Fines for Not Using Biofuels that are Not Available

That's not the correct way to do it, they should clearly ask for mandatory development of alternatives at the refiners' own cost (which I don't justify either), but asking something that doesn't exist, under penalties, is something tyranic and unfair.

"but asking something that doesn't exist, under penalties, is something tyranic and unfair"

Welcome to politics in the USA. We operate by the "Golden Rule" here.

That is, He who has the gold, makes the rules.

The article stated the petroleum industry would pay the fines. Some how I don't think that is gonna happen, even if they had the "excess' profits some other poster claimed. No, the consumer will pay the fines, and rightly so, guess who elected the people to office who wrote or authorized the rules?

Surly, you don't really think that consumers have any direct effect on elections, do you?

I know, don't call you Surly.

Even if they have, I don't think they deserve to pay for bad decisions.

Everything is passed along to the population; but there is a God... !!

Just take a look at Europe, I wander how long will it for some American nations to raise against (or at least riot a lot) crime, economic crisis and stupid rulers.

There's no question in my mind that we need to diversify our energy sources. but...

The government(s) need to understand that energy diversification is a regionally-specific process. Look at what you've got on a regional scale and make sure the local resources are developed. There is no "one solution" to this problem. You could even say that every "one solution" approach is a problem. There is a serious problem with the present 'enerculture' approach to land use - it's driving food prices out of the park for one thing.

It's true, people complain when incentives are used to promote changes in industry.. then we also complain if they use fines. The problem is, government is very sloppy about the application of their stick or carrot and does not seem to grasp what application of it would be reasonable, and result in benefits instead of harms!

Hi,

If you put it another way as "a levy on oil producers that have not met targets for introduction of fuels from cellulosic material, to be used to fund research and development of these fuels, as part of an overall strategy of reducing reliance on (foreign) fossil fuels, stimulating the use of renewal energy sources and thereby also reducing greenhouse gas emissions" it sounds a lot better - and almost logical.

I am an optimist and so think that my wording is what was really intended - whether the facts are reported wrongly by our beloved press or whether the legislation was badly worded I neither know nor care much, both will always happen, and we the general public, always need to be on our guard against such distortions and misreporting.

As to the technical challenges and the purpose - seems like a b....y good thing to do and not very easy, so a means of raising cash like this to fund further research and production efforts seems almost inspired.....

DP

If we could only be assured that these "fines" are "...to be used to fund research and development of these fuels..."

Chances are, they will wind up in the general revenue funds, and, since this turns out to be an easy way to increase revenues without "raising taxes", you best believe it will be a practice preferred by our current crop of politicians. Meanwhile, the oil refiners see this as a cost of production, and raise their prices to distributors, who raise their prices to consumers, who can't afford to buy as much gas, so consumption goes down, and we have accomplished the ultimate goal...

Ah, you're a pessimist.....

It's not pessimism. It's denial. If you call it a tax, it's bad. Welcome to the 2012 Presidential election.

"I'm not paying if it doesn't benefit me" or "if it's possible this doesn't benefit me, or my friends, I'm not paying" I'm just guessing if he has a heart attack, or a tornado knocks out his water treatment plant, or someone robs his home and he has to call the police, those expenditures are not a tax on the rest of us.

Might as well call a spade a spade.

the oil industry disagrees, what a surprise. The amount required to be blended is less that the production of 1 plant, and there are currently at least 6 that I know of coming online in 2012. I think it will be ok to let the oil industry subsidize a little renewable fuel research.

Isn't that a "tax", then?

Is a subsidy a tax to those who fund it? Of course. Is a subsidy a tax to those that receive it? No. Industry is well positioned on both sides of this fence. You are only looking at one side. If you get a tax credit, that is a subsidy. Oil and gas, and coal get massive subsidies. But please note, I'm not going to come on these forums and cry about it. Government is essential to the future of human dignity and environmental stability. I pay a lot of taxes, and we have a lot of work to do.