Rush Limbaugh Program - February 8, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 8, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:18

February 8, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And relying on the star students here at the Limbaugh Institute, one of those, Steve F., emails me, good morning, Roger, the range of a C-20B Gulf Stream, according to the U.S. Air Force website, which Speaker Hastert had at his disposal, the range is 4,250 miles.
	The distance from Washington, D.C., he writes, to San Francisco is 2,449 miles.
	I'm confused as to why Her Royal Highness cannot use the C-20B to get nonstop from D.C. to San Francisco and needs 757 to do it.
	Carries over 300 people, I think.
	That's a good point.
	Other than hers has to be as big as his.
	I mean, he has Air Force One.
	What do you expect?
	Getting this little dinky jet?
	Are you kidding?
	I own a winery.
	Don't you understand who I am?
	Oh, man, she is a winery.
	All right.
	1-800-282-2882 is our phone number.
	Al Gore, echoing the political statement from the United Nations report, has this to say today.
	Never before has all of civilization been threatened.
	We have everything we need to save it, with the possible exception of political will.
	But political will is a renewable resource.
	Now, that is as much gobbledygook as I can handle in a single month.
	Just those two sentences.
	All of civilization is threatened.
	I assume, by the way, being no scientist, I assume that the planet has, in the last hundred years, increased its average temperature by 7 tenths of 1% Celsius.
	That is the accepted version of what's gone on.
	And it may be wrong.
	It may be wrong.
	I don't know.
	But 7 tenths of 1 degree in 100 years has been, let me assume for a minute Al Gore is exactly correct.
	Let me assume for a moment that everything having to do with global warming has been induced by your SUV.
	Let me assume for a moment that our lifestyle, dependent on fossil fuels, our economy, our way of life is destroying the planet.
	Well, destroying the planet how?
	Well, 7 tenths of one degree in 100 years.
	7 tenths of one degree in 100 years.
	According to Jonah Goldberg in his column in today's LA Times, in the great scheme of trade-offs, he writes in the history of humanity, never has there been a better trade-off than the trading a tiny amount of global warming for a massive amount of global prosperity.
	If the Earth got seven-tenths of one degree Celsius warmer in the 20th century, during that same period, the gross domestic product, the wealth capacity of the wealth generating capacity of the Earth increased by 1,800%.
	He says, if in the 21st century that's the same trade-off, if we could get 1,800% richer again in exchange for another 7-tenths of a degree Celsius warmer, I'm going to take that trade-off in a heartbeat.
	So Civilization is threatened, says Al Gore.
	So let's, again, let me assume for a minute that the globe is warming.
	Then you get to the question of are we causing it to warm?
	And just who is we?
	China, for example, is exempt from Kyoto.
	You know this now.
	China and India do not have to cut back on their greenhouse gas emissions.
	Not to worry, China, by the way, Al Gore is on your side.
	Despite the fact that China has indicated that it is going to build an additional 2,200 coal-fired power plants by 2030, imagine the greenhouse gas emissions of that.
	That's more coal-fired power plants than I think are in the world.
	That's just a guess.
	2,200 sounds like a lot because they have coal, too, like we do.
	They're going to burn the coal.
	They're not under Kyoto.
	And moreover, their feeling is: hey, we're trying to get as rich as you, we're entitled to, and we don't have to worry about greenhouse gases as you do.
	And Al Gore, being a good Democrat, picks up the anti-Americanism of the Chinese, and it becomes his policy.
	Here's what he said today.
	Let's see, yesterday.
	Quote, let's see, this is not a quote.
	This is a paraphrase.
	Emerging economies such as China are justified in holding back on fighting greenhouse gas emissions until richer polluters like the United States do more to solve the problem, Al Gore said Wednesday.
	Chinese officials said that they would act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after industrial countries like the United States make changes themselves.
	And Gore said, quote, they, the Chinese, they're right in saying that.
	They're right in saying that.
	In other words, this business of we are polluting the planet, there's a definition of we.
	It's only the capitalist rich West that counts, even though China and India, China, by the way, will surpass the United States in a very few years in total greenhouse gas emissions.
	Assuming now, again, that greenhouse gas emissions have anything to do with global warming, and I'll get to that in a minute.
	But if they do, let's assume they do, how is it possible that our greenhouse gas emissions from the United States are worse than China's?
	Aren't they all CO2?
	I mean, isn't that all we're talking about here?
	And other greenhouse gases?
	Does it matter?
	Is this a racist thing?
	Is this a profiling thing?
