by Sean Reilly (Politico Pro Climatewire) The move opens the door to revise a suite of rules clamping down on heat-trapping emissions, especially from the industrial and transportation sectors. -- EPA has taken its first public step toward revisiting the landmark 2009 determination that underpins most of the agency's climate regulations.
The move marks an introductory and pivotal step for the Trump administration to rewrite the foundation of a suite of rules that aim to clamp down on heat-trapping emissions, especially from the industrial and transportation sectors.
EPA on Monday sent the proposed rule, titled “Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Reconsideration,” to the White House regulations office for a routine review, according to a notice posted on a government tracking website.
While the proposal’s contents were not made public, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had targeted the endangerment finding in a list of planned regulatory rollbacks released in March.
At a congressional hearing in May, he suggested that the original Obama-era finding was flawed because it failed to consider the harm done by each of the half-dozen greenhouse gases deemed dangerous because they contribute to global climate change. READ MORE
- EPA’s Endangerment Finding in Danger? (Aiken Gump)
- The Bottom Line: Regulatory Costs Don’t Belong in Endangerment Findings: How the Clean Air Act Separates Regulatory Cost Analysis from Endangerment Findings (Policy Integrity)
-
Pending EO 12866 Regulatory Review RIN: 2060-AW71 Title: Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Reconsideration Rule (Office of Management and Budget)
-
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (Environmental Protection Agency)
-
Attribution Science and EPA’s Reconsideration of the GHG Endangerment Finding (Climate Law Columbia University)
-
Trump EPA Kicks Off Formal Reconsideration of Endangerment Finding with Agency Partners (Environmental Protection Agency)
-
9 Questions About the 2009 Endangerment Finding Reconsideration (Baker Botts)
-
EPA to Revisit Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding (Congress.gov)
-
Trump EPA Kicks Off Formal Reconsideration of Endangerment Finding with Agency Partners (Environmental Protection Agency)
-
EPA Sends Combined GHG Finding, Vehicle Rule Rollbacks To OMB (Inside EPA)
-
Trump’s science guidelines could amplify climate skeptics: The new White House rules put more power in the hands of political appointees. (E&E News Climatewire)
-
Senate confirms Trump’s EPA air office nominee -- Aaron Szabo, a former lobbyist with ties to the oil industry, will lead the Office of Air and Radiation. (Politico Pro E&E Daily)
-
US EPA to withdraw foundation of greenhouse gas rules, sources say (Reuters)
-
Trump’s latest plan to undo the ‘holy grail’ of climate rules: Never mind the science (Politico)
-
EPA Plan to End Greenhouse Gas Regulations, Expected Imminently, Will Harm Human Health, Experts Say (Inside Climate News)
-
White House Faces Split Views On Looming Plan To Scrap EPA’s GHG Finding (Inside EPA)
-
Trump EPA will propose repealing finding that climate change endangers public health (The Hill)
-
Trump's EPA Is Trying to End America's Fight Against Climate Change (Rolling Stone/MSN)
-
EPA to launch plan Tuesday for undoing climate rule cornerstone (E&E News Greenwire)
-
EPA to launch plan Tuesday for undoing climate rule cornerstone: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is planning to announce the move at an Indiana transportation facility. (Politico Pro Greenwire)
Excerpt from Aiken Gump: EPA faces scientific and legal barriers to challenging the endangerment finding.
