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.

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.