«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
Has California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Actually Increased Carbon Emissions?
Last year California passed a much-heralded law requiring oil companies to cut the carbon intensity of their fuel 10 percent by 2020. The state is allowing ethanol to be used as one low-carbon substitute, and recently raised the cap on ethanol in gasoline from six to ten percent. You've probably read about the ways the ethanol craze contributes to higher food prices around the world, but what nobody has calculated, until now, is how this affects ethanol's true carbon footprint. In an analysis released January 17th, two UC Berkeley researchers found that ethanol actually produces more carbon emissions than gasoline. As a result, the carbon intensity of California fuel has ironically risen, between 3 and 33 percent.
The researchers, professors Michael O'Hare and and Alexander Farrell, take issue with the model state regulators used to calculate ethanol's carbon output, arguing that it did not factor in the indirect effects on the global food supply. Among other things, higher corn prices cause farmers half-way around the world to convert more forests into farmland, and those trees are then burned or decay, releasing more carbon into the atmosphere. The professors pointed this out in a letter sent earlier this month to the California Air Board, which is discussing changing its carbon model in light of the findings.
Comments
Today's news from the Amazon is that the forest is now loosing more trees, reversing the trend. The Brazilian government is having an emergency meeting about it.
Evidently, farmers in Brazil are cutting trees, and then planting soy because corn ethanol in the U.S. is killing the food market here, leaving them a food opening.
California should also put that in their pipe and smoke it.
"did not factor in indirect effects"
Isn't this just a Red Herring? Do land-use changes have an effect on the carbon content of a specific fuel?
Or, to put it differently, do we include the emissions of all the military vehicles in the Gulf region in the total pollution from petroleum fuels?
Nope, this is just a rear-guard effort to confuse liberals and make them think there is "something wrong" with alternative fuels.
Posted by: JG on 01/24/08 at 12:51 PM Respond
When they calculate that carbon intensity has risen by 3 to 33 percent, does that factor in that the marginal barrels of oil are now being produced from "unconventional" sources such as oil sands and oil shales which produce far higher CO2 than conventional oil? It's a false comparison to assume that there are significant quantities of low carbon conventional oil left to find.
Posted by: RhapsodyInGlue on 01/26/08 at 5:43 PM Respond
ARCHIVE
RECENT COMMENTS
African-Americans Genetically Prone to HIV, AIDS (17)
M Young wrote:
That response was to the Viking chap. ...
[more]
Commemorating Bush's Sh*t (4)
Zack wrote:
San Francisco should build something for Nancy Pelosi; alo...
[more]
Smart Energy = No More Wall Warts (6)
Dan Mortenson wrote:
Late commenting, but --
Dan, most devices that use power ...
[more]
Ouch: Climate Change Means More Kidney Stones (8)
Tom Edgar wrote:
Usually I wouldn't respond re
my physical experiences BUT...
[more]
What's the Most Polluting Car? (26)
magualua wrote:
All this bitching about suv's, truck's and hybrid's, I'm n...
[more]
The Cutest Rehab (8)
Julia Whitty wrote:
Here's a radical suggestion, gentle readers: follow the em...
[more]
Ice Blocking Canada's Seal Hunt (54)
The Professor wrote:
"Support The Hunt", Canadians are suppose to be well manne...
[more]
Sea Level Rise Twice As High as Current Projections (2)
Justin wrote:
You should get a job ghost-writing for Michael Crichton. ...
[more]
Dead Zone Overkill (1)
Fair Trade wrote:
As it says in one of your sources:
It's the sixth year the...
[more]
21st-Century Land Grab (2)
JG wrote:
FT: It's your imagination. This whole flap (yes, even on M...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33


Posted by: elydog on 01/24/08 at 12:26 PM Respond