First, scientific data on the impacts of GHGs on climate change has only increased since the original 2009 finding. Scientists can more readily link impacts attributable to anthropogenic climate change and the relative contributions of different sources for those impacts, undermining arguments that emissions reductions in one jurisdiction will not meaningfully “contribute” to addressing global climate change.9
Second, any decision against the findings would be immediately challenged in court. The findings have been upheld against various legal challenges over the years, with the Supreme Court declining to hear challenges to it as recently as December 11, 2023.10
Nevertheless, recent landmark decisions in the Supreme Court have demonstrated a willingness to deviate from precedent in matters of environmental regulations and otherwise. If challenged, these potential legal proceedings will present opportunities for engagement for environmental and industry groups to file amicus briefs or join likely challenges from Democratic states. READ MORE
Excerpt from Policy Integrity: EPA made the 2009 Endangerment Finding following the Supreme Court’s determinations that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court further clarified that “[i]f EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.” Consistent with this obligation, after making the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA then proceeded to issue regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and later from power plants, landfills, aircraft, and the oil and gas sector. Many of EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, alongside the 2009 Endangerment Finding itself, are now in the crosshairs of EPA’s reconsideration.
EPA’s March 2025 press release emphasized that when EPA made the Endangerment Finding in 2009, the agency did not consider the costs of future regulations that would limit emissions. That’s true—but it is not evidence that regulatory costs went unconsidered. To the contrary, EPA considered regulatory costs when the relevant statutory provisions indicated they should be considered: at the time it issued the various regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from particular sectors. As explained in this issue brief, this approach is required by the law and best practice.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to assess regulatory costs when setting emission standards, not when making an endangerment finding that underlies the regulations. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA first makes a scientific judgment regarding whether certain emissions “endanger public health or welfare” (a.k.a., an endangerment finding). For emissions meeting that criterion, EPA then separately issues emission standards. The courts have made clear that cost is considered only at the stage of issuing specific standards to limit emissions. The plain text of the Clean Air Act compels this approach, and Supreme Court case law further affirms this understanding of the text and appropriate practice. READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico Pro: The EPA’s proposal to reconsider its 16-year-old bedrock finding on the dangers of greenhouse gases is now in the White House’s hands — a move that sets the stage for a broad attack on a wide range of federal climate regulations.
Details on the proposal are still unclear, but it is expected to significantly weaken — if not revoke outright — the agency’s 2009 declaration that greenhouse gases endanger human health. That in turn would free EPA from the legal obligation to regulate climate pollution from most sources, including power plants, cars and trucks, and virtually any other source.
The EPA submitted its proposal (Reg. 2060-AW71) to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review on Monday, according to the agency’s website.
The rule is styled as "Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Reconsideration Rule" — indicating it may revoke the agency's tailpipe emissions standards for vehicles at the same time it undoes the endangerment finding. That would free automakers from having to comply with Biden-era rules that Republicans have argued amounted to a de facto electric vehicle mandate. Restoring auto industry jobs through deregulation is a main pillar of Administrator Lee Zeldin's EPA agenda . READ MORE
Excerpt from Inside EPA: EPA has sent to the White House for final review a proposed rule walking back the landmark GHG endangerment finding and vehicle emissions standards -- confirming expectations that the agency would combine its endangerment finding reconsideration with a vehicle rule repeal even as the regulation’s exact scope remains unclear. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) received the proposal, titled “Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Reconsideration Rule,” on June 30. EPA’s planned rollback of the greenhouse gas endangerment... READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico Pro E&E Daily: (Aaron) Szabo’s elevation to head the Office of Air and Radiation formally positions him to play a lead role in a host of Clean Air Act rollbacks already planned by Administrator Lee Zeldin.
The White House regulations office, for example, is reviewing an EPA proposal to revisit the landmark 2009 endangerment finding that undergirds the agency’s work to regulate greenhouse gases.
At a March hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Szabo acknowledged the impacts of climate change, but would not commit to doing anything to rein in heat-trapping pollution. READ MORE
Excerpt from New York Times: The Trump administration has drafted a plan to repeal a fundamental scientific finding that gives the United States government its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change, according to two people familiar with the plan.
...
The E.P.A. proposal, which is expected to be made public within days, also calls for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. Those regulations, which were based on the endangerment finding, were a fundamental part of the Biden administration’s efforts to move the country away from gasoline-powered vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
The E.P.A. intends to argue that imposing climate regulations on automakers poses the real harm to human health because it would lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice, according to the two people familiar with the administration’s plan. They asked to remain anonymous because they weren’t authorized to discuss the draft proposal.
