Tufts team finds aviation impact on particle number concentrations downwind of airport; correlation with flight activity
Johnson Matthey and 3M complete NMC patent license agreement for automotive Li-ion batteries

Researchers say fuel market rebound effect can result in increased GHG emissions under RFS2; suggest taxes over mandates

The US Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. However, argues a team from the University of Minnesota in an open-access paper published in the journal Energy Policy, once the “fuel market rebound effect” is factored in, RFS2 actually increases GHG emissions when all fuel GHG intensity targets specified under the act are met.

Increasing the supply of low-carbon alternative fuels is a basic strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Minnesota team notes, increasing the supply of fuels tends to lower energy prices, which encourages in turn encourages additional fuel consumption. This “fuel market rebound effect” can undermine climate change mitigation strategies, even to the point where efforts to reduce GHG emissions by increasing the supply of low-carbon fuels may actually result in increased GHG emissions.

A growing number of studies on the effects of biofuel production on domestic and international fuel markets have concluded that biofuel production results in only a partial displacement of gasoline on an energy-equivalent basis—thereby increasing global energy use. Estimates of the amount of gasoline displaced globally by production of an energy-equivalent gallon of biofuel under a mandate vary. The Minnesota team, which found that a majority of the estimates fell below 0.50 gallons, selected a conservative gasoline displacement rate of 0.50 for its analysis.

RFS2 requires up to 36 billion gallons of biofuel annually by 2022, comprising four categories: conventional biofuel (e.g., ethanol), advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel, each of which must have a GHG emission intensity of no more than 80, 50, 40, and 50%, respectively, compared to that of the petroleum-based fuel for which it may substitute.

The Minnesota team only considered the gasoline substitues, which total 35 billion gallons, or 23 billion gasoline-equivalent gallons on an energy basis, in 2022.

Assuming that each gasoline-equivalent gallon of biofuel produced meets the GHG emissions intensity standard and reduces the production of gasoline by one gallon (that is, no fuel market rebound effect), RFS2 would reduce GHG emissions by 110 million metric tons (CO2 equivalent) in 2022, and by 749 million metric tons cumulatively from 2006 to 2022. This is the interpretation taken by EPA in its final rule, which estimates a reduction in GHG emissions of 133 million metric tons in 2022, due in part to projections that some fuels will exceed minimum GHG reduction standards, with a statutory provision exempting biofuel produced at certain older facilities from RFS2’s GHG emissions reduction requirements.

In reality, substantially less than 23 billion gallons of gasoline will be displaced from biofuel production in 2022 due to the fuel market rebound effect. As previously described, a conservative assumption from our survey of recent literature is that only 0.5 gallons of gasoline are displaced per gasoline-equivalent gallon of biofuel produced. Taking this fuel market rebound effect into account and assuming the biofuels in RFS2 achieve their targeted GHG emissions reductions in all years, RFS2 actually leads to a net increase in GHG emissions of 22 million metric tons in 2022, and of 431 million metric tons cumulatively from 2006 to 2022. In sum, this mandate for the production of less GHG intense fuels actually increases net GHG emissions to the atmosphere relative to no action due to the low amounts of gasoline being displaced. In other words, RFS2 increases GHG emissions instead of reducing them when individual fuel GHG reduction targets are met.

—Hill et al.

Hill
Cumulative change in GHG emissions by biofuels qualifying for the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2). Hill et al. Click to enlarge.

The use of conventional biofuel—mostly corn ethanol—increases net GHG emissions even with a 20% lower carbon footprint than gasoline. Advanced biofuels with 50% CI generates no net change in GHGs. Only cellulosic biofuels with a carbon intensity 60% lower than gasoline reduces net GHG emissions.

