coming from despotic regimes to ethanol coming from the few thousand voters who get to pick our Presidental nominees. (OK, overstatement, but it sounded good.)

Posted by: Steve K at March 24, 2007 10:44 AM
Comment #213471

Why do we use our valuable food crops to feed animals and fuel our cars???

We’d be further ahead economically by using our food to feed hungry people who then would be politically beholden to us instead of warring against us.

Just think, it takes a gallon of petroleum fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol…what a waste…we’re still using the petroleum, not replacing it!!

Posted by: Rachel at March 24, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #213475


i would think the biggest draw back to earth bermed homes is curb appeal.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #213479


being as corn is a major food staple, having it also as a major energy source could be disasterous if drought, flood or some other disaster were to devistate the majority of the crop. i would think it would be even less stable than oil. importation of foreign ethanol would help stablize this as well as refining from other sources. in the state i live in, CA. we have our own blend of gasoline. if a refinery goes down we can’t import fuel from any other state. our prices go through the roof, also if a refinery goes down in another state, CA refiners ship product out which also drives up our costs.

Posted by: dba at March 24, 2007 1:52 PM
Comment #213490

sorry last post was dbs not dba.

Posted by: dbs at March 24, 2007 3:27 PM
Comment #213492

Hmmm…takes a gallon of petroleum to get a gallon of ethanol and ethanol provides fewer miles per gallon than a gallon of gas….guess this is just a big pay-off for corporate farmers…again.

Posted by: Lynne at March 24, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #213495

No doubt about government’s ability to screw up just about anything it touches.
Biofuel and Ethanols could be a viable short-term alternative.
Long term, we need something better to reduce CO2 emissions and is less harmful to the environment.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 24, 2007 4:03 PM
Comment #213501

Steve K

It depends on how you make it and what you make it from. Ethanol from corn is probably about a wash. Enthanol from sugar cane produces a net amount of clean energy. The big payoff would be ethanol from celluous (switchgrass, stalks, wood chips). A lot of people are working on enzime to make that economically possible.

The ethanol from corn was a good experiment. There was nothing wrong with trying and no shame in failing. Unfortunately, this is were politics kicked in. Now subsidies and special interests keep us on this path of error. That is why I am suspicious of big government solutions. They tend to be captured by the special interests.

dba, Rachel please see above.

I would point out a technical factor, however. It takes energy to produce all energy. It is not necessarily terrible if it takes a gallon of petroleum equivelent to produce a gallon of ethanol. It represents the energy cost of production. You could say for example that it takes a pound of coal to produce a pound of coal. All the really means is that there is cost and waste. Some of this is unavoidable. I agree that corn ethanol is probably not worth the energy investment, but the argument against it is sometimes misstated.

Posted by: Jack at March 24, 2007 4:56 PM
Comment #213502
It is not necessarily terrible if it takes a gallon of petroleum equivelent to produce a gallon of ethanol.

It means we’re not weaning ourselves off the amount of gas we use plus it means we’re really using more gas if we’d switch each and every gallon of gas for a gallon of ethanol because ethanol gives fewer miles per gallon than does using the gasoline directly…where’s the savings?

It is terrible…it has no effect except to line the pockets of corporate farms and keep us as energy guzzlers.

Posted by: Lynne at March 24, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #213510

If we were to force new developers to use larger overhangs to reduce direct sunlight into homes and larger windows (South and East facing also tinted) to provide more natural light to reduce lighting costs.
We could do some small things to help all people save on their utility bills by forcing new developers to use passive technology for energy savings. We already force them to build to a minimum standard so why not something that will help at a minimum the new homeowner save money and at best reduce the chance of global warming. These 2 item would at most cost less then 2% more for the new home and easily save up to 20% on energy bills.

Posted by: timesend at March 24, 2007 6:23 PM
Comment #213514

True, but politics intrudes because the corn lobby is a lot stronger than the sugarcane and celluous lobbies.

When (I’m optimistic) there’s a genuine breakthrough in celluous (cellulose?) research, the corn state congressmen and Senators (and there are a lot of them) which pick up on every negative scientific comment that it will make Inhofe look like a buddy of Al Gore’s.

