Domestic Fuel

The “indirect land use” penalty is an outrageous travesty to have snuck into government policy. It is one of those “religious” beliefs that fanatical advocates against deforestation have convinced some gullible, if well meaning, bureaucrats to accept as “fact”. I used to be more diplomatic on such pronouncements, but I have lost patience with all the “political correctness” that has gotten to the point where it is corrupting the language, and censoring words out of existence (or at least they think it can).
The very concept of tying a domestic product to a supposed “consequence” of changing land use in a foreign location makes about as much sense as making grants of foreign aid inversely proportional to the birth rate because there is a failure to implement “appropriate” population control methods of contraception, or creating bonuses in domestic import quotas for having a superstitions-based HIV/AIDS treatment policy that allows more people to die from the disease.
It could make sense that action be taken in the marketplace over the failure of some government to create a reasonable anti-deforestation policy and therefore refuse to allow imports of biofuels grown on that land, or perhaps even grown in that entire country. However, the mere fact that use of a product might induce unscrupulous individuals to commit acts of unlawful deforestation (whether for mere profit or to feed a starving family) is hardly a valid reason to impose a penalty on domestic manufacturers or growers.
And besides doesn’t the IRS have some kind of exclusive rights to federal regulations that are both nonsensical and irrational?

Sincerely,

Stafford “Doc” Williamson

[...] turning more favorable for ethanol. On February 3, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced is expanded rules for the Renewable Fuels Standard. Of special note, is that corn-based ethanol, when compared to conventional gasoline, lowers [...]