	Does it matter a whit where the greenhouse gases come from?
	This is extraordinary.
	Not only does Al Gore believe that global warming is occurring and that we're causing it, we, the planet, are causing it, he now believes that the United States should reduce its standard of living drastically first before we ask other countries like China to do the same.
	Wow.
	I mean, that's beyond belief.
	It's particularly beyond belief when you understand what China is actually doing.
	It's particularly beyond belief when you understand what China is actually doing.
	Wall Street Journal published a very interesting analysis of how China cashes in on global warming.
	China makes money on global warming.
	Not only are they exempt from all the rules of greenhouse gas emissions, but they are participating, China being the number two emitter of greenhouse gases right after the United States, and they will surpass us.
	They sell pollution credits.
	Now, understand how this works.
	If you did sign Kyoto, Western European countries, for example, and you do want to do something, you know, build a plant, produce a widget, produce jobs,
	do something that's going to have the unintended effect of emitting some greenhouse gas, companies can comply with the standards by bankrolling emission-cutting projects in the developing world.
	By going out, for instance, Siemens can go out from West Germany and they can find a plant in China and they can dismantle the plant.
	They can take it offline, buy it, take it offline, say, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions by that amount, and therefore we're allowed to have our new plant expansion and build what we build back in Germany.
	Carbon credits, it's called.
	Carbon credits.
	Now, how is it that China is making money?
	China is making money, and let's talk particularly about the refrigerant.
	We used to have HFC 23.
	We used to have this stuff in our refrigerators.
	It was a gas that made it cold.
	It was also a greenhouse gas.
	If it escaped, it destroyed the ozone.
	So it's long identified as something we, in fact, we've substituted another gas at new refrigerators for that.
	Okay, so HFC 23.
	HFC 23 is being made in China.
	There are these refrigerant-making plants.
	HFC 23, they have not changed over because they're being bought.
	Every time they build a new HF23-producing plant in China, some European country comes in and pays them more than they paid to build the plant to take it down again.
	So they sell it to them and they take it down.
	Then they move 150 yards over and they build a plant again and they sell it again.
	And China is making money on global warming and making gore look like the jackass he is.
	They're so taking advantage of it because they're smart.
	They've had a 4,000-year-old civilization.
	If you want to be foolish enough to believe that you could help the planet by reducing your standard of living, that you could make less pollution, I mean, go to some of these places that have $500 a year per capita income and tell me there isn't more pollution than there is here.
	Have you been to some of the African countries where the sewer runs down the middle of the street?
	It used to in Europe too and maybe in the United States, but it doesn't anymore because we have enough money to put it in pipes down below the street.
	And sometimes even in San Diego, we can keep it in the pipes, sometimes not.
	So this is the issue.
	Do we reduce our standard of living with no known connection to less pollution?
	In fact, there's more pollution, the more squalor you have.
	If you know what, if we want to commit suicide, if we want to dismantle the most successful economy in the history of mankind, if we want to let people like Al Gore lead this country to that result,
	the Chinese are absolutely delighted to sell us the rope to hang ourselves, to sell us the shovels to dig our own graves, to sell us the plants that we will piously buy and give them dollars and money and then have them go out and just build the plant back up again to sell it to the next sucker.
	And don't tell me that Gore doesn't know all this.
	It's all been printed.
	I've got all of this out of printed material.
	Wall Street Journal is the article, China Cashes In on Global Warming is the head of it.
	And Jonah Goldberg today, cooling off costs too much in today's LA Times.
	This is obviously open and known fact.
	And yet Al Gore stands up today and says, well, the Chinese are right.
	We ought to dismantle our economy first and save the planet before we ask them to do anything.
	They're never going to do anything.
	They're going to build 2,200 new coal-fired power plants for crying out loud because they want to be the dominant power in this world and they're going to do it.
	And you know what?
	If the planet goes up another 7 tenths of 1 degree Celsius as a result, who cares?
	I'm Roger Hedgecock with more on the Russ Show after this.
	Another star student here at the Limbaugh Institute sending me this.
	That 7 tenths of 1 degree Celsius warming during the 20th century of average global temperatures is actually, the current average temperature is actually 7 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the average over the last 600,000 years.
	And speaking of the oceans rising, and by the way, I just built a house on a sandbar at the mouth of a river, so I have kind of a personal investment in this.
	When they always global warmest people tell me that, you know, the sea is going to rise 25 feet.
	I better not.
	The current sea level, according again to Gary W. star student, the current sea level is 200 feet lower than the average for the past 600,000 years.
