To change,or simnply more of the same without all that pesky government intervention. To have, or to have not. That seems to be the question.
There's now a draft of new federal requirement for alternative energy. And there is a proposed push toward biofuels. The counter-argument comes from the vested interests of fossil fuelers. They make the case that bofuels will hurt business, hurt public revenue and probably hurt your children and dog.
The proposed regs from the Environmental Protection Agency call for 36-billion gallons of renewable fuel to be produced in 2010. And, lke any government regs, it's complicated. Here's part of the EPA's explanation: ""With land use changes included, EPA proposed to allow only the five most sustainable process pathways for producing ethanol from corn starch to qualify as renewable fuels, while ethanol produced from sugar in a biomass-fueled facility can qualify as an advanced biofuel. Likewise, biodiesel from virgin plant oils qualifies as a renewable fuel, while biodiesel can qualify as an advanced biofuel."
Expect heavy negative lobbying and warnings that this is the end of life as we knew it, destruction of America, curtailing of freedom, etc. Meanwhile the ethanol producers will be drunk with the possibilities and lobby equally hard on the other side. The issues of land use for fuel will remain and not be easily settled. Stay tuned.
Here's a summary of the EPA biofuels finding. For tech wonks, here's the EPA's own extensive, detailed outline of their biofuel proposal.