Is Obama"s Energy Renewable Standard getting in the way of progress or is it just the science is not there yet?
- Anonymous6 years agoFavorite Answer
Arrogance in the White House and climate science arrogance together is nothing but a calamity.
Obama doesn't have a renewable energy standard. He has surrounded himself with environmental zealots and power hungry morphs. Mr. TELEPROMPTER is the go-between. His link to these clowns.
When you get Obama in a 1-on-1 and head-to-head questionnaire situation, most of his response is consumed with "uh" "uh" 'uh" "uh" "uh", which is short for "duh, dunno!"
" ... Question: Really, what is there to like about corn ethanol and the RFS?
Answer: Absolutely nothing, unless of course, you’re part of a small group of rent-seeking corn growers and ethanol producers, who rely on government mandates to force people to buy your products. Otherwise, corn ethanol is a bad deal for everybody else: it’s an inferior fuel that damages automobile engines and fuel systems, it’s bad for the environment, it has forced US taxpayers to spend billions of dollars in ethanol subsidies, it requires more energy to produce than it generates, and it raises fuel and food prices for consumers.
Bottom Line: On a purely economic and scientific basis, corn ethanol is an inferior, costly fuel that wouldn’t even come close to being a viable energy product. On a purely political basis, any energy source including corn ethanol can be made artificially “viable,” but only with the “political life support” of government mandates and taxpayer subsidies. As I pointed out recently in a McClatchy News op-ed, Congress should repeal the RFS, a mandate that never should have been adopted in the first place. ... "
There really isn't any renewable energy that can match fossil fuel or natural gas. We can "subsidize" wind, solar, and hydro-tech, but the Federal Government has instilled many laws that keep us building "safe" products and using fossil fuels is the most inexpensive way to do things.
The "BOTTOM LINE" for Obama is to CRIPPLE fossil fuel companies indefinitely for personal-political reasons (his own communistic view of how the World should be).
- random_manLv 76 years ago
First of all, the RFS was passed prior to Obama taking office. He hasn't really messed with it very much (one way or the other). The article you reference talks about the EPA's possible decision to scale back on some of the RFS's renewable fuels usage mandates.
The RFS is controversial among many communities for a variety of reasons, and I'm not going to go into all of them here. The RFS mandates an escalating amount of renewable fuels, primarily ethanol, to be used. - The thing is, the whole RFS is predicated on US gasoline usage continuing to climb, and the "problem" is that gasoline consumption in the US has tapered off. So it's unclear where the extra ethanol mandated in the RFS would go. They call the 10% blend currently in use in most areas, the "blend wall", E85 has been slow to increase, and automakers and others are resistant to the idea of rolling out E15. Another issue is that cellulosic, or "advanced" ethanol has been slow to develop, and much of the mandated increased usage is in advanced ethanol. However, there are a few commercial-scale advanced ethanol plants in operation now, and the cost will come down as the technology improves.
As much as the environmental benefits of ethanol (advanced or otherwise) get debated, that is overshadowed by the political posturing of those who are economic winners and losers in the scheme. Farmers, and farm-state legislators are generally in favor of the RFS as-is, and want the EPA to stick to the plan. Automakers, some oil companies, and assorted others don't like it, and lobby against the RFS goals.
The EPA says they are trying to stick to the science, and reevaluate the RFS given the new reality of flat US gasoline consumption, but there is tremendous political pressure being applied to them from all sides. It's anyone's guess as to what the outcome will be.
- yLv 76 years ago
When put into place, the science community said it was an impossible goal to meet, green tech like that, that will be able to start to replace our current energy, is at least another twenty years away, if at all. That is a known, the reality, of the situation. The alternative is natural gas, A wonderful go between until the science does catch up, but the white house refuses to build the infrastructure needed.