RFS2: Walking the Tightrope
Today we were pleased to have Dr. Robert Howarth, the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University with us to present the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) Biofuels Project during a webinar to the GBC membership. The object of the project was to perform an objective, science-based assessment to provide a comprehensive, systematic and comparative analysis of the environmental benefits and costs of biofuel technologies.
Dr. Howarth, chair of the project, noted in the presentation to the GBC members that the environmental effects of biofuels can vary depending on issues such as feedstocks, biofuel type, where the feedstocks are grown and where fuels are produced, among other factors. Nevertheless, negative impacts are seen on everything from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to air and water quality impacts to soil degradation. One of the conclusions from the project is that current mandates and targets for liquid biofuels should be reconsidered in light of the potential adverse environmental consequences.
With respect to this conclusion, I asked Dr. Howarth, if you’re a policymaker, what do you do? What do you do when biofuel producers, distributors, blenders and other stakeholders have spent billions to comply with the mandates you’ve already set for them? What about the independent, state and multinational oil companies that are spending billions on R&D, infrastructure, supply contracts? How do you go back and say, “Nevermind!”? There were no good, practical answers to these questions.
This was ironic in light of what happened right after the close of the webinar and that is that U.S. EPA finally announced its long-awaited Renewable Fuels Standard 2 (RFS2) notice of proposed rulemaking. The centerpiece of the rule will focus on GHG emission reduction targets different biofuel categories will need to meet, and the initial lifecycle analyses, which include a component on indirect land use change, is not favorable at all for corn-based ethanol. Again, what does a policymaker do when caught between an environmental sustainability agenda and a biofuel industry (created by policy) that is now teetering on the brink of economic failure?
For the Obama Administration, what you do is come out strongly in favor of a robust biofuels policy lead by three major cabinet members. While not turning back from the indirect land use GHG issue, you promise to support the industry in other ways by refinancing existing ethanol and biodiesel factories whose owners are having trouble obtaining credit, guaranteeing loans for the construction of new biorefineries, and expediting funding for R&D (more than $700 million) for next generation biofuels. You establish the Biofuels Interagency Working Group, which among other tasks, will look at policies that promote environmentally sustainable biofuels while growing the biofuels industry. You walk the tightrope, but you move forward.
Tags: Biodiesel, biofuels, Biofuels Interagency Working Group, Department of Energy, DOE, Dr. Robert Howarth, environmental protection agency, EPA, Ethanol, Howarth, Obama, renewable fuels, RFS, RFS2, Robert Howarth, Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, SCOPE, U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA
