Search Climate Insights Directory

The World Resources Institute (WRI) criticizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) finalized Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2023-2025, arguing that increasing the mandate for crop-based biofuels contradicts electrification goals and harms the climate.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) criticizes a June 30, 2018, EPA report for failing to compare the environmental impacts of biofuels with those of petroleum, arguing that such a comparison is necessary to accurately assess the benefits of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) submitted comments to the U.S. House of Representatives advocating for the maintenance of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as written. EESI argues that the RFS is critical for reducing petroleum dependence, improving urban air quality by reducing aromatic air toxics, and fostering rural economic development. The document contends that factors other than the RFS—such as extreme weather, global meat demand, and commodity speculation—are the primary drivers of corn and soybean price volatility.

A group of environmental and conservation organizations wrote a letter to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) opposing the EPA's proposal to approve Arundo donax (giant reed) as a qualified advanced biofuel feedstock under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, citing significant ecological and economic risks.

This briefing examines the debate over whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should waive the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) following a severe heat wave and drought in the United States that reduced corn yields and increased prices. While livestock and poultry producers argue a waiver would lower corn prices and food costs, the document suggests that such a move could increase gasoline prices, heighten dependence on imported oil, and discourage investment in advanced biofuels.