Our results reinforce what has been long known by economists: the best way to reduce pollution is by imposing a tax on pollution-causing activities. Taxes on pollution are preferable to mandates for additional fuel, even low-carbon fuels, because this allows market effects to work in the right direction, namely by increasing the price of pollution-causing activities, which decreases demand, rather than the wrong direction by lowering fuel prices and increasing demand. However, politics often stands in the way of good policy. Mandates are more politically palatable than taxes because mandates offer concentrated benefits to a small group of low-carbon fuel suppliers in the short term, while taxes require concentrated costs and offer diffuse benefits to society over the long term. In the case of biofuels, mandates are unlikely to reduce GHG emissions unless there is a radical breakthrough in technology that greatly lowers their carbon intensity. Until then, carbon taxes or a carbon cap-and-trade scheme present a more immediate option for reducing GHG emissions.

—Hill et al.

Resources

  • Jason Hill, Liaila Tajibaeva, Stephen Polasky (2016) “Climate consequences of low-carbon fuels: The United States Renewable Fuel Standard,” Energy Policy, Volume 97, Pages 351-353 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.035

Comments

mahonj

Most of the western world has done this, i.e. put quite steep taxes on fuel for "normal" drivers.
It tends to moderate the size of engines that we use.
50c / gallon would help get things moving in the USA.
For Instance, about 60% of the price of fuel in Ireland is tax (and we get by).

Brent Jatko

@mahonj: Good luck getting that legislation through our current Congress which is dominated by a few shrill anti-tax ideologues.

ai_vin

Yeah, what Brent said. Here in British Columbia regular gas is currently $1.20 per litre. Of that we pay 32.17 cents in taxes, or just 26.8% - and there are still some who complain. We could pay more and the world would not come to an end.

ai_vin

BTW, for those of you who don't want to do the math, that comes to ~$1.22 tax per U.S. gallon.

ai_vin

Lawrence O'Donnell had something to say about gas taxes on Monday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7nad2pRegw

HarveyD

Eventually, it may be more of a question of letting end users pay for damages, much the same way as smokers currently do?

Users of heavier gas/diesel burning vehicles should pay more yearly registration fees for their fair share of damages to roads and bridges and at least $3/gal to $5/gal in pollution taxes.

Electricity users should also pay heavy pollution taxes based on pollution per kWh used. The same should apply to NG users based on M3 used.

New pollution taxes should be applied progressively over 100 months (at 3 to 5 cents/month/gal) or so while other taxes (on income and sales) are progressively reduced to compensate. People reporting less than $15/hour (less than $32K/year) salary/earnings could be refunded a certain percentage?

gorr

Stop taxing energy and this stupid green mandate. The free market dictate than i need cheap gasoline at 1.25$/gallon and on top of that increase gas car mpg by desighing a double piston engine where only the smaller piston is doing the power expansion stroke, that way we can triple mpg and power.

ai_vin

gor, how far will you get on your "cheap gasoline" if you don't have fuel taxes to pay for the maintenance of roads, highways and bridges? This stuff costs money; https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

O TOLMON NIKA

When left-leaning politicians propose new fuel taxes on gasoline/diesel, the response from the right is expected..... "no new taxes!", etc etc etc.

The right is mostly right in that the left will most likely waste most of the proposed revenue on nonsense such as CAGW research, social justice "research", instead of new concrete/tar for roads.


When any right-leaning politician dares to propose a tax on gasoline/diesel, the left will claim racism, anti-poor, anti-women, etc, etc etc.

Stupidity on an epic scale.


Gasoline/Diesel tax should be:
[Cost of US National Road Infrastructure (Interstates/Hwys)] /[(Gallons/Liters) sold per year].

Multiply by an extra 10% just for good measure.

Rule #1) All funds must go to road infrastructure (no crooked deals sending money to propaganda "environmentalist" think tanks).

Rule #2) NO TOLLS ON US NATIONAL ROADWAYS


God Bless America

gorr

I agree with o tolmon nika, it make sense. Stop these green taxing sheme hoaxs. Pay for your batteries and worldwide recharging networks while im saving money and go everywhere without delays with my small used low polluting gas car.

ai_vin

We all drive on the same network of roads so we all have to pay for them.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)