EPA finalizes renewable-fuel standard, evaluates emissions ruling

Will Johnson Stand Firm on Emissions?

With much fanfare, the Bush administration has finalized a renewable-fuel standard for cars and trucks. The rule, mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, requires 4.7 billion gallons of motor fuel -- a little more than 4 percent of the total produced -- to come from renewable sources this year, increasing to 7.5 billion by 2012. EPA chief Stephen Johnson says the plan "offers the American people a hat trick -- it protects the environment, strengthens our energy security, and supports America's farmers." But critics see it as more of a plain ol' trick, noting that without improving fuel economy -- a move the Big Three automakers have fought -- it don't much matter what you burn. Others point out EPA's refusal to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, a federal stance the Supreme Court bashed last week. In fact, Johnson commented for the first time on the SCOTUS smackdown, noting that his agency was "evaluating" the ruling: "This isn't the last you've heard from us on this subject." Dum dum dum!

straight to the source: Reuters, Deborah Zabarenko, 11 Apr 2007

straight to the source: Houston Chronicle, Associated Press, Ken Thomas, 10 Apr 2007

straight to the source: The Detroit News, David Shepardson, 10 Apr 2007

straight to the press release: EPA Newsroom, 10 Apr 2007

see also, in Grist: Supreme Slapdown

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (2 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Fuels and carbon emissions

This article states that:

"But critics see it as more of a plain ol' trick, noting that without improving fuel economy -- a move the Big Three automakers have fought -- it don't much matter what you burn."

Actually, even without raising standards, it still matters what we burn. Ignoring for the current inefficiences of corn ethanol, if we were to use sugercane based ethanol, and with the eventual inclusion of cellulosic ethanol, using biofuels has a significant advantage over the use of fossil fuels in carbon emissions. Although both methods emit carbon when they are burned. Biobased fuels are considered a closed cycle, the idea is that the carbon emitted when they are burned is then re-sequestered when the plant or tree is replanted. Simple speaking, the carbon is shifted back and forth between the air and the plant material with each cycle. non-renewable oil on the other hand simply releases carbon into the atmoshphere without any mechanism for recapture, increasing its impact on global warming. So, even without improved standards (which would be great) it still matters what you burn.

Gary Gorski

by gtd125 at 12:15 PM on 11 Apr 2007

True, but...

Much of that Sugarcane is coming at the expense of the Amazon River Basin.

So, while a biofuel IS better, simply shifting the current demand to biofuels will still have HORRIBLE environmental reprucussions for the planet.

Simply because a fuel is from a recently deceased plants DOES NOT make it earth friendly, so be careful to not fall into that logical trap.

Biofuels are better than petrol fuels, but in NO WAY are they a good thing.

Raising the MPG would GREATLY decrease the demand for ALL fuels; bio and petrol. This is a win-win situation when COMBINED with biofuels.

by TheSSG at 12:09 PM on 12 Apr 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?