This arrived last week from Iowa Farmers Union:
CONTACT: Aaron
Huertas, 202-331-5458
RUSH TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION FUELS MUST TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, SCIENCE GROUP SAYS
NEW REPORT FINDS
SOME ALTERNATIVES POLLUTE MORE THAN GASOLINE; CALLS FOR 'LOW-CARBON' FUEL
STANDARD TO CUT GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS
WASHINGTON (November 13,
2007) -- Heightened concern about oil dependence is generating growing support
for alternative transportation fuels, but some would emit significantly more
global warming pollution than gasoline or diesel, according to a new report
issued today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). (For a copy of the
report, go to:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicles_health/biofuels-low-carbon-diet.html
)
Transportation is responsible for two-thirds of the nation's oil
consumption and nearly 40 percent of U.S. global warming pollution on a life
cycle basis. To dramatically cut emissions from this sector, a comprehensive
solution must include improved vehicle fuel efficiency, smart growth policies
that reduce vehicle miles traveled, and clean fuel alternatives.
"We need to wean ourselves off oil, but we should replace it with
the cleanest alternatives possible," said Patrician Monahan, author of the
report and deputy director of UCS's Clean Vehicles Program. "Let's not trade one
bad habit for another."
Liquid coal, for example, can release 80
percent more global warming pollution than gasoline, the report found. Corn
ethanol, conversely, could be either more polluting or less than gasoline,
depending on how the corn is grown and the ethanol is produced. On average, corn
ethanol can reduce emissions about 20 percent, though there is uncertainty due
to differing land use practices. The cleanest alternative, cellulosic ethanol
from grasses or wood chips, could reduce emissions by more than 85 percent.
"Biofuels have a Jekyll and Hyde reputation depending on what
study you read and what assumptions you make," Monahan said. "But liquid coal is
a loser no matter how you look at it. We need to set standards so farmers know
the right way to produce cleaner fuels." She also cautioned that we must ensure
that biofuels and other alternative fuels do not threaten the environment or
limit food production.
The report evaluated two scenarios for
alternative fuels, one carbon-intensive -- meaning that it would produce
significantly more global warming pollution than burning gasoline -- and the
other low-carbon -- meaning that it would produce significantly less. The
analysis assumed that alternative fuels will replace 37 billion gallons of
gasoline, about 20 percent of the fuel UCS projects Americans will consume in
2030.
In both scenarios, conventional biofuels would meet 25
percent of the demand for alternative fuels. In the carbon-intensive scenario,
the remaining demand would be met by liquid coal. The carbon-intensive scenario
would increase emissions by 233 million metric tons -- equivalent to adding
about 34 million cars to the road, the number of new cars and light trucks
currently sold nationally over a two-year period. By contrast, the low-carbon
scenario relies on advanced biofuels to meet 75 percent of the demand. That
would cut global warming pollution by 244 million metric tons, akin to taking 35
million of today's cars off the road.
The report called for a national
low-carbon fuel standard that accounts for alternative fuels' global warming
emissions over their entire life cycle -- from till to tailpipe -- and requires
them to emit less pollution than today's petroleum-based fuels.
At
the tailpipe, gasoline, liquid coal and biofuels release about the same amount
of global warming pollution. But there are dramatic differences in the amount of
pollution emitted by extracting a raw feedstock and refining it into a finished
fuel. Biofuels can have an advantage over liquid coal and gasoline because
plants capture carbon dioxide, the most common global warming gas, as they grow.
But producing biofuels will generate emissions, which at the farm will vary
depending on tilling practices, fertilizer use, previous land use, and the
fossil fuels used to power farm equipment. At the ethanol plant, emissions will
depend on the efficiency of the manufacturing process and the fuel used to power
the facility. All of these factors must be considered in a full life cycle
analysis.
Life cycle analysis for alternative fuels could help
farmers and the biofuels industry, according to Gregg Heide of the Iowa Farmers
Union. "Farmers want to help get the country off of oil," the corn and soybean
farmer said. "Give us some guidelines, tell us where to cut pollution, and we
can do it. The coal lobby is active everywhere, even here in Iowa. It would be
counterproductive if dirty fuels like liquid coal started muscling out biofuels
in the alternative fuels market."
Congress is now considering an
energy bill that includes a renewable fuel standard giving the Environmental
Protection Agency the authority to develop life cycle analysis guidelines. To
date, the federal government has been promoting both cleaner and dirtier fuels.
For instance, Congress has approved funding for research into next-generation
ultra-clean biofuels, but it also is subsidizing research into liquid coal
processing technology.
"Government policies and high oil prices
have whetted our growing appetite for all alternative fuels, good and bad
alike," said Eli Hopson, Washington representative for Clean Vehicles at UCS.
"With the wrong policy, liquid coal could displace cleaner alternatives.
Biofuels can be a staple of our low carbon fuel diet, but only if policies are
in place that 'count carbs' and 'make carbs count.' "
At least one
state is addressing the problem. In January, California Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger issued an executive order calling for establishing a state
low-carbon fuel standard. The California Air Resources Board is currently
developing regulations that would require manufacturers of transportation fuel
sold in the state to reduce per gallon emissions of global warming pollution by
at least 10 percent. Arizona, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington State
are considering similar policies.
###
The Union of
Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit organization working
for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and has offices in Berkeley,
California, and Washington, D.C. For more information, go to
www.ucsusa.org.
======================
Aaron
Huertas
Assistant Press Secretary
Union of Concerned Scientists
1707 H
Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006-3962
Landline:
202-331-5458
www.ucsusa.org