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.)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:36PM (5 children)
I answered everything you asked. Intellectual honesty is not your forte, you have yet to show any.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:59PM (4 children)
And now you resort to blatant lying. A vapid response that has no bearing on the question does not equate to answering the question (e.g. "you're obtuse", "you're trolling", "no I didn't say that (even though I said that just a post or two ago)").
Those are just a sample of the unanswered questions I asked of you in this thread in response to your freely-offered commentary [soylentnews.org] on the cures and/or causes of criminality in government.
As for your accusation of dishonesty, I add another question to the pile of unanswereds: where and how was I intellectually dishonest? I'm the only AC responding to you in this thread thus far.
Though if you want to turn over a new leaf and start examining the topic of your own post at the top of this thread, an answer to just the first blockquoted question of mine will do.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:47PM (3 children)
I left nothing unanswered. It's all there for you to see. You simply choose not to. I can't help that.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:15PM (2 children)
The thread's right above you for you to read. You answered exactly ZERO of my blockquoted questions above. Here they are again:
The top question is the most relevant, though ALL are still unanswered and because of your claim to have "answered every question" ALL make you out to be a liar, easily proven by this same thread.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:30PM (1 child)
Just checked. Everything has been answered. You rejected them. Not my problem. Toodles...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:50PM
Again, you lie. Not a single one of those four questions has an answer (the "it's the voters" is a non-answer considering that the voters, as I had to explicitly detail for you, do the voting, and you completely ignored the "why" portion of the same question), and the bottom three have not even a pretense of an answer. Lies upon lies. All the more curious as to what station in life you fell into that tolerates such behavior to the extent that you can sustain your existence.
The top blockquoted unanswered question is still the most germane one.