LCFS: 'Bait-and-Switch Energy Policy'
Jane Van Ryan
Posted January 12, 2010
A recent Patriot-News op-ed authored by Michael Whatley of the Consumer Energy Alliance calls Pennsylvania's proposal to adopt a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) "nothing more than a flawed bait-and-switch energy policy."
Whatley warns of the negative consequences of a LCFS, including the loss of thousands of well-paying jobs and greater dependence on foreign energy. He adds that a LCFS is an attempt to reduce the importation of Canadian oil sands, which provide a significant portion of the nation's crude oil:
"Just because America won't be buying up Canadian oil anymore doesn't mean that China and India won't. And the added energy and emissions required to ship that oil halfway around the world adds up quickly...Guess who's left footing the bill in this scenario? Consumers and the U.S. economy."
For more information, read Whatley's full op-ed and my blog post about the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management's (NESCAUM) LCFS plan from last week. Also, feel free to weigh in with your thoughts on the LCFS in the comment section below.
About The Author
- Blogger Conference Call - Oil Sands Development and the Keystone XL
- Blogger Conference Call - ExxonMobil Earnings and Taxes
- Blogger Conference Call - Industry Earnings and Public Pension Plan Ownership
- ETR 130 - The Oil and Natural Gas Industry's Contribution to State Pension Plans
- Keystone Pipeline: The Sooner, the Better
- Capping Stack: A Positive Outcome from a Tragic Accident