{"id":1086,"date":"2009-05-06T10:12:51","date_gmt":"2009-05-06T14:12:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=1086"},"modified":"2009-05-06T10:12:51","modified_gmt":"2009-05-06T14:12:51","slug":"epa-biofuels-rule-calculating-the-payback","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2009\/05\/06\/epa-biofuels-rule-calculating-the-payback\/","title":{"rendered":"EPA biofuels rule: calculating the payback"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The EPA released a report<\/a> yesterday that proposes to change the rules of the biofuels game.\u00a0 The report, titled \u201cRegulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program,\u201d examines the lifecycle of corn-for-ethanol practices and sets the \u201cpayback\u201d period of carbon emissions for corn-for-ethanol fuel as 33 years.<\/span><\/p>\n

The payback period means that at first, corn-for-ethanol practices will be a net source of carbon into the atmosphere, as clearing farmland using fire and releasing carbon from soil create initial bursts of carbon release. Over time, however, the system will become self-sustaining and will become a net sink for carbon.<\/span><\/p>\n

Corn ethanol has been ranked as one of the lowest overall<\/a> viable and sustainable forms of alternative fuels, and ecologists have shown that under our current system, almost all corn-based (both grain and cellulosic) cause environmental harm<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although environmentalists, including the National Resource Defense Council, have spoken up in favor<\/a> of the EPA\u2019s rule, the biofuels mandate<\/a> still leaves a lot of wiggle room for revelation of corn ethanol\u2019s true nature, especially under required production.<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, as posed by the Roger Pielke on the Prometheus blog<\/a>, a question that remains is how long it will take to develop an even better biofuel standard than the current corn practices, which are not efficient. If this development time is less than 33 years, but the law mandates commitment to corn as a fuel source for at least 33 years, then the law will in effect create a net source of carbon.\u00a0 As he puts it: <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cDoes it make sense to incur very large increases in carbon dioxide emissions in the short-term under a promise of benefits to occur many decades into the future?\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Read more about the issue on the Nature blog: The Great Beyond<\/a>, at Reuters<\/a> <\/a>and, for the business side, the UK\u2019s Guardian<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

EDIT: For a simple breakdown of the EPA\u2019s scenarios and an interview with Tim Searchinger, a scientist who allegedly published the first paper showing that corn ethanol production increases greenhouse gas emissions, check out this Grist article<\/a>.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The EPA released a report yesterday that proposes to change the rules of the biofuels game.\u00a0 The report, titled \u201cRegulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program,\u201d examines the lifecycle of corn-for-ethanol practices and sets the \u201cpayback\u201d period of carbon emissions for corn-for-ethanol fuel as 33 years. The payback period means that at first, corn-for-ethanol practices…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,10,48],"tags":[119,176,60,243,93,178],"class_list":["post-1086","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conservation","category-ecology-in-policy","category-ecology-and-society","tag-biofuels","tag-carbon-dioxide","tag-climate-change","tag-coren-ethanol","tag-epa","tag-greenhouse-gases"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1086","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1086"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1086\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1086"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1086"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1086"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}