These senators (and many House and Senate colleagues) are determined that ethanol, biodiesel, and
other biofuel mandates and «targets» will always and only go in one direction: upward.
Despite what I thought were persuasive articles over the years (here, here and here, for example), corn ethanol and
other biofuel mandates remain embedded in U.S. law.
Not exact matches
The
biofuel mandate is noteworthy because, unlike
other energy regulations, it doesn't even produce a clear collective benefit.
Catsimatidis told The Post that his lobbyists, including the well - connected firm Connelly McLaughlin & Woloz, «are trying to get it done» and that he's «hopeful» the
biofuel mandate — forcing homeowners and businesses to use a mix of traditional petroleum heating oil with soybean - and
other vegetable - based oils — will be approved this year.
Despite this direct link between
biofuels and food price volatility, the United States and many
other countries, including Canada, Brazil and the European Union, have
mandates (1) on
biofuels.
Risk Factors, proposed carbon policy and
other climate - related regulations in many countries, as well as the continued growth in
biofuels mandates, could have negative impacts on the refining business.
Moreover,
biofuel mandates and subsidies tend to push land out of
other carbon - sequestering uses including food production.
Ethanol and
other biofuels might have made some sense when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established
mandates (or «standards») requiring that refiners and consumer purchase large quantities of ethanol and
other biofuels.
They recommend, among
other things, that governments rethink
biofuels policies, especially the subsidies and
mandates for
biofuels from crops that rely on the dedicated use of land.