Renewable Fuel Standard 2.0I have heard that some people are worried that renewable fuel standards or low-carbon fuel standards or simple market forces favoring biofuels will "cause people to rip up sustainable soybean fields and turn them into big switchgrass plantations." And that EPA is proposing elaborate new laws saying that farmers and foresters cannot grow biofuel crops on land previously used for other purposes. Is this true and what do you think about all that? – Lisa N., Wilton, CT The RFS already has such delineation and the recently proposed RFS2 goes further. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in Feb 2008 that it is raising the renewable fuel standard (RFS) for 2008 to comply with the Energy Independence and Security Act, which President Bush signed in December 2007. The RFS requirement will continue to ratchet up each year until it reaches 36 billion gallons in 2022, of which 11 billion gallons must come from cellulosic, non-food ethanol. In Oct 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that to meet the RFS, domestic biofuels production must increase significantly to achieve the RFS's 36-billion-gallon requirement in 2022. To address these concerns, GAO has proposed amendments to the RFS, known as the RFS2. RFS2 would:
The proposed RFS2 program would increase the cellulosic biofuel mandate from 250 million to one billion gallons by 2013, with additional yearly increases to 16 billion gallons by 2022. The GHG targets for renewable fuels call for a 20 percent reduction of GHG emissions relative to petroleum fuels for general renewable fuels, a 50 percent GHG reduction target for advanced biofuels and biomass-based diesel, and a 60 percent target for cellulosic ethanol. All biofuel facilities that were built or under construction before December 19, 2007, are grandfathered in and will not be required to meet the minimum 20 percent GHG threshold. Biodiesel produced in that category would be added to corn ethanol production to meet the 15 billion gallon RFS for conventional biofuels in 2015 and beyond. I support the EPA proposals in general, but I have some concerns. First, the RFS should embrace all types of liquid and gas biofuels used for transportation as long as they meet environmental compliance, which include all the alcohols such as butanol, and also dimethyl ethers, and biogas. I am adamantly against the rules on consequences of land substitution for the biofuels industry unless they are universally applied to other industries such as mining, waste storage, residential sprawl construction and even parking lots. Our society and environment tolerate intense emissions, including greenhouse gases, from these “land switchovers” that far exceed biofuels in many cases. The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.
10 Reader Comments
|
Scott Sklar
Recent Opinion & Commentary |
1 of 10
You are missing an important point, Mr. Sklar: the law does not forbid a biofuels producer from selling his or her product even if it leads to net increases in global greenhouse gases due to land-use change (direct or indirect). What it does is say that only those biofuels that meet the criteria can count against the "targets" (actually, minimum quotas) and benefit from tax credits. Naturally, the price received by compliant biofuels will normally be higher than those for non-compliant biofuels, but if the price of petroleum stays high, there is nothing in the law to prevent a manufacturer of a biofuel simply selling that biofuel at petroleum-price parity.
How much mining, waste storage, residential sprawl construction and even parking lots that are built are mandated or subsidized by government? Indeed, most forms of mining now have to post bonds guaranteeing that the land they disturb will be restored after mining ceases. Most new landfills have to do something about their methane emissions. Sprawl is the result often of government INACTION, not subsidies, except for roads (and in that case, I agree that consideration should be given to land-use effects).