The draft proposal could still undergo changes. But if it is approved by the White House and formally released, the public would have an opportunity to weigh in before it is made final, likely later this year.
Molly Vaseliou, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., did not confirm the details of the plan. In a statement she said the E.P.A. sent the draft proposal to the White House on June 30, and that it “will be published for public notice and comment once it has completed interagency review and been signed by the Administrator.”
If the Trump administration is able to repeal the endangerment finding, it would not only erase all current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources. It would prevent future administrations from trying to tackle climate change, with lasting implications.
...
In calling to repeal the endangerment finding, the draft E.P.A. rule does not appear to focus on the science or try to make the case that fossil fuels aren’t warming the planet.
Instead, it argues that the E.P.A. overstepped its legal authority under the Clean Air Act by making a broad finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public welfare. It makes the case that the E.P.A. administrator has limited power that apply only to specific circumstances.
Joseph Goffman, who led the air office at the E.P.A. under the Biden administration, said the rule would all but certainly face legal challenges if it is finalized.
He said the Trump administration’s proposed rule conflicts with the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. E.P.A., a landmark case that found for the first time that greenhouse gases were a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That led the E.P.A. to make the finding in 2009 that said that six greenhouse gases were harming public health.
In more than 200 pages, the E.P.A. at that time outlined the science and detailed how increasingly severe heat waves, storms and droughts were expected to contribute to higher rates of death and disease. READ MORE
Excerpt from Reuters:
- Proposal will be published for public notice, White House says
- Source: Finding to focus on EPA's legal authority, not science
- International Court calls emissions an 'existential threat'
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to reverse its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, removing the legal foundation that underpins all major climate regulations, two sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters.
Reversal of the "endangerment finding" would gut one of the most consequential federal standards that had enabled the U.S. to tackle climate change by regulating vehicles, industries, and energy-producing facilities that emit heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Without the finding, the EPA could more easily undo major regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions, the sources said.
An EPA spokesperson said the agency sent its proposal for reconsidering the endangerment finding to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review on June 30 and it is being reviewed by other federal agencies.
"The proposal will be published for public notice and comment once it has completed interagency review and been signed by the Administrator,” an EPA spokesperson said in an email.
The Washington Post first reported on the decision.
The International Court of Justice on Wednesday issued a landmark advisory opinion saying greenhouse gas emissions pose an "existential threat" to the world and countries must cooperate on concrete emission reduction targets.
One source said the proposal would focus on EPA's legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, not the scientific basis for it. Lawyers have said that challenging the scientific basis of the finding would be difficult because the body of evidence that humans are causing climate change is “unequivocal.”
"It would be a shocking dereliction of a clear statutory duty to protect the public and an indefensible denial of overwhelming science. Also a national embarrassment," said Sean Donahue, a lawyer with Donahue, Goldberg & Herzog, who has represented environmental groups in cases before the Supreme Court.
The U.S. is the largest historical greenhouse gas emitter and currently the No. 2 emitter after China.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Massachusetts vs. EPA case in 2007, said the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and required the agency to make a scientific finding on whether they endanger public health.
In 2009, the EPA under former President Barack Obama issued a finding that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to pollution and endanger public health and welfare. It was upheld in several legal challenges and underpinned subsequent greenhouse gas regulations.
The EPA declined to take action on the endangerment finding during President Donald Trump's first term as industry raised concerns. The current Trump administration set its sights early on the endangerment finding.
In January, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin told his confirmation hearing the agency has authority but not an obligation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In March, the EPA launched a review of the finding, obeying a day-one executive order by Trump.
White House budget director Ross Vought said the review was "long overdue" because the finding had led to regulations that he said harmed the economy.