Posted by: Steve K at March 24, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #213526


I did not explain it well. It is simple, but I am having trouble, so let’s take a simple energy source - wood. You want to use the wood in your stove. You have to chop the wood, carry it in etc. You may burn as much energy doing those things as the heat you get. Remember the Franklin quote “cut your own wood and it will warm you twice.” Anyway, the energy used to get the energy is the cost. You might well “spend” as much energy as you obtain. You can never get all the energy. You lose some. Sometimes you come up with only a small percentage of the energy.

When you are making enthanol, you may not be using gas to make it. Maybe you are burning ethanol. It might take two gallons to yield one gallon.


Those are good ideas, but we use most of our energy in production and transportation. Conservation is an important part of our effort, but we obviously cannot conserve ourselves to zero energy use.

Steve K

I agree, but you see the dynamic here. That is how government locks us into the wrong route and why it is best if they set the goal and do not talk about means.

It is likely that the “most promising” technologies today will not be the best for tomorrow. But if government makes the investments, rules, subsidies etc, we may be stuck. Government is not good at choosing winners.

Remember qwerty? It is an inefficient way to type, but we are locked in. The government did not do that, BTW, but it shows the danger of locking ourselves in. Government has locked us into corn ethanol to too much of an extent already. It was done out of a mixture of good intentions and interest groups. That is why you cannot rely on government to help.

Posted by: Jack at March 24, 2007 7:35 PM
Comment #213528

Ethanol from corn will work but as ya said we can make alcohol from anything. So heres an idea you should like sense your a tree farmer.
I get around to different parts of GA. and North FL quite abit. One thing I notice just about everywhere I go are tree limbs being shredded by a crew of tree surgeons. I also notice that there is a whole heap of debris from logging being burned.
I don’t know where the shredded tree limbs end up, but I’ll guess dump. But the debris from
logging is just turning into ashes. Why not make ethonal from all this now wasted wood?
And just think of the threat to our landfills if instead of carring trash to them it went to an ethonal plant instead.
I’m not against ethonal from corn, corn does make some good drinking, but can we grow enough to supply the demand? And still keep food cost down?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 24, 2007 7:53 PM
Comment #213531

You’re right.
The waste is incredulous.
The environment is under siege
The real price will be high.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 24, 2007 8:00 PM
Comment #213532

CORRECTION: Environment

Posted by: d.a.n at March 24, 2007 8:05 PM
Comment #213537


We are working on that. It requires a quicker breakdown of the celluous. We expect this technology to be available soon, not only for wood, but also switchgrass, stalks etc.

This kind of ethanol is the future. The future would arrive faster if the corn god was not so powerful.

Posted by: Jack at March 24, 2007 8:21 PM
Comment #213575

Jack…it’s still a waste of a gallon of gas to make a gallon of ethanol that doesn’t even get the same mileage as gas…

Posted by: Lynne at March 24, 2007 11:20 PM
Comment #213583


It is not like that. Think of the total “gas cost” for a gallon of gas. You put a gallon of gas in your car. How many gallons of gas did it take to produce it and get it to you?

I agree with you that w/o subsidies corn based ethanol does not make economic sense. That is why this whole thing is a good example of why government should not micromanage these sorts of things. But it is not quite as bad as it seems. I think we need to compare like to like. If we want to claim that a gallon of ethanol takes x amount of fuel to produce, we also need to recognize that a gallon of gas also takes a certain amount of fuel to produce.

The intention of my post is to criticize corn ethanol, not praise it, but I want to be critical for the right reasons.

Posted by: Jack at March 25, 2007 12:00 AM
Comment #213584

Ethanol is the biggest scam since diagnosing restless leg syndrome and injesting tapeworms to lose weight. Afterall, the stuff used to make ethanol is mainly fossil fuels.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 25, 2007 12:02 AM
Comment #213612

RLS is a scam?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 25, 2007 2:46 AM
Comment #213635

Of course you realize that the chemical formula for ethanol is C2H5OH, right? Of course you do. That’s 2 carbons, 6 hydrogens and an oxygen.

And of course you realize that when something containing carbon is combusted, it forms carbon dioxide, right? Of course you do.

So, putting aside for now the well-established fact that ethanol production is a net energy loser when you count the output and subtract all the input, how do you figure that ethanol does anything to “reduce CO2 emissions” (your words, not mine)?

