Sentences with phrase «ethanol mandates»

The fact is ethanol mandates under the RFS reflect a profound mismatch between policy and market reality.

Unfortunately, this doesn't stop RFA from cherry - picking data to create «facts» that support ever - increasing use of ethanol despite real data that strongly argues the ethanol mandates under the Renewable Fuel Standard could negatively impact consumers and the broader economy.

But instead of doing the obvious — tax the damn thing — we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates and now a crazy carbon cap - and - trade system the Senate is debating this week.

The 2007 ethanol mandates called for the consumption of ethanol to rise from 0.6 MMB / D to 2.35 MMB / D by 2022 (left scale on Fig. 1).

Trump is weak on ethanol mandates and pretty good on most other issues.

When the 2007 ethanol mandates were passed, lawmakers were looking at forecasts of rising gasoline consumption out to 2022 and beyond.

Dennis Avery crows that even the environmental movement is seeking his support for ending ethanol mandates.

This reflects the reality that approximately 40 percent of the corn crop now goes into ethanol production, a dramatic rise since the first ethanol mandates were put in place in 2005.

Ethanol mandates also result in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution.

In 2008, a Washington Post editorial by two prominent environmentalists described how ethanol mandates have harmed the environment and spawned hunger across the world.

Whereas early estimates — the ones that helped spur the cellulosic ethanol mandates — put the cost at $ 30 a ton, the actual costs are more like $ 80 to $ 130 a ton.

However, during her 2008 presidential run, Clinton flip - flopped and began supporting ethanol mandates — quite possibly in an attempt to curry favor with Iowans.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, a leading supporter of corn - based ethanol, says he'll call for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's resignation if Pruitt doesn't work to fulfill federal ethanol mandates.

Information is available on the RFS itself, as well as problems that have made the program and its ethanol mandates untenable — like the refining «blend wall,» potential risks to vehicle and equipment engines and impacts on food prices.

The Fill Up On Facts website is a great resource on the RFS, ethanol mandates and related issues.

BIOFUELS: Renewable fuels groups are satisfied with President Trump's planned compromise over federal ethanol mandates that would allow year - round sales.

Let's update an informative chart that's critical in the continuing discussion of E15 fuel and the ethanol mandates of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

One item on the President's schedule today is a meeting to discuss ethanol mandates and the Renewable Fuel Standard.

Consider that EPA reportedly is thinking about lowering its 2014 ethanol mandates under the RFS, and that more than 160 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are urging the same in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

Engine damage, engine failure and misfueling are just a few of the consequences of the RFS ethanol mandates

The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) has similar concerns about the RFS, since ethanol mandates also have the potential to cause engine damage for marine vessels.

But are ethanol mandates good public policy?

Probably because ethanol mandates and electric car subsidies are lucrative sources of federal grants, loans, subsidies and tax credits for «alternative fuels» and electric cars.

The ethanol mandates of 2005 and 2007 are showing once again the disastrous effects of even just a little central planning.

Ethanol mandates require greater amounts of the fuel to be blended with gasoline.

The ethanol mandates and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which allowed speculation in the commodities market, are both disastrous policy decisions that should be rolled back.

It's practically an entry - level badge for wonkhood on left and right to understand that ethanol mandates are environmentally damaging and economically inefficient and a textbook example of misguided environmental policy captured by special interests.

Overview: Mandates, Zero Production, Penalties, and the Failure of the Current System In the previous post, I discussed the annual ritual of rolling back the cellulosic ethanol mandates by 90 % or more.

A mock bumper sticker noting how Ted Cruz's rejection of ethanol mandates could have lasting benefits for butterflies.

Congress recently voted to increase the ethanol mandate.

As Coral Davenport reported in a piece that ran on Sunday, the power of the ethanol mandate is waning for a variety of reasons — some national, but others within Iowa's boundaries:

As Coral Davenport reported in a piece that ran on Sunday, the power of the ethanol mandate is waning for a variety of reasons — some national, but others within Iowa's boundaries: Read more...

The ethanol mandate has driven up food costs while failing to deliver its promised environmental benefits.

Over the past few years the EPA has been lobbied by a diverse assortment of industry groups to repeal the ethanol mandate, and policymakers have supported that with introduction of legislation.

The only two parts of the act I now about is the ethanol mandate and the requirement to phase our incandescant light bubls by 2015.

The full text is included below: Ethanol mandate hurts Iowa corn farmers By Thomas Pyle Iowans will soon cast the first votes of the 2016 presidential election.

Last week the EPA dismissed a petition by the American Petroleum Institute seeking relief from the cellulosic ethanol mandate, which requires that oil refiners blend 8.65 million gallons of ethanol into the fuel supply by the end of 2012:

Note that the reporter and everybody else quoted just takes for granted the badness of the ethanol mandate for everyone but corn farmers.

Also of interest is the political reason why the ethanol mandate is so hard to get rid of: Rural Republican districts benefit hugely from the market distortion and some alt - fuel fanatics in D.C, such as Obama, love to stick it to the oil companies regardless of environmental impact.

Canada currently maintains a 5 % domestic ethanol mandate on use while the U.S. is working towards a target of 136 billion liters of biofuels blended into transportation fuels by 2022.

In dueling TV ads, foes of the federal ethanol mandate claim that it «doubles greenhouse gas emissions,» while the ethanol lobby says that «the oil industry is lying» and the mandate will lead to lower emissions.

In fact, environmental groups oppose the ethanol mandate, too.

We have wasted billions of dollars on such «strong» policies as coal - derived synfuels; subsidies for the commercialization of wind, solar and electric cars; and worst of all, the ethanol mandate.

• Resist increased targets for biofuel, eliminate the blend increase and rollback the corn ethanol mandate.

Congress's ethanol mandate, which requires oil companies to use 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2020, can not be achieved, experts say, without major technological advances that are still years away.

The ethanol industry, already reeling from a draft plan for cuts in the ethanol mandate for this year, will now face more pressure as everyone from conservatives and environmental activists...

Since the inception of the ethanol mandate a decade ago, the United States has undergone an energy transformation from a nation of energy dependence and scarcity to one of energy security and abundance.

If the ethanol mandate in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) required more, then you're running into the ethanol «blend wall» — that is, to satisfy the RFS, refiners would have to blend fuel with higher ethanol content than millions of vehicles are designed to use.

The fierce opposition comes chiefly from the U.S. environmental lobby, which has awakened to one of the most colossal environmental mistakes in its history: the ethanol mandate, part of America's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which effectively mandates that 10 per cent of gasoline at the pump consists of ethanol.

«Instead of continuing to play political games with our environment and public health, these legislators are moving policies that will help undo the damage caused by the ethanol mandate.