Zeldin announced over two-dozen de-regulatory actions aimed at "driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion." READ MORE
Excerpt from Politico: Instead of challenging the science, which would require EPA to assemble a body of evidence rejecting the overwhelming consensus that humans are driving climate change primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, the Trump administration would lean into an argument that a key 2007 Supreme Court ruling allowed but did not require the agency to regulate greenhouse gases, according to the three people who were granted anonymity to discuss a draft regulation not yet made public.
...
The Justice Department has also helped shape the draft, which relies on a legal rather than scientific rationale to topple the endangerment finding, according to the two people as well as another individual granted anonymity to discuss the draft rule.
...
Going the legal route to end the endangerment finding will come amid fresh headwinds. The United Nations International Court of Justice on Wednesday ruled that climate change poses an “urgent and existential threat” — a non-binding opinion that will likely factor into court cases around the world. The court said countries must cooperate to keep temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels, adding that failing to do so could violate international law. The court also said that leaving the 2015 Paris climate agreement, which Trump has said the U.S. will exit, does not excuse countries from their obligations to curb warming.
But Trump officials appear prepared to take the fight to the courts. Framing their case as a legal rather than scientific matter represents a departure from the strategy it once mulled under then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt during Trump’s first term, which consisted of challenging the comprehensive, Obama-era scientific analysis that determined six greenhouse gases posed human health and safety risks necessitating regulations.
...
U.S. climate rules flow from the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that the agency has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The high court ruled that EPA can avoid regulating greenhouse gases only if it can prove they do not contribute to climate change or if it can come up with “some reasonable explanation” why it won’t issue an endangerment finding.
“To the extent that this constrains agency discretion to pursue other priorities of the Administrator or the President, this is the congressional design,” the court added, a caveat that will make it harder for EPA to simply argue that the Trump administration has declared an “energy emergency” or adopted a fossil fuel-friendly policy position.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissent in that 2007 case. He argued that material loss from rising temperatures was “pure conjecture” and cast doubt on EPA’s ability to blunt the damaging effects of climate change given “the complexities of global warming.” The Supreme Court has since shifted to a 6-3 conservative supermajority, with Trump appointing three of its members during his first term.
...
Jeffrey Clark, who ran the Justice Department’s environmental division in Trump’s first term, has led the administration’s endangerment finding proposal through his new perch at OMB. Vought previously hired Clark to work at Vought’s Center for Renewing America, where the two workshopped policy ideas during the Biden administration.
Clark is personally connected to the effort to unwind the endangerment finding. He successfully argued the Massachusetts v. EPA case in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as a DOJ appointee for former President George W. Bush. But he left the government before the case landed in the Supreme Court.
...
One of the people familiar with the Trump administration’s upcoming proposal said that in addition to EPA, OMB and DOJ, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s team has also played into the strategy, as have the White House counsel’s office and the Energy Department.
OMB and DOJ, however, have taken a prominent role, the people familiar said. Public records, meanwhile, showed that EPA has been absent from meetings with OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to discuss the upcoming rule with interested parties like industry and environmental groups.
Environmental groups were quick to criticize the Trump administration’s planned move. READ MORE
Excerpt from E&E News Greenwire: The proposal is expected to focus more on legal arguments about the original Obama-era finding than on the science of climate change.
Two people said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin would make the announcement while visiting an Indiana facility with links to the truck manufacturing supply chain. The transportation sector is the largest source of planet-heating gases in the U.S.
If the courts uphold Trump’s move to repeal the endangerment finding, it could be easier for EPA to quickly undo a host of Biden-era climate rules for power plants and oil and gas methane without replacing them with new standards. READ MORE
Nearly 55,000 articles in our online library!
Use the categories and tags listed below to access the nearly 50,000 articles indexed on this website.
Advanced Biofuels USA Policy Statements and Handouts!
- For Kids: Carbon Cycle Puzzle Page
- Why Ethanol? Why E85?