Posted by: Torus Lindvalds at March 25, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #213636

I remember back around 1978 they cam up with gasohol. It was a mixture if gas and grain alcohol. It didn’t catch on for two reasons. One was the oil lobby bad mouthing it. But the main reason was cars didn’t run very good on it.
I tired it in my car and it didn’t give as good of mileage as gas, and didn’t produce the power of gas.
From everything I’ve heard ethanol doesn’t get quite as good of mileage but I haven’t heard if it still lets the engine produce the same power.
I’ve thought of converting my 2 John Deere tractors and F-350 pickup to biodiesel. But I’ve heard that biodiesel lowers power and torque.
This is a concern for me as I bought John Deere and Ford for their superior pulling ability and reliability.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 25, 2007 1:39 PM
Comment #213638

We are looking at “alternative” fuels…and we need to make sure we’re not using even more gasoline or other petroleum-based fuels to produce them…otherwise, it defeats the whole purpose…

Simple, isn’t it.

Posted by: Lynne at March 25, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #213674

Actually a earth berm home can be very attractive- both on the outside as well as the inside.

My ex-husband and I built a 3200 square foot home in the mid 80’s, and the energy savings were terrific.Our heating and air bills for the entire home averaged around $100 a month. Because of the savings, we were able to have additional niceties, rare at the time for where we lived. A satalite dish, built in microwaves, and a heated pool being the least of them.

It also sold 16 years later for almost twice what it cost us to build - the biggest selling point being the energy savings.

If I had the money, I’d build one all over again.

Posted by: Linda H. at March 25, 2007 3:50 PM
Comment #213743

Jack said:

We agree that the energy situation is complex and requires a multifaceted approach. I just do not trust government bureaucracies and politicians to make the choices. I prefer to let consumers and intelligent people (like you) decide whether the earth home or any other technology or method is appropriate for their conditions. Government can set general direction, get some of the incentives right and then rely on the imagination of the people to do the rest.

Government has to clear legal barriers to such free choice in the market place. They need to incent building codes to accommodate alternative structures like earth bermed homes and office buildings. They need to constrain Insurance companies from charging the same or more for Homeowners insurance on earth bermed structures which have significantly lower risk than conventional ones. They need to incent insurance companies to provide builders insurance for such structures - a huge impediment to their even being offered in the market place.

Your faith in the government is touching. You often argue that incumbents must be voted out and that government is run by crooks or incompetents. Why do you think your going to get a significantly better group in the near future and why would you trust these guys to make complex decisions.

I do have faith in our Constitution which is the framework for our government. It is how half a trillion dollars consumed by an election cycle to bribe politicians and legislation I have no faith in. New politician replacements will be better if there is a trend by voters to hold the old ones accountable by voting them out. The new guys won’t repeat the behaviors which cost the old guys/gals reelection. That is pure self-interest motivation, something you tout as fundamental to free market forces.

I suggest that is also the role of good government. The micromanagers work much harder and produce much less.

On this we agree.

I like the idea of a earth home, but it is just one small aspect of our energy mix. Most of our energy problem relates to the production of goods and transportation. Besides, in a densely populated place, you cannot have everybody an earth home.

Earth berming is not restricted to homes, it can render cost savings as well to small and medium size business structures as well. And that is not a small aspect, but, a relatively large one. Businesses have huge internal spaces compared to homes, and the cost of heating and cooling it could profit handsomely from earth berming which mitigates heat transfer from and to the outside tremendously. It is a major overhead item for many small & medium businesses.

Also, remove the impediments and offer the incentives I cite in the beginning, and we could see whole earth bermed housing development communities. So, yes, one can have communities with all earth bermed structures.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2007 3:29 AM
Comment #223878

Ethanol Eco nomics…

Tom McClintock’s Citizens for the California Republic, 06-18-2007

The public policy farce that the “Green Governor” unleashed with AB 32 (the so-called “greenhouse gas” law) continues. Using their newly granted power to slash carbon dioxide emissions, the California Air Resources Board (all Schwarzenegger appointees) has mandated that every gallon of gasoline sold in California must contain at least 10 percent ethanol by 2010.

First, a few basic facts. Californians use about 15 billion gallons of gasoline a year, meaning that the new ten percent CARB edict will require about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol. Corn is the most common ethanol-producing crop in the country, yielding about 350 gallons of ethanol fuel per acre. That means converting about 4.3 million acres of farmland to ethanol production, just to meet the California requirement. But according to the USDA, California currently has only 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of all kinds. Get the picture?

