Biofuel loses fight with California pollution regulators (CNN)

[eppur_se_muova]

The biofuel industry has lost its battle against California regulators over rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from various fuels, including corn-based ethanol.


The California Air Resources Board (CARB) late Thursday approved the controversial Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which would force fuel producers to lower their “carbon intensity” of their products by 10 percent by 2020.

“They have made a huge mistake in demonizing first generation biofuels,” said Brooke Coleman of the New Fuels Alliance, a biofuel lobbying group. Coleman called the new rules a “biased regulation that drives investment away from all biofuels.”

Carbon intensity is what fueled the controversy. It’s a rating system meant to classify each fuel by how much greenhouse gases they produce for every unit of energy that they create.

CARB Chairman Mary Nichols touted the board’s decision, predicting that the new rules will reduce air pollution, create new jobs and “continue California’s leadership in the fight against global warming.”
***
more: http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/24/biofuel-loses-fight-with-california-pollution-regulators/

[kristopher]

1. Sounds like an outstanding prototype policy for the rest of the country to follow

Kudos to California again.

[JohnWxy]

2. The petroleum industries lobbying efforts are paying off. There is of course no scientific

emperically validated basis to the superstitious belief that producing biofuels has any linkaage to deforestation or land use changes. This is a hypothesis that deserves to be tested but it is not a scientifically validated fact.

Deforestation by illegal lumber operations (responding to demand for lumber) is the major cause of deforestation AND land use changes as after the big trees have been cut down local people move in with cattle and later after the cattle farmers are through with an area locals start subsistence farming in the deforested areas. The second biggest factor in deforestation and land use changes is local people cutting down trees for firewood and to make charcoal.

But a growing factor in deforestation (which leaads to land use changes - local farmers moving in) is oil exploration. Amazon rainforest threatened by new wave of oil and gas exploration - An area the size of Texas has been set aside for oil exploration in the Amazon rainforest. Oil exploration brings roads which contributes to illegal lumber operations and the following land use changes. to the extent to which biofuels will reduce the demand for oil they will actually help protect rainforests from inevitable deforestation and land use changes brought by oil exploration.

Studies which purport to show land use changes due to biofuel use have been shown after a little bit of examination to be fraught with flawed assumptions and inappropriate extrapolations of future developements.

Review of Searchinger's Land Use CHanges article - devastating criticism by Bruce Dale professor of Chemical Engineering, Michigan State University

But it's not unusual for people to succumb to hysteria. In fact that's perhaps more likely the norm than using logic and science as a basis for decisions.

The most recent study on corn based ethanol's affect on GHGs shows ethanolreduces GHGs 51% more than gasoline. This is based on the most current data which includes the production figures from the recently built ethanol plants. http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0901220.shtml

[JohnWxy]

3. excerpts from & link to Dale's critique of the Searchinger article (let's not call it a real study)

www.cbd.int/cms/ui/forums/attachment.aspx?id=55

at the lilnk is a review of Searchinger's article (I wouldn't call it a study) and that of Tillman by Bruce E. Dale, University Distinguished Professor of Chemical Engineering, Michigan State University.

It's also a lecture on the standards to be met to be considered an adequate LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) study. Here are a few excerpts:



"EISA 2007: renewable fuels must meet certain “lifecycle greenhouse gas” emission reductions --

Some Life Cycle Analysis Standards: In Plain English

Use the most recent/most accurate data possible

If models are used to generate “data”, have the models been sufficiently tested & verified?

Select the reference system/functional unit: what exactly are we comparing?
Make it easy for others to check your data and methods= transparency (difficult for complex models)

Set clear system boundaries (physical & temporal)—must be equal or comparable for reference system and/or reference product of interest

Multi-product systems must allocate environmental costs among all products

Perform sensitivity analysis: how much do results vary if assumptions or data change?

~~
~~

Do the two ILUC studies (February 2008 Science papers) meet commonly accepted LCA standards and thereby satisfy the policy requirements or do they not meet these standards?


Let’s Examine the Recent Papers in Science using these Criteria


Use the most recent/most accurate data possible

If models are used to generate “data”, have the models been sufficiently tested & verified?

Select the reference system/functional unit: what exactly are we comparing?