- Just A Minute 3-5 Minute Educational Videos
- 30/30 Online Presentations
- “Disappearing” Carbon Tax for Non-Renewable Fuels
- What’s the Difference between Biodiesel and Renewable (Green) Diesel? 2020 revision
- How to De-Fossilize Your Fleet: Suggestions for Fleet Managers Working on Sustainability Programs
- New Engine Technologies Could Produce Similar Mileage for All Ethanol Fuel Mixtures
- Action Plan for a Sustainable Advanced Biofuel Economy
- The Interaction of the Clean Air Act, California’s CAA Waiver, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Renewable Fuel Standards and California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard
- Latest Data on Fuel Mileage and GHG Benefits of E30
- What Can I Do?
Donate
DonateARCHIVES
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- October 2006
- April 2006
- January 2006
- April 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- December 1987
CATEGORIES
- About Us
- Advanced Biofuels Call to Action
- Aviation Fuel/Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)
- BioChemicals/Renewable Chemicals
- BioRefineries/Renewable Fuel Production
- Business News/Analysis
- Cooking Fuel
- Education
- 30/30 Online Presentations
- Competitions, Contests
- Earth Day 2021
- Earth Day 2022
- Earth Day 2023
- Earth Day 2024
- Earth Day 2025
- Executive Training
- Featured Study Programs
- Instagram TikTok Short Videos
- Internships
- Just a Minute
- K-12 Activities
- Mechanics training
- Online Courses
- Podcasts
- Scholarships/Fellowships
- Teacher Resources
- Technical Training
- Technician Training
- University/College Programs
- Events
- Coming Events
- Completed Events
- More Coming Events
- Requests for Speakers, Presentations, Posters
- Requests for Speakers, Presentations, Posters Completed
- Webinars/Online
- Webinars/Online Completed; often available on-demand
- Federal Agency/Executive Branch
- Agency for International Development (USAID)
- Agriculture (USDA)
- Commerce Department
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Congressional Budget Office
- Defense (DOD)
- Air Force
- Army
- DARPA (Defense Advance Research Projects Agency)
- Defense Logistics Agency
- Marines
- Navy
- Education Department
- Energy (DOE)
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
- Federal Reserve System
- Federal Trade Commission
- Food and Drug Administration
- General Services Administration
- Government Accountability Office (GAO)
- Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Homeland Security
- Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
- Interior Department
- International Trade Commission
- Joint Office of Energy and Transportation
- Justice (DOJ)
- Labor Department
- National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- National Research Council
- National Science Foundation
- National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Overseas Private Investment Corporation
- Patent and Trademark Office
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- State Department
- Surface Transportation Board
- Transportation (DOT)
- Federal Aviation Administration
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admin (PHMSA)
- Treasury Department
- U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
- White House
- Federal Legislation
- Federal Litigation
- Federal Regulation
- Feedstocks
- Agriculture/Food Processing Residues nonfield crop
- Alcohol/Ethanol/Isobutanol
- Algae/Other Aquatic Organisms/Seaweed
- Atmosphere
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
- Field/Orchard/Plantation Crops/Residues
- Forestry/Wood/Residues/Waste
- hydrogen
- Manure
- Methane/Biogas
- methanol/bio-/renewable methanol
- Not Agriculture
- RFNBO (Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin)
- Seawater
- Sugars
- water
- Funding/Financing/Investing
- grants
- Green Jobs
- Green Racing
- Health Concerns/Benefits
- Heating Oil/Fuel
- History of Advanced Biofuels
- Infrastructure
- Aggregation
- Biofuels Engine Design
