The Renewable Fuel Standard mandates the use of biofuels by oil refiners in accordance with aggressive, progressive targets laid out in 2007. While the RFS mandates an increasingly larger share of sustainable advanced biofuels over time, current production is still comprised almost entirely of corn ethanol, which has many serious downsides: it strains food supplies, increases food prices and fails to deliver meaningful greenhouse gas reductions over oil. The RFS also calls for an increasing amount of more advanced biofuels from nonfood “cellulosic” sources that deliver greater environmental benefits and don't compete with food.
While the cellulosic biofuel industry has commercialized more slower than anticipated — partly a result of the terrible investment climate following the recent financial crisis – the first commercial facilities are starting to come online. Fortunately, the RFS provides EPA with considerable flexibility to adjust the mandates to respond to real-world conditions.
Up to now, EPA has allowed food-based biofuels (primarily biodiesel and sugarcane ethanol from Brazil) to fill in where cellulosic production has fallen short. But EPA has another option: it can set a limit on the amount of food-based biofuels under the RFS and lower the overall mandate to accommodate the slower growth of cellulosic biofuels.
We have a choice—greater dependence on fuels that take land away from food production or a renewed commitment to clean fuels that don’t strain the environment or our food supply. The EPA should embrace the original design of the RFS andcontinue to support the development of non-food based biofuels as a way to help reduce America’s fossil fuel use and protect our environment. The following infographics show why EPA should limit food-based fuel under the RFS.
While the cellulosic biofuel industry has commercialized more slower than anticipated — partly a result of the terrible investment climate following the recent financial crisis – the first commercial facilities are starting to come online. Fortunately, the RFS provides EPA with considerable flexibility to adjust the mandates to respond to real-world conditions.
Up to now, EPA has allowed food-based biofuels (primarily biodiesel and sugarcane ethanol from Brazil) to fill in where cellulosic production has fallen short. But EPA has another option: it can set a limit on the amount of food-based biofuels under the RFS and lower the overall mandate to accommodate the slower growth of cellulosic biofuels.
We have a choice—greater dependence on fuels that take land away from food production or a renewed commitment to clean fuels that don’t strain the environment or our food supply. The EPA should embrace the original design of the RFS and
There are good sources of biodiesel, but supplies are very limited. Beyond a certain point biodiesel production will drive the cutting of rainforests to grow palm oil, causing severe social and environmental damage. Click image for full screen.
Download the PDF version
rm_deforestation_130625.pdf | |
File Size: | 1531 kb |
File Type: |
Sample Tweet
#Infographic: Too much #biodiesel hurts #families and #forests http://bit.ly/14VVDWK
#Infographic: Too much #biodiesel hurts #families and #forests http://bit.ly/14VVDWK
While sugarcane ethanol production creates far less greenhouse gas than corn ethanol, an expanded mandate for it would not result in increased domestic production. Instead, it would create competition for supplies in Brazil, where it is already produced in huge volumes to meet their own biofuel mandate. The infographic below shows the unproductive trade dynamic that develops – creating an indirect expansion in the mandate for corn ethanol.
Download the PDF version
rm_fueltrade__infographic_130625.pdf | |
File Size: | 666 kb |
File Type: |
Sample Tweet
#Infographic: U.S. and Brazil swapping #ethanol really just means more corn #ethanol http://bit.ly/1780biC
#Infographic: U.S. and Brazil swapping #ethanol really just means more corn #ethanol http://bit.ly/1780biC
Roughly 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is used to make fuel. Many argue that diverting such a huge percentage of the corn crop to make ethanol contributes to food price volatility and food shortages around the world. The question is, just how many people could corn used for ethanol feed? This infographic illustrates what is at stake when so much corn is used to make ethanol. Weather is uncontrollable, but we can influence demand for corn supplies. Government incentives for corn ethanol increase demand at a time when corn is expected to be in short supply. And that has global hunger advocates worried.
Download the PDF version
rm_food_fuel_diagram_120711.pdf | |
File Size: | 1288 kb |
File Type: |
Sample Tweet
#infographic: How many people could eat for an entire year from U.S. #corn grown for #ethanol? 412 million. http://bit.ly/13TzRIb
#infographic: How many people could eat for an entire year from U.S. #corn grown for #ethanol? 412 million. http://bit.ly/13TzRIb
For more information, please contact Brendan McLaughlin with Resource Media
(206) 374.7795 x 108
[email protected]
(206) 374.7795 x 108
[email protected]