Comment Log Display

It is extremely difficult not to throw up my hands and give in to
cynicism when a policy supposedly meant to lower carbon emissions
is in fact incentivizing more fossil fuel production, more
pipelines, more CAFOs, more food crops diverted to fuel. 

I spent most of 2021 fighting to stop a new tar sands pipeline here
in Minnesota, only to learn that the next pipeline proposals
threatening our water, our land, our safety and our health are
carbon pipelines, carrying emissions from ethanol plants to North
Dakota to be used for Enhanced Oil Recovery. I didn't know much
about any of these things at the time, but one fact stuck with me:
the ethanol producers need to lower their carbon intensity so they
can take advantage of California's LCFS.

It's not rocket science to know that when carbon emissions are
being sent to an area known above all else for fossil fuel
production, that's how it's going to be used. But even if you're
gullible enough to believe the hype about CCS - after years of
empty promises and no time left to be proven wrong - propping up
ethanol with this policy is no better anyway. 

There's no possible way to justify incentivizing a fuel that's at
least as bad and up to 24% worse than gasoline in carbon intensity.
What is the point of the LCFS? If it's to make money off harming
small farmers in Minnesota, off the trafficking of Native women and
girls during pipeline construction, off destroying rural water
sources with pollution and overuse, then job well done.

You have more than enough information to address the damage of the
LCFS when it comes to ethanol and CCS, and methane crediting,
lifecycle assessment, and factory farm biogas. This is your "what
did you do when you had the chance" moment. It might not seem like
the most glamorous one, but it matters a hell of a lot to all of us
whose lives are directly impacted by your decisions.