Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the power-to-the-people? dept.

US Appeals Court Says California Can Set its Own Low Carbon Fuel Standard:

Late last week, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit published an opinion (PDF) stating that California's regulation of fuel sales based on a lifecycle analysis of carbon emissions did not violate federal commerce rules.

Since 2011, California has had a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program, which requires fuel sellers to reduce their fuel's carbon intensity by certain deadlines. If oil, ethanol, or other fuel sellers can't meet those deadlines, they can buy credits from companies that have complied with the standard.

California measures "fuel intensity" over the lifecycle of the fuel, so oil extracted from tar sands (which might require a lot of processing) would be penalized more than lighter oil that requires minimal processing. Ethanol made with coal would struggle to meet its carbon intensity goals more than ethanol made from gas.

Plaintiffs representing the ethanol and oil industries have challenged these rules in the court system. Most recently, they challenged California's 2015 version of the rules. (In September 2018, the state's Air Resources Board announced new amendments to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard rules, but those are not discussed in the 9th Circuit's most recent opinion.)

[...] The opinion noted:

The California legislature is rightly concerned with the health and welfare of humans living in the State of California... These persons may be subjected, for example, to crumbling or swamped coastlines, rising water, or more intense forest fires caused by higher temperatures and related droughts, all of which many in the scientific communities believe are caused or intensified by the volume of greenhouse gas emissions.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:08PM (4 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:08PM (#791455) Journal

    What you say about biological energy efficiency and self manufacturing is true.

    But you fail to mention even one of the significant drawbacks.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:43PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:43PM (#791500)

    It's a mute point, streets in California are already covered in shit in most large cities.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:51PM

      by insanumingenium (4824) on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:51PM (#791502) Journal

      Not even close to true.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @12:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @12:08AM (#791507)

      You mean "moot point" and yeah, you're more full of shit than the streets of SF. The shit isn't everywhere, but when you encounter human shit it leaves a lasting impression.

  • (Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday January 25 2019, @01:59PM

    by Alfred (4006) on Friday January 25 2019, @01:59PM (#791732) Journal
    Its in the early brainstorming phase. The downsides will drop as the conversation continues. I wasn't trying to tip toe around anything.