The entire purpose of this exercise is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from California automobiles (although Californians already have the 8th lowest per capita gasoline consumption in the country). And that’s where the public policy discussion becomes farce.

As more acres are brought into agricultural production, the demand for nitrogen fertilizer will grow accordingly, which is itself produced through the use of fossil fuels. And the most likely source of new agricultural land will be converting rain forests to agriculture, although deforestation is already the second biggest man-made contributor of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking just behind internal combustion. And here’s the clincher: ethanol is produced through fermentation, by which glucose is broken down into equal parts of ethanol and – you guessed it – carbon dioxide.

Obviously, this edict will hit gasoline consumers hard: ethanol is less efficient than gasoline and it’s more expensive – meaning you’ll have to buy more gallons at the pump and pay more per gallon.

The bigger impact, though, will be at the grocery store. By radically and artificially increasing the demand for ethanol, the cost pressure on all agricultural products (including meat and dairy products that rely on grain feed) will be devastating. Earlier this year, spiraling corn prices forced up by artificially increased demand for ethanol produced riots throughout Mexico.

The CARB regulations will undoubtedly hit Californians hard – but they will hit starving third world populations even harder. Basic foodstuffs are a small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries.

So when the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, they’re right. They’re creating it.


Posted by: Charlie Peters at June 23, 2007 10:05 AM
Comment #226384

Saturday, July 14, 2007

NO on AB118

* Currently $0.51 per gallon goes to oil refiners for adding 5.6% ethanol to California gasoline. That is about $500,000,000.00 per year corporate welfare.

* AB118 may add over $1.00 per gallon to additional gasoline profits in California

* This is about the money from your pocket

* The corn ethanol waiver in the 2005 federal energy bill will lower gasoline prices, improve miles per gallon, lower oil use and improve the air.

* NO on AB118. Contact your elected officials and share your opinion

(make copies and give to your friends)

Clean Air Performance Professionals

Posted by: Charlie Peters at July 15, 2007 12:58 AM
Comment #227194

How about improving the system we have?

Ask for a fuel ethanol waiver allowed in the 2005 energy bill

Fuel ethanol uses lots of water

Audit “Smog Check” to fix the fault in more of the failed cars

Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never

Improving Smog Check and fuel policy can cut car impact in half in 1 year and save money

About $20 billion in savings in first year

I’m confused about promoting products from offshore rather than improving our system

Clean Air Performance Professionals

Posted by: Charlie Peters at July 23, 2007 5:34 PM
Comment #247155

In response to Comment #213584

If RLS is as big a scam as you think (I love all that empirical data you provided) then I respectfully motion the idea that your intelligence is also - a scam.


Posted by: None of your business at March 5, 2008 9:58 PM
Comment #252060

What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?


Posted by: Charlie Peters at May 4, 2008 1:02 AM
Comment #266579

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )

RE: IMRC policy

Are carpetbaggers: Booz Allen, Carlyle Group, Applus, Meineke Car Care Centers and CARB working a deal to take CA small business “Smog Check”?

——- Original Message ——-
From: Rocky_Carlisle@dca.ca.gov
To: cappcharlie@earthlink.net
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:36 PM
Subject: IMRC meeting

Hi Charlie,

You missed the first part of the last IMRC meeting when we announced we will no longer transcribe IMRC meetings since it is an extravagant expense that the state cannot afford. As you know, we are under no statutory requirement to do so. All that is required are meeting minutes. Therefore, when possible, we will record the meeting but when a recording is not possible, we will simply post the minutes of the meeting. Let me know of you have any questions.


