Another bold Locke/Gregoire move. Set a high goal, then miss it by a mile. Then say... What do they say?
Governor Locke set the goal of the state's fleet of vehicles using 20% biodiesel by June 1, 2009. No single agency will meet that goal, let alone the total fleet. They got to 2.1%. Hey, that's over 10% of their goal!
A subsequent law, HB2424, signed by Chris Gregoire in 2006 has no penalties for noncompliance. This is the government! Penalties are for citizens and private industry.
What does Chris Gregoire say now?
"I don't want to lose the momentum that we've built up..."The big problem was cost. Biofuels cost more. Surprise! Supply is somewhat tight because farmers won't plant unless there is a market for their crops. The refiners invested big money and have idle plants, like Imperium in Hoquiam.
That state said "Go ahead and invest;" it would be the market, but hasn't been good for its word. But it's good for us taxpayers that Chris Gregoire's government has had some restraint on costs
Everett Herald: Washington state way off its target for biofuel
Posted by Ron Hebron at May 30, 2009 07:33 AM | Email This(As far as the benefits of biofuels, I'll state up front that I'm far less sanguine about the whole thing than other environmentally-minded folks. They result in greater particulate emissions, minimal net greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and no substantive net energy savings. Higher fuel efficiency and electric/hybrid vehicles are a better strategy than an implicit subsidy to farmers in the state.)
Posted by: demo kid on May 30, 2009 09:53 AMPosted by: Daniel on May 30, 2009 10:44 AM
But that doesn't take away from the fact that this post itself makes no sense, and doesn't even have a clear point.
Take the example of the Imperium Renewables Plant in Hoquiam, for one. This plant produces pure B100 biodiesel, and has been producing it mainly for the European market until last spring. They tried to get a contract with a cruise ship company to supply in bulk. Their business has absolutely nothing to do with what the state needs! The Executive Order itself mandates a B20 blend, which is the maximum that a standard diesel engine can use, and they're not quite going to be filling up tankers with the stuff.
Arguing that Imperium's case is relevant to the state's initiative is like going to a slaughterhouse and ordering a cooked hamburger and french fries.
Now, go off and rant to yourself! I'm going to enjoy the sunshine. :)
Posted by: demo kid on May 30, 2009 11:32 AMBiodiesel's cost is about 60 percent higher than diesel made from crude oil, so the 80/20 blend costs about 12 percent more.
If not for the recession, would the state government have gone ahead and paid the higher price--even for state ferries, assuming the clogged filter problem is solved?
Trying to create a market for a higher priced alternative fuel seems like a losing proposition, since the only way to make it work is to find a cheaper way to make the alternative fuel.
The state seemed not to think about bringing the cost down, and then found that even the state can't always pay more for the alternative.
This kind of wishful thinking about creating "green jobs" and a "green economy" seems to be a waste of time and money.
Posted by: Micajah on May 30, 2009 12:26 PMThe fact is, on the building of Imperium Renewables Plant in Hoquiam and other Bio-fuel refining plants was based on the fact that Government was supporting and subsidizing the Bio-fuel Industry which includes the Farmers growing the Crops and the building of the Bio-fuel refineries. Now, the word is strongly out to the general public that Bio-fuels are NOT enviro friendly, the support for Bio-fuels is collapsing. Not, only do Bio-fuels cost more, it is no longer considered GREEN to use Bio-fuels. So, the use of Bio-fuels is no longer fashionable and the use of Bio-fuels has Plunged from the user sources including the State, Cruise Ships, European Markets and Markets in general. Bottom line...Bio-fuels was just another costly Government pumped up Scam!
But that may be the point. They do want to curb population after all. What better way to that than to make food and technology too expensive to buy.
Posted by: deadwood on May 30, 2009 01:14 PMI wonder what came of that. Is he still busily vacumning tax dollars in some corner of WA? I would bet yes.
Posted by: travis t on May 30, 2009 05:56 PMI'm confused a bit by the post but delighted by the comments here!!!
As a biodiversity environmentalists, I believe biofuels are the biggest threat to biodiversity in the world today, and the biggest destroyer of rainforest. They also add to everyone's food bill.
I'm proud to say I've been publicly advertising against these mandates (which are also a brazen attack on the free market) since 2004 and demonstrated against them twice in the last two weeks--with other leftists.
Biofuels, by the way, are still winning, and the anti-market law that really puts them in the Catbird's seaat was passed by George W Bush and plenty of Republicans and was concocted not by the sleepy environmental organizations and NPR that ambled onto the bandwagon but by a group of corporations led by ADM and Cargill, the world's largest privately held corporation.
Thanks all,
new left conservative 1
Posted by: new left conservative 1 on May 30, 2009 10:11 PMAfter my last post, I went over and read the article.
Thanks Everett Herald, for proving my point:
(After reporting that Senator Margaret Haugen had exempted ferries from the mandate it said,
"Sen. Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake, was among a number of Democratic and Republican senators opposed to the move."
You folks are living in a dream world. I WISH no Republicans were for biofuel.
Thanks all,
new left conservative 1
Posted by: new left conservative 1 on May 30, 2009 10:33 PM18: So you're calling George Bush a liberal? or the Archer Daniels Midland Company a liberal?
Folks on this site have to take responsiblity for their own, or disown them.
Thanks,
new left conservative 1
I want to withdraw that last comment, it was unnecessarily hostile. Biofuel is indeed a "liberal" idea in that it involves government coercion of the consumer in the form of mandates. (Subsidies also, but they alone wouldn't hold up the biofuel house of cards).
But it really annoys me that most SP posters seem to think they live in a simple world in which:
liberal, left, Demo, enviro = responsible for biofuel policies
conservative, Republican = innocent of that responsibility
If you really cared about getting rid of this policy-atrocity, you'd know those equations don't reflect the real world.
Thanks,
what am I doing posting SP on this Sunday aft?
new left conservative 1
Posted by: new left conservative 1 on May 31, 2009 03:00 PM