- Biorefinery/Fuel Production Infrastructure
- Carbon Capture/Storage/Use
- certification
- Deliver Dispense
- Farming/Growing
- Precursors/Biointermediates
- Preprocessing
- Pretreatment
- Terminals Transport Pipelines
- International
- Abu Dhabi
- Afghanistan
- Africa
- Albania
- Algeria
- Angola
- Antarctica
- Arctic
- Argentina
- Armenia
- Aruba
- Asia
- Asia Pacific
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Bahamas
- Bahrain
- Bangladesh
- Barbados
- Belarus
- Belgium
- Belize
- Benin
- Bermuda
- Bhutan
- Bolivia
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Botswana
- Brazil
- Brunei
- Bulgaria
- Burkina Faso
- Burundi
- Cambodia
- Cameroon
- Canada
- Caribbean
- Central African Republic
- Central America
- Chad
- Chile
- China
- Colombia
- Congo
- Congo, Democratic Republic of
- Costa Rica
- Croatia
- Cuba
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Dominican Republic
- Dubai
- Ecuador
- El Salvador
- Equatorial Guinea
- Eqypt
- Estonia
- Eswatini/Swaziland
- Ethiopia
- European Union (EU)
- Fiji
- Finland
- France
- French Guiana
- Gabon
- Georgia
- Germany
- Ghana
- Global South
- Greece
- Greenland
- Grenada
- Guatemala
- Guinea
- Guyana
- Haiti
- Honduras
- Hong Kong
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Iran
- Iraq
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Ivory Coast
- Jamaica
- Japan
- Jersey
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kenya
- Korea
- Kosovo
- Kuwait
- Laos
- Latin America
- Latvia
- Lebanon
- Liberia
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Macedonia
- Madagascar
- Malawi
- Malaysia
- Maldives
- Mali
- Malta
- Marshall Islands
- Mauritania
- Mauritius
- Mexico
- Middle East
- Moldova
- Monaco
- Mongolia
- Morocco
- Mozambique
- Myanmar/Burma
- Namibia
- Nepal
- Netherlands
- New Guinea
- New Zealand
- Nicaragua
- Niger
- Nigeria
- North Africa
- North America
- North Korea
- Northern Ireland
- Norway
- Oman
- Pakistan
- Panama
- Papua New Guinea
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Qatar
- Republic of
- Romania
- Russia
- Rwanda
- Saudi Arabia
- Scotland
- Senegal
- Serbia
- Sierra Leone
- Singapore
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Solomon Islands
- South Africa
- South America
- South Korea
- South Sudan
- Southeast Asia
- Spain
- Sri Lanka
- Sudan
- Suriname
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Tanzania
- Thailand
- Timor-Leste
- Togo
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Tunisia
- Turkey
- Uganda
- UK (United Kingdom)
- Ukraine
- United Arab Emirates UAE
- Uruguay
- Uzbekistan
- Vatican
- Venezuela
- Vietnam
- Wales
- Zambia
- Zanzibar
- Zimbabwe
- Marine/Boat Bio and Renewable Fuel/MGO/MDO/SMF
- Marketing/Market Forces and Sales
- Opinions
- Organizations
- Original Writing, Opinions Advanced Biofuels USA
- Policy
- Presentations
- Biofuels Digest Conferences
- DOE Conferences
- Bioeconomy 2017
- Bioenergy2015
- Biomass2008
- Biomass2009
- Biomass2010
- Biomass2011
- Biomass2012
- Biomass2013
- Biomass2014
- DOE Project Peer Review
- Other Conferences/Events
- R & D Focus
- Carbon Capture/Storage/Use
- Co-Products
- Feedstock
- Logistics
- Performance
- Process
- Vehicle/Engine/Motor/Aircraft/Boiler
- Yeast
- Railroad/Train/Locomotive Fuel
- Resources
- Books Web Sites etc
- Business
- Definition of Advanced Biofuels
- Find Stuff
- Government Resources
- Scientific Resources
- Technical Resources
- Tools/Decision-Making
- Rocket/Missile Fuel
- Sponsors
- States
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawai'i
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Midwest
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Native American tribal nation lands
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Puerto Rico
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Washington DC
- West Coast
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
- Sustainability
- Uncategorized
- What You Can Do
tags
© 2008-2023 Copyright Advanced BioFuels USA. All Rights reserved.
Comments are closed.