The EPA Decides It Can Mess With Texas
The EPA dealt Texas a hard blow on Thursday. It turned down the state’s request for a reduction to our Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). A decision that some environmentalists are sticking in the plus column for biofuels. I can’t say I agree.
It’s not that I’m not on the biofuel bandwagon. I am. Just don’t run the bandwagon on ethanol. Or any other bio solution currently available. Yes they all sound very promising. But we need a strong smart solution, not a promise.
I do think it’s great that biofuels are finally getting real public attention. Especially from the EPA. The agency has so many blemishes on it’s policy record it warrants the Proactive Solution. But a hasty push towards a biofuel solution is as bad as doing nothing at all. And that’s what the RFS is, hasty.
Yes, much has been said about the sustainability of a corn-based solution. And there is that whole food for fuel argument, and the questionable sustainability of the ubiquitous crop. All of which are good arguments. But for me, it’s a matter of how were just shifting the burden from petroleum to corn: that’s not a solution in my book.
And it’s precisely that burden which is being felt in the Lone Star state: their livestock industry is taking a major hit. Why? Because our Renewable Fuel Standard is about quantity, not quality. The current 2008 standard demands 7.76 percent, which is about 9 billion gallons, of renewable fuel. With a definition of a renewable fuel only being “the opposite of fossil fuel,” moving forward to the 2022 standard of 36 billion gallons could be catastrophic.
This is why we cannot afford an EPA Chief who is so myopic. Under Stephen Johnson’s leadership the agency denied California the power necessary to meet these somewhat ambigous goals. A decision that has the EPA scrambling to try to save face while the Democrats are standing at the castle doors with their pitchforks and torches in tow. It’s like a scene out of Frankenstein. But unlike Frankenstien, the EPA is far from green.
Related Posts:
Group Sues EPA for Inaction on Coal Permit
EPA Chief on Hot Seat Over California Emissions Denial
Biofuels Will Not Solve Global Warming: IPCC’s Report Sparks Protest
Image source: Nik Agarwal at The Air
I think that EPA’s denial of Texas’ request to weaken the RFS is a GOOD thing, and it’s unfair to call the RFS “hasty” and “as bad as doing nothing at all.” Your points regarding the unsustainability of corn-base ethanol is well-taken and well-publicized. However, as you alluded to, much research is being conducted to find alternative non-crop based sources for biofuels. So the assumption that the RFS will just shift the burden from petroleum to corn is a bit hasty and myopic.
If the RFS goals are to be met, they will need to be met through development of new technology, not solely through increased use of corn. In fact, in promulgating the RFS, the EPA states, “However, as feedstocks used in the production of renewable fuels expand beyond the corn and soybeans that are most common today, the renewable fuels industry is expected to continue to diversify and grow in its ability to benefit the nation’s environment and economy.”
As far as whether the RFS goals are too aggressive and whether the EPA should have ruled in favor of Texas, it seems the EPA is damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. If they had given in to Texas, they would have been seen as weak on the the environment. They stood up to Texas, and now they’re accused of being myopic and hasty. The fact is, we NEED these goals and EPA has to be seen as supportive of them. There is a lot of private money going into alternative biofuel right now. These private monies need to be assured that demand (i.e., goals set by RFS) will be there. They need to know that EPA will not bow to pressure to make drastic changes to regulations on which their industry is based.
One last point–the RFS does not define “renewable fuel” as “the opposite of fossil fuel,” as stated in your article. The full definition is in 40 CFR 80.1101 of the RFS regulations, which specifies several examples of renewable fuels. It may have been a bit of deliberate hyperbole on your part to make the statement that the definitions are not as specific as you would like to see. However, on the other extreme I think it would also not be desirable to define renewable fuels too narrowly since new technologies are still under development.
I appreciate you calling attention to the RFS but strongly disagree that it’s too hasty and as bad as doing nothing at all. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Re: John Shih
Well, ethanol is the most widely used liquid biofuel in the world. And the U.S. ethanol industry relies almost exclusively on corn, consuming about 20 percent of the available corn supply back in 2006.
Also, according to the Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.doe.gov website), Ethanol fuel is expected to fulfill most of the RFS requirement at least til 2012, and there are no projections for beyond that.
Considering that, and that the RFS’s standards for environmental impact of a “biofuel” are sorely lacking, yes…I think the RFS is grossly myopic.
By demanding more, without more rigid standards, we will work ourselves only in to an different corner than the one we currently preoccupy. It’s all about quality over quantity - something the RFS fails to notice.
[...] Open Challenge to California and all State Governments Senators Call For EPA Chief Johnson to Step Down The EPA Decides It Can Mess With Texas [...]