Union of Concerned Scientists on Ethanol Mandate

[kristopher]

Dear DU,

The use of gasoline alternatives, such as ethanol, could play a key role in reducing pollution from fuels, but scientific findings show that biofuels can also increase pollution when done wrong. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing a comprehensive plan to move toward biofuels with reduced global warming emissions while protecting air quality and public health.

The ethanol industry, however, does not want science to interfere with their expansion plans. Producers want immediate permission to increase the amount of ethanol they can blend into regular gasoline before government tests are complete to determine if this could be a public health risk.

The EPA opened a public comment period on this issue through May 16. Please tell EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to deny the producers’ premature request and focus on a comprehensive plan that protects public health while ensuring biofuels contribute to fueling our clean energy future.

Sincerely,
Scott Nathanson
Scott Nathanson
National Field Organizer
UCS Clean Vehicles Program


Take action now: https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1975

Dear Administrator Jackson,

I urge you to deny the petition allowing blends of 15 percent ethanol (E15) to be permitted for use in traditional gasoline engines.

The EPA has been coordinating with other agencies to obtain the data required by the Clean Air Act to determine the clean air risks of increased ethanol blending. But the testing will not be competed in time to review it for this request. In addition, the EPA has been studying the full lifecycle global warming pollution impact of biofuels as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard implementation process.

It would therefore be premature to approve a waiver for increased ethanol use before a thorough analysis of the public health and environmental impacts of ethanol are completed and brought to the public.

With the Obama administration committed to a regulatory system informed by science, I urge you to follow these principles and reject this request. I urge the EPA, instead, to focus on a comprehensive plan to protect public health and air quality, while reducing global warming pollution from biofuels.


One of the prime components of the recent California initiative was the requirement laid on biofuel manufacturers to provide a full accounting of the impacts of their fuels. The report behind the regulations focused extensively on the lack of reliable, comprehensive data that can be compared across the range of fuel feedstocks. We saw the hysterical over-reaction from those in the ethanol camp - the absurdity of which was demonstrated by the claim that the California Energy Commission was in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. This lobby is strong, money hungry and they don't want to wait to compile the data needed to make an informed choice about our energy future. Please act if you feel the effort is worthwhile. - K

[wuvuj]

1. Also an issue of decreased mileage from using ethanol?

...

[NNadir]

2. Personally, I couldn't care less what this group of blubbering fools says about anything.

The use of the word "scientists" in their name is similar to the use of the word "scientists" in "Christian Scientists."

The fact is, that for years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years here car CULTists have been telling us that ethanol would save their worthless and unsustainable CULT.

It hasn't.

We've been hearing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over about the bullshit "cellulosic ethanol" program, but in this month's Chemical and Engineering News is news about how all that government money went down the rabbit hole without producing a single resulting on scale "cellulose to ethanol" plant.

The car CULTists here, of course, are in now way uninspired to apologize to the dead for their religious speculations and the people who will die because they can't kick their oil habit.

Now the car CULTists are here announcing electric cars will save their cult. Most of them, of course, are clueless about where their electricity comes from and just mumbles stupid ass platitudes about the worthless and toxic solar industry when they're not pretending that the answer to the question "Whence comes electricity" is "out my Mom's wall socket."

The Union of Concerned "Scientists" is most famous for opposing on irrational grounds, the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy while claiming that wind and solar will save us.

Nothing they say is therefore imbued with credibility and their blabbering about the car CULTure is just more bourgeois crap from the dogma set.

[jpak]

5. LOL!!!11111

Only nucular power will save us from the eb-il car cult!!!1111

:rofl:

[excess_3]

3. the same old ...'the poor don't deserve to have cars ' ... BS

from the jet set

[bananas]

10. What?

Did you mean this as a reply to post #2,
the insane rambling about a "car CULTure"?

[kristopher]

4. The nuke and fossil fuel trolls on DU are more of a nuisance every day.

[wuvuj]

6. I support 2 groups with real $...

...the ACLU and the UCS. They go after criminals and stupid people.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

[poopfuel]

7. it's a tangled web

and to say politics and big oil are NOT involved in this is to be naive in the utmost.
Evidence of the tangled web of conflict of interest below.
There is no such body as California Energy Commission. There is the California Air Resources Board.

http://api.ning.com/files/Im37D3QzOs47C3MNW7J6zIpEJfhTXFZ0rAALyhrKeSx0kEm1srDeLMimyIuzRxk2KcqqH06MMHCSTUSz2B*PqGPSwba3dCQv/CARBconflictofinterest.txt

Change the way we grow crops and process food in this country. Don't blame it on ethanol. That's exactly what big energy companies want you to do.
Because, as you know, you can go out and make ethanol yourself. Corporations wouldn't want you to start doing that now, would they?

[bananas]

9. California Energy Commission: Created by the Legislature in 1974

http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/index.html

Welcome to the website of the California Energy Commission!

The California Energy Commission is the state's primary energy policy and planning agency. Created by the Legislature in 1974 and located in Sacramento, the Commission responsibilities include:

<snip>

[poopfuel]

8. CARB IS in the pockets of fossil fuels industry and they killed the electric car as well

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/time-to-watch-those-carbs_b_190356.html

"A few years ago, CARB caved to pressure from the oil and car industries and gave the green light that enabled GM and the rest of the automotive behemoths to "kill" the electric car. Now it is on the brink of performing another disservice to the future of the planet - this time by considering the adoption of an unproven, brand new method of "carbon scoring" different fuel types that happens to discriminate heavily in favor of old-fashioned fossil fuels like oil and gas and penalize biofuels."

snip

"The methodology is not without its complications, but essentially CARB has two choices.

The first is to "carbon score" different fuel types based on their chemistry and means of production alone, the so-called "well to wheels" model known by the acronym GREET which has been used and fully peer-reviewed.

The second choice is to try to throw in considerations of broader economic and geopolitical realities. That's not a bad idea in and of itself. It's hard to assess the total environmental cost of importing oil from the Middle East without considering, say, the fuel burned on the tanker that brings it to the United States, or considering the impact of the continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq. The problem with the model being touted by CARB, though, is that it looks at these indirect factors in the context of biofuels only. It factors in the cost of driving ethanol by truck from Iowa to California, but lets oil and gas off the hook completely for comparable factors."