On April 23, 2009, the California’s Air Resources Board approved the nation’s first low-carbon fuel standards. For L.A. Times story, click here. According to the story, [t]he regulation requires producers, refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to reduce the carbon footprint of their fuel by 10% over the next decade. And it launches the state on an ambitious path toward ratcheting down its overall heat-trapping emissions by 80% by mid-century -- a level that some scientists deem necessary to avoid drastic global climate disruption.These moves have not set well with the ethanol industry. The industry feels to have been singled out by the board. For N.Y. Times story, click here. According to Gen. Wesley Clark,
“This was a poor decision, based on shaky science, not only for California, but for the nation,” General Wesley Clark, who is a co-chairman of the pro-ethanol group Growth Energy, said in a statement.According to environmentalists,
The decision, he added, “puts another road block in moving away from dependence on fossil fuels and stifles development of the emerging cellulosic industry.”
Mr. Clark argued that other fuels also have so-called “indirect land use effects,” and that it was unfair to single out ethanol. However, the Air Resources Board said it would continue to study the indirect land-use question — a commitment that Growth Energy, Mr. Clark’s group, welcomed.”
“Corn-based ethanol, like that produced in the Midwest, has come under fire from environmentalists, who argue that growing corn to make ethanol simply displaces food crops, and those food crops can in turn end up displacing precious forest land in other parts of the world.”The decision was also criticized by the American Farm Bureau, and emphasized the positive environmental impacts made by agriculture. In a statement released by President Bob Stallman,
“The standard put in place by the California Air Resource Board unfairly measures the indirect land use for biofuels without measuring the indirect land use for other fuels. The board has applied a false measurement to American crops that are grown and will continue to be grown regardless of their end use. There is no additional impact. In fact, our farm fields have demonstrated their ability to sequester carbon. Until all the science and modeling is complete, the allegation of indirect land use is simply wrong. Prior to the ruling, AFBF expressed to the CARB that it should not adopt the indirect land use provision. Pre-empting the scientific verdict does little more than place renewable fuels at a disadvantage to petroleum.”For statement, click here.
For Reuters analysis of the regulation, click here.
For previous post on this issue, click here.
Posted: 04/27/09
