Is anyone wondering why EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson continues to embrace junk science – even after she stated “that there are Significant Uncertainties associated with these estimates and in particular, with the estimate of indirect land use change.”

Is anyone suspicious why the EPA fast-tracked the controversial, unproven indirect land use change theory? And then allowed its author, an Attorney-Lobbyist-Biofuel Critic, and his anti-biofuel assistants, to peer review and rubber stamp their own work? In fact, most of the so-called peer reviewers were biofuel critics. They had a conflict of interest. Thus, the EPA’s peer review of the theory violated its own agency rules – Something that should be investigated.

This was Renewable Fuels Association President, Bob Dinneen’s response: “EPA has asked the foxes to guard the hen house on this issue. By adding lawyers and advocates to a scientific review panel, EPA bureaucrats have made a mockery of the Administration’s commitment to sound science. These reviews absolutely cannot be viewed as objective or unbiased. Many of these reviewers have repeatedly and openly demonstrated unabashed and politically-motivated biases against biofuels in the past, which immediately casts a long shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of EPA’s peer review process. This is a perversion of what the peer review process is supposed to achieve.”

It’s like House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson said: Something’s fishy at the EPA. Downgrading domestic ethanol using an unproven theory – not based on scientific fact – is an act of deception – not transparency – using your tax dollars.

The environmental benefits of American Ethanol should Not be degraded by a government agency using Junk Science. RFS-2 should be based only on accurate scientific fact, not false conjectures. The benefits of biofuel should be measured accurately – Not undermined. Not underrated.

The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), Growth Energy, and the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) should challenge the EPA to REMOVE “indirect land use change theory” from the RFS-2 rules.