Worshipping at the altar of environmentalism: Fining the refiners...

It always starts with a good idea, if not a very good idea. But, behind that idea is an Oz-like ideology whose adherents intend to exercise hegemony by using it as a means to their malignant end.

The very good idea: renewable sources of energy.  It makes economic and national security sense.  If there is such a phenomenon as "global warming," renewable sources of energy makes eminent sense.

According to an article in the New York Times, it all started with the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), signed into law by then-President George W. Bush.  The goal was to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, reliance on oil imported, and the export of dollars to pay for it.  All of those are very good ideas, The Motley Monk would assert.

The law also included provisions to increase the efficiency of vehicles and to incorporate renewable energy sources into gasoline and diesel, including: car and truck fuel made from cellulose; diesel fuel made from biomass; and, fuel from biological materials with a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases.  Those may be good ideas, The Motley Monk would note.

The law also set a goal of  250M gallons for vehicle fuel from cellulose for 2011 and 500M gallons for 2012. (In general terms, that's less than 10% of vehicle fuel being used annually.)  The goal is part of an overall goal of having 36B gallons of biofuels incorporated annually by 2022.  Those goals were bad ideas, The Motley Monk would note.

Why?

At the time and continuing to today, cellulosic fuel is commercially unavailable.

How is it possible for Congress to pass a law requiring the implementation of something that doesn't exist commercially?

Bad enough.  But, it gets worse.

The technology required to meet those goals is not currently available and, it appears, won't be for a very long time.  Yes, technological advances are being made.  But, the technology is a long way from being ready for commercial use, "closer to the beaker...[than] closer to the barrel" is how the Executive Director of the Advanced Biofuels Association, Michael J. McAdams, described the situation.

It potentially gets even worse.

When refiners close their books in February, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to fine the refiners for not meeting EISA goals.

Just how does that make any sense whatsoever?

That is, unless one happens to be a zealous ideologue who worships at the altar of environmentalism and doesn't care about the facts.

Let the discussion begin...



To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25