	So we have a long way to go.
	And global warming, here's the theory I think.
	First of all, I accept that the planet gets hotter and cooler.
	Of course it does.
	I mean, we've had ice ages that covered all of Wisconsin and Michigan, and maybe we're having another one today and upstate New York, too.
	So we've had the ice ages.
	We know they've come and gone.
	The mastodons, blah, blah, blah.
	All this stuff that we know from whatever education you do get in this country.
	But the fact now that it's a little warmer than it has been in some other ages, it's not as warm as it has been in, of course, some other ages too.
	But is any of it caused by greenhouse gases?
	It's a theory.
	The theory is gases go up, trap the warmth inside the gases, warms up the air more than it would otherwise do if those gases weren't there.
	The problem with that theory, and it is only a theory, is there's no solid evidence behind it.
	The geology record, by the way, indicates that there is no connection, no real connection.
	It happens about half the time between high levels of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and they're spewed out by volcanoes too and lots of other things, and cooling or warming during that period of time.
	In other words, there's nothing in the geologic record that connects concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a period of global warming.
	There is, however, another source that does connect in the geologic record.
	There is another source, gamma rays.
	Cosmic rays coming from the sun.
	The sun, in other words, in simple language, the sun gets hotter and cooler itself in its own cycle.
	As it gets hotter, guess what?
	We don't move any farther away from the sun.
	It's like when a heater heats up to kind of move farther away.
	No, no, the earth is in the same orbit.
	So we get warmer when the sun gets warmer.
	When the sun gets cooler, we get cooler.
	Now, doesn't that make a lot more sense?
	And by the way, it makes no sense to the global warming crowd because it doesn't give them an excuse to grab money out of your paycheck.
	Their theory does.
	That's the difference.
	By the way, another aspect of this you know about called ethanol.
	Energy independence will be achieved, say the global warming crowd.
	Energy independence will be achieved when we put in our tanks instead of these non-renewable fossil fuels, we use renewable ethanol, a product that burns and can burn in your gas tank and make your car go, but it's made out of something that grows that we can grow more of corn, sugarcane, what have you.
	Eric Fry has this right, ladies and gentlemen.
	The ethanol scam should be entitled, quote, unsustainable subsidized food burning.
	Unsustainable subsidized food burning, because that's what it is.
	We're taking, in our case in the United States, corn.
	And I know the corngrowers are happy, and all these plants are springing up all over corn country to produce methanol, notwithstanding the fact that in some studies it takes more energy to produce the ethanol than the ethanol is going to give us as a product.
	Notwithstanding that, it's politically correct now to say ethanol is the way to go.
	It is unsustainable, subsidized food burning, a phrase first coined by David Pinenthal, a researcher at Cornell University, on corn-based ethanol production.
	Ethanol, he says, does not provide energy security for the future.
	It is not a renewable energy source.
	It's costly in terms of production subsidies and subsidies, and its production causes serious environmental degradation.
	Until ethanol came along and the environmentalists made it politically correct, of course, corn growers were under fire all over the place because of what?
	Runoff from pesticides, runoff from fertilizer.
	They were causing the ruin of the natural environment, the watersheds of our streams and rivers, and blah, blah, blah.
	Now, of course, the production of corn is the right thing to do.
	But is it?
	Do you really want corn flakes that cost $10 a box?
	Or in Mexico, tortillas, that the price rise, by the way, is going to start a revolution in Mexico.
	There is something in Mexico that every single person in Mexico understands, and that is they don't understand a lot of things about all this esoteric issues, but when it comes to one issue, they know the price of tortillas.
	And if corn tortillas are going to double and triple in price because Norte Americanos are going to be running around with their corn in the gas tank, there's going to be big trouble coming up on this one.
	So more on ethanol and why it's not the solution, even though, again, there is a solution on the Russ Show after this.
	Not that you corn farmers aren't making a good try of this thing.
	I mean, even here in California, they're talking about a 30% increase in the amount.
	I didn't even know what grew corn out here.
	I'm into almonds and avocados myself.
	But, you know, corn is growing, I guess.
	30% increase in California alone.
	The U.S. corn crop devoted to ethanol has risen, according to the Wall Street Journal, from 20%, from 3%.
	In other words, the total corn crop of the United States devoted to ethanol was just 3% of the corn crop.
	Total corn crop was ethanol five years ago.
	Now it's 20%.
	The president, of course, has targeted 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017.
	That would require the entire U.S. corn harvest.