Rocky Carlisle
Executive Officer
(916) 322-8249

Charlie Peters
Cell: (415) 516-9909
Fax: (510) 537-9675
Clean Air Performance Professionals

CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net

Posted by: Charlie Peters at October 11, 2008 4:30 PM
Comment #299547

NO on AB 2289 (Eng) unless amended


CBS5 TV’s Jeffrey Schaub reports: “30% of the cars in California are over 12 years old but they account for 75% of state’s pollution.” CBS video with Tom Cackette of CARB talking about the smog check program





If an elected official would request a copy of the Sierra Research SR 2007-04-01 report and all communication about the report from CCEEB, CED, CARB, DCA/BAR, IMRC, Parsons, SGS Testcom & Sierra Research it might help improve performance of Smog Check…. “Sherry Mehl. The report has been modified since 2001. Continually”


Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals, March 22, 2010 … CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie [at] earthlink.net …



A random ‘Smog Check’ inspection & repair ‘secret shopper’ audit, ethanol cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFE credit can cut California car impact over 50% in 2010. (Prevent Over 2000 tons per day of sulfur, PM, HC, O3, NOx, CO & CO2.) Improved performance of AB32 at reduced cost. (support H.R. 1207)

Posted by: Charlie Peters at April 26, 2010 12:28 PM
Comment #343223

Bill Clinton, Al Gore & Senator Obama supported Prop. 87, a GMO corn ethanol welfare program.

Bill, Al have changed opinion on the ethanol mandate, I wonder if Obama will make this the time for CHANGE?

I support a waiver of the ethanol mandate, voluntary use of ethanol in my gas.

Federal ethanol policy increases Government motors oil use and Big oil profit.

It is reported that today California is using Brazil sugar cane ethanol at $0.16 per gal increase over using GMO corn fuel ethanol. In this game the cars and trucks get to pay and Big oil profits are the result that may be ready for change.

We do NOT support AB 523 or SB 1396 unless the ethanol mandate is changed to voluntary ethanol in our gas.

Folks that pay more at the pump for less from Cars, trucks, food, water & air need better, it is time.

The car tax of AB 118 Nunez is just a simple Big oil welfare program, AAA questioned the policy and some folks still agree.

AB 523 & SB 1326 are just a short put (waiver) from better results.

GOOGLE: Prop 87 (510) 537-1796

Posted by: Charlie Peters at May 2, 2012 9:49 PM
Comment #356079

Botkier may perhaps be a kind of while in the variety as they quite simply continually construct products and solutions that happen to be personal. The following oversized cheap designer handbags Chrystie Diddly hobo has become the evidence than me. Studying set for $695, them incorporates glistening German set by using snake-stamped lambskin diagonal element, plus bronze appliance plus studs accentuating an entire element. You’ll find it benefits two bottle diagonal diddly closures by using each one owning cheap gucci handbags it has the areas. The 2 main inside will be provided by using custom logo paving, which will also include a person in diddly, your mobile bank, your multi-functional bank by using keychain, plus an inside custom logo eating plan to the set stand. Measure all over 06 the following Botkier hobo travelling bag is definitely ample more than enough to have on a daily basis recreational apply, by using design and style plus intricacy in front of you. Except for bronze, a travelling bag is likewise to be found in smoke a cigarette plus black/black snake. But the snake element Chanel Bags online store will not be a great deal observable, them continue to enhances the glamour plus form of a travelling bag.

On the subject of travelling bag, Burberry Buckleigh Nylon Haul is definitely built from your fabric that is definitely maybe there quickest to hold. Despite Emporio Armani Watches when you actually enter holiday getaway, its needs to be this travelling bag due to its variety as compared to set plus suede. Which includes a amount with $195 for your Burberry travelling bag, you actually need it the following. It is actually produced from nylon that is certainly as well the actual cause of it has the low-priced amount. Perfectly, low-priced and also never, not less than you actually armani watches for men sale have got a Burberry travelling bag to use on hand just about anywhere you actually visit. You actually should have dark colored release to get a bit of classiness, and also a purple a person for your trendier glance. What ever you enjoy, either baggage currently have dark colored set trims and as well when magic overall tone appliance to get set off. There are drawstring openings for each one section which in turn boosts Cheap Chanel Bags for sale it has the over-all style and design. A equestrian dark night custom logo is scheduled to the front side to get subdued marketing and then to continue to keep it has the smart style and design. There are top rated takes care of by using arena contraptions and it’s sized during pertaining to inches tall, that is certainly undoubtedly more than enough for your personal classy shore tools plus whatnots. Considering this is usually a convenient Burberry travelling bag, you could possibly two them by using the summer months outfits and also shore outfit for your laid back glance when along at the shore, and also by using bluejeans plus good recreational outfit when the town center.

Posted by: chanel tote bags at November 1, 2012 5:37 AM
Post a comment