• Conservatives call for suspension of Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation
• U.S. EPA confirms refusal of California Clear Air Act waiver

The Conservative Party has called for the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation to be suspended following a further spate of reports and publicity questioning the environmental benefits of biofuels. The Conservatives made their call on the day the RSPB placed full page advertisements in two national newspapers criticising the Government's biofuels policy.

The Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth said: "It is utter madness to impose quotas for the use of biofuels without ensuring that they can be obtained from sustainable sources. There is a real risk that the British taxpayer will be contributing to the destruction of the rainforest and rising world food prices in the name of the environment. This would be worse than counter-productive."

In the same press release, Theresa Villiers, the Shadow Transport Secretary, also called for the RTFO to be suspended: "Mrs Kelly has signalled a partial retreat by announcing her biofuels review but we still do not have the clear guarantees we need. Her review is too little, too late. The RTFO will be up and running before the review has even concluded".

Recent reports published in the journal Science have cast further doubt on the environmental benefits of biofuels, reported the LowCVP newsletter of 29 February (www.lowcvp.org.uk).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Administrator Stephen Johnson issued documents on 29th February explaining his decision not to grant a waiver from the federal Clear Air Act to permit the state of California to enact its own automotive greenhouse gas emissions legislation, which several other states wished to emulate.

“In this decision,” wrote Mr. Johnson, “I find that the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) amendments to title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), sections 1900 and 1961, and a new section 1961 for its Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, relating to greenhouse gases (GHGs), are not needed to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.

“I do not believe section 209(b)(1)(B) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards for emissions from new motor vehicles designed to address global climate change problems; nor, in the alternative, do I believe that the effects of climate change in California are compelling and extraordinary compared to the effects in the rest of the country.”

Environmental groups, some of which describe the EPA’s decision as factually incorrect, estimate the California standard, if applied nationally, would reduce greenhouse gases from new vehicles by 40% by 2020, while the new federal Energy Bill’s fuel economy requirements are expected to cut light vehicle emissions by 31% over the same period.

Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers welcomed the decision by the EPA: “AIAM agrees with and supports EPA’s decision to deny California’s application for a waiver of preemption. We believe the federal government, not states, should establish and enforce one national regulatory standard for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.”