	That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
	So in this idea, let's look at the way the economists look at this, because I think that's the way we capitalists need to.
	First of all, grab the understanding, get your arms around this, return on investment, return on investment, the ratio of how much money an investor gains or loses on an investment.
	You invest $100 in a stock, you sell it for $110 per share, you get a profit of $10, okay?
	Return on investment.
	$10 is your return, your profit.
	So you have to look at what's the return on investment in energy.
	Well, in oil drilling, you know, in the old days, you just scratch the surface of Pennsylvania or Saudi Arabia and you had oil or Texas or wherever, you had oil, and that's why oil was always so cheap because it was like $100 to $1.
	Every dollar you sank into energy production for oil, you got $100 back at a very cheap price of gasoline even.
	It was a marvelous business, right?
	Return on investment.
	Even today, Jackwell No. 2 down there in the Gulf of Mexico, which turned this whole oil thing around, by the way, tapping in at, what was it, 28,000 feet down into a giant pool of oil that's going to alter the whole, if they can get to it, if Pelosi doesn't stop them, going to alter the whole situation in oil.
	Even then, you're talking about a return on investment there of 25 to 1, 30 to 1 in that range.
	Maybe when you get into the whole frontier of exploration and how difficult it is to get the remaining pools of oil wherever they might be, so you're getting down to some estimates in the oil industry of 8 to 1.
	So talk about ethanol.
	Because ethanol has been estimated, produced here in the United States from corn, to have anywhere between a 0.8 to 1, 8 tenths, in other words, costing more to produce than it gives you in energy, or slightly energy positive 2 or 3 to 1.
	So that's the world we're living in in terms of economics.
	Ethanol, yes, it'll burn in your tank, but the trouble of raising it, and by the way, all the fossil fuels that go into the fertilizer and the harvesting and the planting and the machinery and all the rest of that, not to mention the pollution, still gives you something, an ethanol that does not burn with as much BTU energy as gasoline does.
	And it does it at only a two, let's say three to one.
	Let's say the most optimistic report I've seen, three to one ROI, return on investment.
	So what does that say about this alternative?
	It tells me it's just a big political scam.
	So what is it that is going to, before we take all the tortillas out of the hands of Mexicans, what are we going to do to get energy independence other than the obvious thing that Russia continues to talk about here, and again, common sense people talk about everywhere, and that is take Jackwell No. 2 and make it Jackwell No. 40, 50, 60, and 90.
	Let's take the oil that's available to us, pump it, and use it, because that's what we need to do.
	You want to get independence, stop importing it from Venezuela.
	I'd like to do that tomorrow.
	Open up the North Shore, you know, 1% of ANWAR up there, the wilderness area, and pump the oil.
	Now, if that's not going to happen, then let's look at ethanol that works in Brazil, where they don't make it out of corn.
	They make it out of a more easily raised sugar cane.
	Sugarcane is the basis for Brazil being energy independent.
	Brazil is energy independent for two reasons.
	About 40% of its gasoline is ethanol.
	And they have a new offshore oil drilling.
	See, they did both.
	They did their alternative fuels, but they also dug like crazy around Brazil to find the oil.
	They did find the oil.
	And now Brazil is energy independent in terms of its transportation fuel.
	But it's because they're using the cheaper to make ethanol out of sugar cane.
	Now, guess what?
	The United States Congress has a, is it 50, I had the number here.
	It is a subsidy.
	The United States Congress has a subsidy for in and I got this out of the Wall Street Journal as well, has a subsidy for ethanol at 51 cents a gallon in domestic subsidy.
	And now get this, a 54 cent a gallon tariff against imported ethanol.
	Brazil wants to export the cheaper to get less environmentally polluting ethanol from sugarcane.
	They want to, they make more than they need.
	They would love to export that to the United States.
	To protect our corn farmers, we're not allowing it in the country.
	That from a free trade administration.
	Makes no sense to me.
	Neither does this idea from Technology Review that because of high oil prices, advances in technology, and the emphasis on renewable fuels, we have a new interest, they say, here, in a potentially rich source of biofuels algae.
	A-L-G-A-E.
	Do you pronounce that algae?
	Algae.
	Algae.
	However, you pronounce it, we're talking about pond scum.
	Pond scum, I am not going to put in my tank.
	I'll go so far as to put the corn in, although I'd rather eat the tortillas myself.
	But pond scum is where I'm going to draw the line.
	No and hell no.
