RFS & biodiesel
The editorial “‘Lifesaving' ethanol?” arguing against the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) ignores the reality that the program encompasses a number of renewable fuels categories, including advanced biofuels like biodiesel, which is produced extensively in Pennsylvania.
The RFS program was created by a bipartisan coalition in Congress that recognized it is paramount to America's national security, economic and environmental interests to move away from a singular reliance on petroleum. The first phase of the program was about corn ethanol — diversifying our gasoline pool with some 15 billion gallons of American-made biofuel. The second phase is aimed at boosting other alternatives. It has helped biodiesel grow from a niche fuel into a billion-gallon-a-year commercial-scale industry with plants nationwide, including several in Pennsylvania.
And the RFS is working. We're importing less oil than at any time since 1991. Independent analysis by economist Philip Verleger found the RFS saved consumers as much as $2.6 billion in 2013 alone. And, yes, advanced biofuels like biodiesel reduce carbon pollution by as much as 86 percent compared to petroleum diesel.
Now is not the time to turn back the clock. Let's support a program that is diversifying our transportation fuels mix and helping break America's addiction to oil.
The writer is vice president of federal affairs for the National Biodiesel Board (biodiesel.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Zionist view
- Amendment levels playing field
- UMW fighting EPA regulations
- Misinformation persists
- People’s Pledge
- Focusing on curriculum
- Unhappy returns
- School funding
- Rhetoric & reality
- Buffer zones needed I
- Buffer zones needed II