GHG Emissions Reductions Due to the RFS2

Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Agency/Executive Branch, Federal Regulation, Feedstocks, Field/Orchard/Plantation Crops/Residues, Policy, R & D Focus, Sustainability

November 20, 2015

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Susan Boland and Stefan Unnasch (Life Cycle Associates) The RFS2 has resulted in aggregate GHG emissions reductions from the use of biofuels, which exceed the original projections from the final Rule. The RFS2 has resulted in significant GHG reductions, with cumulative CO2 savings of 354 million metric tonnes over the period of implementation.

The GHG reductions are due to the greater than expected savings from ethanol and other biofuels. These emissions savings occur even though cellulosic biofuels have not met the RFS2 production targets.

In addition, EPA underestimated the petroleum baseline in the Rule. Studies by Life Cycle Associates and the Carnegie Institute have shown that the GHG emissions from U.S. petroleum are higher than the EPA calculated in 2005 (Boland, 2014; Gordon, 2015, 2012). Life Cycle Associates have calculated the annual U.S. petroleum emissions based on the changing trends in feedstock availability and U.S. consumption over time (Boland, 2014). The GHG savings are calculated from the revised U.S. petroleum emissions over time. READ MORE and MORE (Environmental Working Group) and MORE (DomesticFuel.com; includes AUDIO) Download study

Excerpt from DomesticFuel.com: A panel of scientists and economists refuted the suggestion by anti-biofuel advocates that carbon accounting schemes should not credit bioenergy feedstocks for CO2 absorption based on the notion that the feedstock would have absorbed CO2 even if it wasn’t being used for biofuel. Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) Senior Vice President Geoff Cooper, who moderated the panel, called the assertion “illogical” and said “it’s a bit like saying the wind was going to blow anyway, so wind energy shouldn’t be counted as carbon neutral; or the sun was going to shine anyway, so we shouldn’t assume that solar panels are harnessing ‘free’ energy from the sun.”

…

Meanwhile, Purdue University economist Dr. Wally Tyner takes issue with the assumption land used for biofuel feedstock production would have grown the same feedstock for some other purpose or reverted to a natural state in the absence of biofuels demand. “If we hadn’t have had biofuels in the United States, we might still be paying farmers not to grow as we were before biofuels came along,” said Tyner. “So the assumption that all of this would have happened anyway I think is absurd.” READ MORE

Comments are closed.

Advanced BioFuels USA