	As the IBD, the Investors Business Daily, puts it, and they, by the way, this is the thinking person's Wall Street Journal, the IBD says, look, we could cut the guzzling of gasoline in America, and we can do it by following the lead not of the corn farmers, not even of the Brazilian sugarcane farmers, but Toyota.
	Because you know what?
	They're actually producing in the private market a product, and I know Rush makes fun of the Prius, but they're producing a product, a car that gets, the EPA says 55 miles to the gallon.
	My son who owns one gets 45.
	45 is a hell of a lot better than what I'm getting in my car.
	And so why isn't this technologically made available by the private sector approach the one we ought to be putting our chips on?
	Why do we need subsidies and tariffs and all this other government high-pressure stuff when another way of making the gasoline go a lot farther, reducing demand, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, ultimately, there is another way offered by the private sector?
	Could it possibly be that Toyota is not organized by the United Auto Workers?
	Because something is keeping this kind of technology offered up by the private sector from getting the due that it should get.
	And by the way, you global warming folks, here's the bottom line on all the hypocrisy.
	Here's the bottom line.
	It's already amazing to me that Al Gore can say, China, you go ahead with your 2,200 new coal-fired power plants.
	You go ahead scamming the Europeans with these phony credits on the greenhouse gas emissions.
	You go ahead and all that because you're a developing country and you deserve.
	We're the ones who are evil and bad.
	With our high standard of living, we should dismantle our economy first.
	That's enough to make you gag.
	But you know what?
	You can countergag the liberal because they have no argument against this, that the answer to greenhouse gases, if you think that's the real problem, is nuclear power plants.
	The real answer, the real answer, and I know a shudder of revulsion just went through the liberal establishment at the very mention nuclear power plants.
	29 of them are under construction globally.
	Well over 100 more have been written into the development plans of governments.
	India and China are going to build dozens of reactors.
	The time is now.
	If you believe in global warming caused by greenhouse gases by human beings, if you believe that, your answer can't be corn.
	Your answer, the answer, the most cost-effective, least polluting, most energy that you can get out of a little cube of uranium is nuclear power.
	Now, what do the greenies say about that?
	They're silent as silent spring.
	They're as silent as Rachel Carson.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock.
	We'll be back.
	More on the Rush Show after this.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh, who will be back on Monday.
	And the wait, by the way, is over at RushLimbaugh.com right now, the EIB store proudly rolling out two t-shirts honoring Russia's Nobel Peace Prize nomination.
	The Copper Peace Prize medallion featuring El Rushbo's face graces the front of each of these Rush for Peace t-shirts.
	Your choice of two slogans.
	Give peace a chance or peace through limbaugh.
	These are collector items.
	Plus, he's got the Rush Babon board signs on sale now as well.
	So rushlimbaugh.com for more info and your order.
	Let's go to the phones on the Limbaugh Institute.
	Here's Ron in Raleigh, North Carolina.
	Hi, Ron.
	Hey, Roger, real quick.
	I'm going to get right to the point.
	It just seems like we as conservatives don't hold the media, the liberals accountable for what they say.
	I mean, we've gone from the Y2K incident, which was a scam back in 1999, where you had Barbara Walters and all the media out in the middle of cornfields in bunkers trying to figure out what's going to happen the day the computers blow up.
	Then we go to Mad Cow Disease, the bird flu.
	I mean, it seems like immigration is no longer talked about.
	We need to start going back retroactively and keeping tabs and holding these folks accountable for the trial balloons that everybody keeps throwing out to see if they can get the slice vote.
	Yeah, well, have you been listening to the program?
	Yes, I have.
	And that's what this program does.
	Right.
	I know that.
	But the thing is, the people that really need to hear this stuff don't even listen.
	Well, but in increasing numbers, they do.
	And the increasing numbers of people out in the other media, and keep in mind there's 1,500 other talk shows going on in local communities all over the country, who are increasingly getting from this source as well as others, this kind of information out.
	Because you're absolutely right.
	First of all, the liberal media trying anything they can to grab more of your paycheck and build more bureaucracies and constituencies for the liberal left, they are constantly trying to come up with scares that aren't really something they have to address.
	I mean, Y2K and all the rest that you mentioned are minor kinds of things compared, for instance, to the border, which nobody wants to touch.
	Here's a real problem and a real crisis and a real set of concerns that nobody wants to address because, gosh, we'd actually have to do some work here, and we'd have to really do something that might offend some part of our militant liberal base.
	So it's a very good point, Ron, that this is, you know, they drive these phony crises to attempt to drive and panic you to fear monger until they can grab more of your freedom and more of your paycheck.
