Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @05:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the add-your-own-butter-and-salt dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyGuest31999

In an October 19 letter to corn-belt lawmakers, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt said that he won't seek any rollback to biofuel blending rules, according to Reuters.

The agency had been considering some changes to rules set by the Obama administration that ratchet up the amount of renewable biofuel that refineries must blend into the gas and diesel they sell. According to Bloomberg, the EPA had specifically been considering "a possible reduction in biodiesel requirements" as well as "a proposal to allow exported renewable fuel to count toward domestic quotas." In early October, the EPA asked for public comment on cutting biodiesel quotas.

The Bloomberg story cited unnamed sources who said President Trump personally directed Pruitt to back off any proposals that would relax biofuel quotas after pressure from lawmakers from corn-producing states like Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois. Trump, who courted both fossil fuel interests and corn-belt states in his campaign, has had pressure from each side on this debate. Uncertainty surrounding the future of biofuel use during Trump's administration has caused volatility in biofuels markets for months, Reuters notes.

(The Bloomberg story also cites one unnamed "top EPA official" who said that Trump's directive to Pruitt didn't matter because Pruitt wasn't going to alter renewable fuel standards anyway.)

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/epa-says-it-wont-cut-biofuel-quotas-after-corn-states-push-back/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:17PM (4 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:17PM (#587478)

    Because someone needs to arbiter the conflicts between the various forces at play, to enable the customers to receive a consistent product, which does not endanger them or threaten the proper conduct of their daily lives.

    Incidentally, it's also because the US government has been in the business of securing fuel flows for Americans for over a century, and happens to be the biggest fuel consumer on the planet.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:21PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @06:21PM (#587480)

    You're reasoning is contradictory gibberish that is closer to religion than rationality.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:00PM (#587524)

      You're reasoning is contradictory gibberish

      kind of like your spelling

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:20PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday October 25 2017, @08:20PM (#587533)

      Your reading comprehension is appalling.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:47PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:47PM (#587875) Journal

    Incidentally, it's also because the US government has been in the business of securing fuel flows for Americans for over a century, and happens to be the biggest fuel consumer on the planet.

    Requiring corn ethanol doesn't do that. We need to keep in mind the numerous drawbacks to this scheme such as lower quality and more corrosive fuel (at the levels mandated by the US government), more oil required to make ethanol than it replaces, and increased global food prices (due to resources diverted away from making food).