Biofuel supporters are worried that recent efforts by the EPA and other agencies may make ethanol and biodiesel look worse than gasoline and diesel on global warming. For story on Agriculture Online, click here. The problem is under current federal law, biofuels have to show that they reduce greenhouse gases compared to similar petroleum fuels, an example would be that biodiesel has to be 50% better than diesel. The Energy Dep’t currently estimates biodiesel is 78% better.
The problem could be land use claims made by the industry.
The snag is a theory that every U.S. corn or soybean acre devoted to ethanol or biodiesel means an acre of tropical rainforest is being cut down somewhere to offset it and grow food. Deforestation puts greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.Now the EPA is looking differently at land use claims, and makes biodiesel look worse.
But EPA's interpretation of indirect land use makes it only 24%. "If biodiesel doesn't meet the Renewable Fuel Standard, it's pretty detrimental to the expansion of biodiesel," he says. "We're not saying there shouldn't be some accounting for greenhouse gases, but it's unfair that those of us in the United States should be penalized for something thats happening in other countries."
Finally, the California Air Resources Board is using the same indirect land claims to evaluate biodiesel’s impact on global warming.
California's Air Resources Board has used indirect land use to conclude that imported gasoline is less of a threat to global warming than ethanol shipped in from the Midwest. That's why Rick Tolman, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association recently called the California standard a trade barrier against interstate commerce. The California rule isn't final, but it could be decided as early as next week.For more on California’s proposed rules, click here for a story by The Daily Climate.
Posted: 04/21/09.