	Right, and I appreciate your work.
	I mean, I think what we're going to find, in my opinion, is, I mean, I sit back and I hear Hillary and Barack or Hussein Obama say all these things, and of course, I don't agree with a lot of what they say, but they're not even speaking to their Democratic base.
	They're, I think, speaking to that slice vote that would go either way to get them to swing their way.
	So I'm going to get off now, off the line, and I appreciate what you're doing.
	Hey, Ron, I appreciate your call, and you keep listening.
	Thank you.
	Bill in Pasadena, Maryland.
	I didn't know there was a Pasadena, Maryland.
	Hi, Bill.
	How are you doing, Roger?
	There's only one Pasadena.
	It's in California.
	No, it's more than that.
	It's more than Texas, Tip.
	You're really on the ball on the nuclear power plant.
	I don't know if you realize, somewhere I read, France has like 85% of their power is generated by nuclear power plants.
	If you really look at the one weakness of the nuclear idea is the nuclear reactor, when you start lowering the power level below 100%, you're putting control rods in it, which actually waste the fuel.
	Now, if you've used that electricity that wasn't being used on a system and produced hydrogen, you can store it.
	It burns in your car.
	It burns in your furnace.
	It can replace anywhere you use natural gas or propane.
	It can be used.
	It's the only way we're going to get hydrogen.
	The hydrogen-based economy is going to have to come from nuclear fuel.
	Right.
	Nuclear fuel is going to provide the hydrogen because it takes electricity to produce hydrogen.
	But right now, if you're trying to run a nuclear power plant, cost-wise, if you run it 100%, the fuel is most efficient.
	Some of them run above 100%, as a matter of fact.
	Bill, thanks for the call.
	I've been in France.
	I've gone down.
	I went in disguise, but I've been there, and I've seen their power plants.
	And they're absolutely right.
	They long ago decided in France, imagine this, in France, they decided that dependence on foreign sources of oil for at least this part of the energy picture was a bad idea.
	They didn't have any homegrown oil.
	So they built nuclear power plants.
	And have you heard of one melting?
	Have you heard of one, the China syndrome?
	Have you heard of one blowing up and killing billions of people?
	Well, no.
	They don't.
	They've been online for 40 years.
	All right, we got time.
	Let's take a short break and we'll be right back with more colors.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush after this.
	In the next hour, Congressman John Culberson from Texas, a Republican who is going to give us the latest on what's happening with the Border Patrol and the border.
	In the meantime, Eric in San Diego calling the Rush Show.
	Hi, Eric.
	Hey, how's it going?
	Good.
	Yeah, I'll just get to my point really quickly.
	I've been building engines now for years of my life, and I build between 500,000 and 8,000 horsepower.
	And so I know firsthand that E85 fuel, if the engine's built specifically to use E85 fuel versus it being able to use gas and all that stuff anyways, that you can get double the horsepower, and you're only going to use a third of the fuel because it's a hotter fuel that burns hotter and quicker.
	So if the engine's designed specifically to burn that fuel, we're going to get a better burning fuel all the way around.
	The engines are going to last 400,000 miles, 500,000 miles.
	Eric, let's assume that you're able to bring that to market and more power to you as far as I'm concerned.
	What about the difference between the ethanol coming from corn and from sugar cane?
	You know what?
	There is no difference because the way ethanol is made is ethanol takes starches and converts it into sugars because you're basically making alcohol.
	And so, I mean, we have, you know, the difference between that and fuel isn't going to be anything.
	But see, we can make ethanol out of potatoes, fruit, vegetables, corn, grains.
	You know, the things we eat.
	Yeah, well, but see, the deal is, is, is, is like you have to do.
	Why should we make?
	I mean, when I was a kid, you know, the problem was famine in these third world countries.
	Why should I take food and turn it into fuel for my car when I can get hydrogen out of the nuclear plant and put it in my car and run it as efficiently?
	In fact, there's no pollution at all.
	Coming out the tailpipe is, if anything, is water.
	Right.
	Well, basically, what we have in the middle of America is we have a lot of open land that's being unused.
	We're going to open up a larger market for the farmers so we can start growing more crops and start gearing up for this because you remember switching from regular leaded fuel to unleaded fuel.
	There was a bigger engine change in that.
	That was a major undertaking for the manufacturers to redesign engines to burn that.
	All right.
	Well, I'm with you, Eric.
	I understand.
	And I hope that you in the private sector will make this all happen for us.

▲