Major Screwup
Member
It's nice to think that our representatives actually give a crap what we think...
!@#$%^&* E10 fuel
- Thread starter MarkO
- Start date
Monte Lauer
Active member
I agree x2
Drew Merrick
Member
I have written my congressman. Mr shrader has been informed of the situation and knows he is expected to stop it and make gas better.
Eric VanBuren
Member
Certainly if you want this law changed you need to let your representatives know.
This link bill offers relief from costly state ethanol mandate - the oregon catalyst Provides the names of those representatives that at least seem to care in or. Of course since they are the ones introducing those bills they are for them so you also need to find your local reps and let them know you want them to support those bills (if they haven't been voted on yet) and future ones like them, if those don't pass. And if this one passes/passed rep. Bill kennemer (r-oregon city) introduced hb 3277 to direct the state to study the mandate and report the benefits and the harmful effects of the addition of ethanol to gasoline. Then you need to find out who is doing the study and flood them with your real world findings. What they are more likely to take notice of imo is if people who regularly track/log their mpg/fuel purchases show them that this is increasing or at least not changing the dependence on oil. For example if you could show that your 200x vehicle went from 20 mpg to 18 mpg or better yet 17 mpg that would carry more weight than showing that you needed to replace the fuel hose or rebuild your carb on a 40+ year old vehicle. The first would prove that e10 doesn't reduce the use of oil or even increases it, while the latter could easily be dismissed because it is an old vehicle and May have needed those repairs anyway. You need to keep in mind they were patting themselves on the back for reducing the dependence on foreign oil.
This person is also someone you should direct your complaints to. russ wycoff, administrator of the oregon department of agriculture's measurement standards division, which oversees fuel quality.
This link bill offers relief from costly state ethanol mandate - the oregon catalyst Provides the names of those representatives that at least seem to care in or. Of course since they are the ones introducing those bills they are for them so you also need to find your local reps and let them know you want them to support those bills (if they haven't been voted on yet) and future ones like them, if those don't pass. And if this one passes/passed rep. Bill kennemer (r-oregon city) introduced hb 3277 to direct the state to study the mandate and report the benefits and the harmful effects of the addition of ethanol to gasoline. Then you need to find out who is doing the study and flood them with your real world findings. What they are more likely to take notice of imo is if people who regularly track/log their mpg/fuel purchases show them that this is increasing or at least not changing the dependence on oil. For example if you could show that your 200x vehicle went from 20 mpg to 18 mpg or better yet 17 mpg that would carry more weight than showing that you needed to replace the fuel hose or rebuild your carb on a 40+ year old vehicle. The first would prove that e10 doesn't reduce the use of oil or even increases it, while the latter could easily be dismissed because it is an old vehicle and May have needed those repairs anyway. You need to keep in mind they were patting themselves on the back for reducing the dependence on foreign oil.
This person is also someone you should direct your complaints to. russ wycoff, administrator of the oregon department of agriculture's measurement standards division, which oversees fuel quality.
Korllach
Member
On the contrary, the more you slam your senator and congressmen the more pressure they are under to do what their constituants want, or face not being re elected. If everyone who thought "oh, what good will it do, I will just vent here" actually vented to the person who is screwing you in the ass on these deals, we might not be bent over the table so often.
In or and wa there are basically two different states in each state. In or, there is portland and the I-5 corridor to eugene and the rest of the state. In wa, there is what you can see from the space needle in seattle and the rest of the state.
For the state wide elected officials, all they have to do is campaign in portland or in seattle. The voters in the rest of the state are basically unrepresented because there are more "voters" in the urban areas than the rest of the state combined.
I don't know how many elections in wa have occurred where 38 of the 39 counties voted no on something but the measure carried because king county voted yes. But it has been more than a couple elections now.
I will agree if we never say anything nothing will happen. But I am not confident that saying anything in wa will do anything except give your jaws exercise if what you are saying is not the current pc jargon.
For the state wide elected officials, all they have to do is campaign in portland or in seattle. The voters in the rest of the state are basically unrepresented because there are more "voters" in the urban areas than the rest of the state combined.
I don't know how many elections in wa have occurred where 38 of the 39 counties voted no on something but the measure carried because king county voted yes. But it has been more than a couple elections now.
I will agree if we never say anything nothing will happen. But I am not confident that saying anything in wa will do anything except give your jaws exercise if what you are saying is not the current pc jargon.
Scoutboy74
Moderator
Well said Mark. That shouldn't discourage anyone from writing their representatives. They were elected to represent each of us, not just a select group. The population density scenario you outlined does make it a steep uphill climb for sure.