It’s not that I’m not on the biofuel bandwagon. I am. Just don’t run the bandwagon on ethanol. Or any other bio solution currently available. Yes they all sound very promising. But we need a strong smart solution, not a promise.

I do think it’s great that biofuels are finally getting real public attention. Especially from the EPA. The agency has so many blemishes on it’s policy record it warrants the Proactive Solution. But a hasty push towards a biofuel solution is as bad as doing nothing at all. And that’s what the RFS is, hasty.

Yes, much has been said about the sustainability of a corn-based solution. And there is that whole food for fuel argument, and the questionable sustainability of the ubiquitous crop. All of which are good arguments. But for me, it’s a matter of how were just shifting the burden from petroleum to corn: that’s not a solution in my book.

And it’s precisely that burden which is being felt in the Lone Star state: their livestock industry is taking a major hit. Why? Because our Renewable Fuel Standard is about quantity, not quality. The current 2008 standard demands 7.76 percent, which is about 9 billion gallons, of renewable fuel. With a definition of a renewable fuel only being “the opposite of fossil fuel,” moving forward to the 2022 standard of 36 billion gallons could be catastrophic.

This is why we cannot afford an EPA Chief who is so myopic. Under Stephen Johnson’s leadership the agency denied California the power necessary to meet these somewhat ambigous goals. A decision that has the EPA scrambling to try to save face while the Democrats are standing at the castle doors with their pitchforks and torches in tow. It’s like a scene out of Frankenstein. But unlike Frankenstien, the EPA is far from green.

Related Posts:

Group Sues EPA for Inaction on Coal Permit
EPA Chief on Hot Seat Over California Emissions Denial
Biofuels Will Not Solve Global Warming: IPCC’s Report Sparks Protest

Image source: Nik Agarwal at The Air