De klimaathysterie, die voor een belangrijk deel is gevoed door manipulatie van temperatuurdata, heeft, mede onder druk van de milieubeweging, tot tal van onbesuisde politieke beslissingen geleid, die de samenleving jaarlijks honderden miljarden kosten, waar geen enkel aantoonbaar klimaateffect tegenover staat.
Nu is de milieubeweging tot de conclusie gekomen dat biofuels achteraf gezien toch niet zo’n goed idee waren en dringt zij in de VS aan op verandering van de desbetreffende wetgeving. Maar dat zal waarschijnlijk niet zonder slag of stoot gaan, want dat betekent dat de producenten daarvan een financiële veer zullen moeten laten, waartegen zij zich natuurlijk verzetten.
Onder de titel, ‘As Corn Devours U.S. Prairies, Greens Reconsider Biofuel Mandate’, schreef Jennifer A Dlouhy voor Bloomberg:
Environmentalists who once championed biofuels as a way to cut pollution are now turning against a U.S. program that puts renewable fuels in cars, citing higher-than-expected carbon dioxide emissions and reduced wildlife habitat.
More than a decade after conservationists helped persuade Congress to require adding corn-based ethanol and other biofuels to gasoline, some groups regret the resulting agricultural runoff in waterways and conversion of prairies to cropland — improving the odds that lawmakers might seek changes to the program next year.
“The big green groups that got invested in biofuels are tacitly realizing the blunder,” said John DeCicco, a research professor at the University of Michigan Energy Institute … “It’s really hard for the people who really — shall we say — hate oil viscerally, to think that this alternative that we’ve been promoting is today worse than oil.”
The green backlash could give a boost to long-stalled congressional efforts to overhaul the Renewable Fuel Standard, including proposals to limit the amount of traditional, corn-based ethanol that counts toward the mandate, as environmentalists side with anti-hunger groups and even the oil industry in calling for change. ….
“The ethanol policy was sold to environmentalists as something that was going to clean up the environment, and it’s done anything but,” said Democratic Representative Peter Welch of Vermont, who is co-sponsoring legislation to revamp the RFS. “It’s truly been a flop. The environmental promise has been transformed into an environmental detriment.” …
Collin O’Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation, told a House committee last month that the RFS program, created with “good intentions,” has instead wreaked “severe, unintended consequences,” including the loss of prairie land and water-supply damage that threatens wildlife.
Even the NRDC that once lobbied for the RFS bemoans that “the bulk of today’s conventional corn ethanol carries grave risks to the climate, wildlife, waterways and food security.” In NRDC’s “OnEarth” magazine, an essay headlined “Played for a Fuel” argues that corn-based ethanol isn’t sustainable because it requires “huge amounts” of water, fertilizer and land.
For supporters and opponents, the debate over the RFS is politically complicated. On Capitol Hill, it divides Republicans along regional lines, with Corn Belt lawmakers determined to preserve the program they see helping to boost prices for the commodity. Green groups that seek changes risk alienating or angering go-to allies, including environmental champions in the House and Senate who staked out pro-RFS positions years ago. And the push to revamp the RFS creates uncomfortable alliances between Big Oil and environmental groups who fight fossil fuels. ….
Welch, one of the lead sponsors of legislation that would cap ethanol volumes at 9.7 percent of projected gasoline demand, said the concerns set the stage for congressional action.
“For the Democrats who have an environmental constituency, when you have these respected environmental groups change their mind and say corn ethanol doesn’t work, that’s going to be a big boost that will give them a lot of comfort and cover,” Welch said. “You’re going to see more Democrats starting to question the wisdom of this mandate.”
Lees verder hier.
Opnieuw blijkt dat de weg naar de hel niet zelden is geplaveid met goede bedoelingen. Maar beter ten halve gekeerd dan ten hele gedwaald. Nu nog de rest van het klimaatbeleid.