Make it easy for others to check your data and methods= transparency (difficult for complex models)

Set clear system boundaries (physical & temporal)— must be equal or comparable for reference system and/or reference product of interest

Multi-product systems must allocate environmental costs among all products

Perform sensitivity analysis: how much do results vary if assumptions or data change?


Do the 2008 Science Papers Meet LCA Criteria?


Data quality. Use the most recent/most accurate data possible? No. Models may be valid but that was not proven. Literature on causes of land use change ignored?

Select the reference system/functional unit: what exactly are we comparing? Marginal.

Make it easy for others to check your data and methods= transparency Acceptable


Set clear system boundaries—must be equal or comparable for reference system and/or reference product of interest No. Temporal boundaries & physical boundaries are not comparable for ethanol & gasoline

Multi-product systems must allocate environmental costs among all products No. No apparent or stated allocation of these costs among animal feed and biofuels


Perform sensitivity analysis: how much do results vary if assumptions or data change? No. Sensitivity analysis lacked appropriate range of variables, especially for allocation
No apparent stakeholder involvement



So What is My Bottom Line?


GHG effects of direct land use change for biofuels (supply chain oriented) can and have been studied by LCA. Robust conclusions by LCA standards (+/- 30%)

GHG effects of indirect land use change (market oriented) have not yet been successfully studied by LCA. Science papers are not (and probably were not intended to be) LCA studies.

Existing ILUC papers do not meet the standards for “life cycle” studies. It is simply incorrect to use them as such.

The system is so complex that it may never be possible to apply recognized LCA standards to ILUC (but that shouldn’t stop us from trying)

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Basically, it's a question of accountancy --

and if we've learned anything in the last couple of years, it's that determined accountancy can hide any number of sins.

[JohnWxy]

5. Right. and without clear definitions and measureable criteria you can say anything you want without

fear of contradiction. Of course without clearly defined terms and measurable criteria you really haven't said anything at all.

That's why it's so great to have people like Bruce Dale to give, in this case, a critique of these studies like you would hear in a graduate seminar. These studies would be thrown back in the faces of the students presenting them for loose definitions and lack of measureable criteria. They simply haven't proven anything. So they haven't made a point, though they act as if they have (maybe they believe they have. I guess that's possible). This technique is employed in advertizing all the time.


Basically, there is no linkage proven at this point between demand for biofuels and land usse changes. It's an idea, a hypothosis, but until you can come up with verifiable measurable emperical evidence it remains a hypothesis. Searchinger and others are welcome to go out and legitimately support the hypothesis but setting up public policy on a hunch is like running around with a blind fold on. It's also possible that by reducing demand for petroleum biofuels will reduce land use changes (e.g. the oil exploration over an area the size of Texas).

Oil companies are now cutting back on exploration activities because the price of oill is so low. Now this is because of the Republican DEregualtion Depression we are now in, but ethanol has contributed to the reduced demand and reduced price of oil (in 2008 ethanol met 6.3% ofthe demand for transportation fuel). To the extent that ethanol drives down the demand for and the price of oil it disincentivizes oil comapanies to explore for more oil in new regions.)

WE have a few years at most, to start making reductions in our production of CO2. I predict we will not do it. Peole think we can wait for hybrids to have an impact - which they will, but in about 20 to 30 years. But if these numbers are too low let's say we could get to 20% in 20 yrs (something which I think strains credulity given the price of these cars). A 20% reduction in CO2 20 years from now will be too late. We need to get something done in the next couple of years which can only be done with a mobilization of resources to expand ethanol production (from all available sources, sugar from Mexico, Brailian sugar cane, whatever.) massively over the next 5 to 8 yrs. This would get a start at reducing CO2 wehn it can make a difference. This does not preclude developing plug-in hybrids and further development of non plug-ins.

But getting 10-20% reduction in 20 years will be too late. The heating is accelerating too much and by then it won't matter what you do. We will be on a runaway freight train to higher temperatures by then. What people do not realize is that you can have a much quicker impact by replacing the fuel than by replacing the cars than burn the fuel. They will realize this in about 8 to 10 years. But it'll be too late even then, as it takes a few years to build up the production of ethanol. it can't be done overnight.

[excess_3]

6. simple workarounds... lying, cheating, carbon offsets, etc ..n/t