EPA ranks biofuel production methods; White House reviews

Photos

Biofuels

see larger image

uploaded by EPDaily

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) just recently completed a review of an EPA rule that seeks to rank the effects that different biofuel production methods have on lowering carbon emissions.  “The EPA would not reveal details of the rule and would not say when it would be made public.”

The move comes in conjunction with the California Air Resource Board’s adoption of a low-carbon fuels standard.  At question is the concept of ‘indirect land use’ changes that biofuel cause.  “California is setting a precedent for the United States and possibly other countries with the adoption of this rule. It is imperative that they consider further development and refinement of the study of indirect land use change.”

The rule seeks to determine which biofuel production methods meet the low-carbon standards set out by the state.  If California’s standards are to be adopted nationally, the White House must align the lifecycle emission reality in the biofuel industry with the 2007 U.S. Renewable Fuels Standard that mandated 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allotted $100 billion for energy related projects, and more than one-quarter of that has been has already been authorized for clean energy.  Energy Secretary Chu has wasted no time in getting that money into the hands of companies and researchers that work in the wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean-wave power industries, but funding first generation (corn) ethanol in an effort to lower emissions is coming to a halt as many of these types of firms are being allowed to fall into bankruptcy with many simply dissolving.

Of the five sectors listed above, biofuels seem to be the most controversial with critics claiming that ethanol production and use actually increases greenhouse gases and other dangerous emissions; but statistics within the biofuel industry can be confusing, sometimes purposely made so by companies and industries that stand to lose a considerable percentage of their marketshare in the transportation fuels sector.  For example, many of the reports that come out reviewing the ethanol industry fail to distinguish between the source of feedstock being used.  These ‘incomplete’ reports use numbers and figures associated with making ethanol from corn and then title the reports ‘Environmental Impacts of Biofuels’, never once distinguishing between first, second, third, or fourth generation fuels.

The White House OMB hopes to clear up some of the air, so to speak, in the debate on biofuels by ranking different biofuel production methods according to their lifecycle emissions in an effort to determine which processes should be funded by federal dollars.  To simply move the crisis from a fuel issue to a food issue is not necessarily a strategy that will improve our situation.  Likewise, undertaking an ambitious biofuel strategy without understanding the effect that the entire lifecycle, (agriculture, production, combustion) is not necessarily the prudent thing to do.

The review by the OMB of the EPA’s proposed ranking system is now complete, but not many of the details are currently available. The EPA’s rule “known as RFS2, aims to cut emissions from renewable fuels by ranking biofuels by the amount of pollution they emit over their lifetime, from being produced on land to being burned in engines”.  

Critics of biofuels claim that farmland needed for the production of biofuel plants contributes significantly to the problem that it states it is trying to solve.  In places like Brazil where the rainforest is being cleared to make room for more agricultural land to grow sugarcane, or in Indonesia where the same problem is occurring to make room for oil palm plantations, ramping up biofuel production has not contributed to a solution to the planet's emission crisis.  

Executive Vice President Brent Erickson from the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) expressed his concern regarding California’s recent low-carbon fuels standard by saying...

Read the FULL article HERE.