The EPA’s New Renewable Fuel Standards Lifecycle Analysis Debacle
Filed Under: Environmental News, Green Politics on August 22, 2009
The EPA is required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to make changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS1) ratings. This is to account for “crop displacement” as part of the fuel’s overall efficiency rating.
When Congress passed the EISA, they had lots of feel-good reasons for doing so. Reasons that seemed to make sense, so long as you didn’t dig too deep to find out the background on their push for changes. The idea, in a nutshell, was to include the displacement of food crops into the equation for figuring the overall “cost of efficiency” in bio fuels.
All it really is, though, is a way to figure out the most esoteric way possible to make biofuels seem not-so-good when compared to petroleum-based fuels.
Even worse, the chief opponents to this new way of measuring things are… yep, corn ethanol producers. Some of the worst green washers in the bio fuels game. I’ve already discussed how useless corn ethanol is compared to its much more efficient counterparts.
In fact, if corn ethanol weren’t subsidized so heavily and were required to stand on its own two feet, it would fail in a short amount of time. Even soy, which isn’t a whole lot better, still beats out both corn and petroleum as a base for ethanol fuels.
But hey, the government pays farmers (more accurately: big agra) more money to grow corn than they do anything else, so corn is it until that changes. Now, back to the EPA.
The whole idea behind the EPA’s newly-released, peer-reviewed plan is to factor in the food displacement when calculating the “efficiency” of ethanol. So things like corn, soy, etc. that are also food crops would have the offset from their shift from food (or feed) use to ethanol use factored into their overall efficiency numbers. No wonder corn-for-ethanol producers are worried. This would make corn look even worse!
Of course, I’ve discussed before why bio fuels are important right now. For the foreseeable future, we’re going to have to have fuel-burning machines. In fact, I doubt they will ever go away entirely, unless we seriously revert our technologies back towards the 18th century. Too many machines (think beyond cars and trucks) are not likely to run on electricity or other known fuels in our lifetimes.
Current vehicle technology, machinery, etc. can all run on biologically-based fuels, however. So this is the interim until we find something else and make it happen. Now, back to the EPA again.
Some bio fuel bases, however, will come out smelling peachy if these new numbers from the EPA are used. Some of my favorites, like algae, will be more than rosy because there is literally no displacement (most of the time) in their production.
That doesn’t mean I endorse these new rules, however. They aren’t beneficial overall and have an underlying and somewhat sinister aspect. Namely, these new rules are there almost entirely to lessen the appeal of bio fuels in comparison to oil.
Just look at the peer-review panel and you’ll see what I’m talking about. The “independents” the EPA brought in to review these new procedures for commentary are almost all there with an ulterior motive.
The real issue here is with unsustainable and inefficient biofuel methods and, especially, with the promotion of those methods by government subsidy. If you live in a state near the plains or the midwest, you have likely noticed that getting gasoline that doesn’t have a biofuel additive is nearly impossible. Why?
Because that gasoline is made cheaper (at the pump) by adding government-subsidized corn-based ethanol. What you’re not seeing is the amount of money you put in via taxes to subsidize that “cheap” fuel.
The new EPA directive will accomplish nothing good, but it will do well as a distraction to keep us from seeing the real solution: allowing us (the people) to make our choice and the market (which we direct) to make the change for real change and real solutions. Instead, we’ll get a government boondoggle that benefits only those who control government (big corporations, including oil and agriculture).
We, of course, flip the bill, both environmentally and financially.
For more information on the EPA’s new guidelines, see this breakdown at Green Car Congress. See also the telling and poignant response to the EPA’s panel findings by Bob Dinneen of Growth Energy (who, admittedly, also has a vested interest in seeing these EPA guidelines shot down).
Related posts:
- Pandering to Big Agra: Senators Propose Loan Guarantees for Ethanol Pipeline
- Wednesday’s 35mpg Fuel Economy Standards Debunked
- New Research Blasts Supposed Efficiency of Corn Ethanol
