I haven't really looked into it. Does anyone know the details?

I'm not looking for speculation and political spam.

Will commercial brewers get carbon credits for brewing?

Will users of BioDiesel get credits for using?

Will it be both? Neither?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FuriousGeorge,

The 'cap' part is a good idea, the 'trade' part is a scam to sell the cap part. C&T is like having a peeing area in the swimming pool.

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:
The 'cap' part is a good idea, the 'trade' part is a scam to sell the cap part. C&T is like having a peeing area in the swimming pool.

LOL.

I like the analogy, but I don't understand it.

I assume BD producers will be able to sell credits. Based on that:

To me it sounds like a good idea if BioDiesel producers can get money from large corporations that directly or indirectly lead to the emission of large amounts of GHG, but I am kinda biased toward BioDiesel producers.

To be clear, I want everything in moderation. Assuming that BD makers can sell some credits, that's great, but the companies obligated to buy them cannot be put out of business behind this at a greater rate than new green industries are created.

Otherwise it would be like peeing into the wind ("I see," said the blind man. "It all comes back to me now.").

Nor, would I like to see small busineses (under $1,000,000 gross sales, I guess off-hand) subjected to C&T.

quote:

I like the analogy, but I don't understand it.

C&T means a company gets to continue polluting as long as they give money to someone who could pollute but won't now cuz they've been paid off not to. Yeah right... Use the money to reduce pollution at the source, don't play shell games. This is a 'carbon trading' game invented by AlGore and popularized by his infomercial-mockumentary, simply to make money for him and his cronies. Don't get scammed again.

quote:

...don't play shell games....This is a 'carbon trading' game...

And don't forget that the government takes out a portion of the dollar value of every transaction, so its a corrupt shell game.

I should add what I think it will mean for BD: one more reason for any biodiesel start-up will fail. I doubt they will have extra "credits" to sell. Between the electricity to run the pumps, heaters, etc on an industrial scale, the truck fuel to haul feedstock and then product, etc.; I doubt the fact that the feedstock is carbon neutral even factors in and they will be carbon negative like any other business, leaving then buying government-owned carbon credits.

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:

quote:

I like the analogy, but I don't understand it.

C&T means a company gets to continue polluting as long as they give money to someone who could pollute but won't now cuz they've been paid off not to. Yeah right... Use the money to reduce pollution at the source, don't play shell games. This is a 'carbon trading' game invented by AlGore and popularized by his infomercial-mockumentary, simply to make money for him and his cronies. Don't get scammed again.

OK, I see why you don't like it. You don't think it will work, right?

It wont work for reducing pollutions, because polluters will more likely continue to pollute and buy credits.

Also, the sellers of credits may actually be polluters themselves, and may be getting credits they don't deserve. (I'm not quite sure how a Solar Farm or a BD producer can be considered polluters not worthy of a Carbon Credit, but w/e)

The only problem with your argument from my perspective is that I have a lot of respect for Vice President and Nobel Laureate Gore, so by invoking him you actually make me think it is a good idea.

quote:

I have a lot of respect for Vice President and Nobel Laureate Gore

Dude...I actually thought you were sane until that statement crossed your lips...

It will work to make AlGore and his fellow scammers richer, but it won't do much to reduce pollution. Of course there will be those who feel entitled to receive some sort of $$$ benefit from the process, maybe because they're burning biodiesel.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan P.:

quote:

I have a lot of respect for Vice President and Nobel Laureate Gore

Dude...I actually thought you were sane until that statement crossed your lips...

Yes, I know. Only a MAD MAN would think that way. What can I say besides: I may be a crazy-leftist radical for respecting a man who was our Vice President and won a Nobel Prize, but I am quite sane otherwise.

Anyway, I just did a little research, and it seems MIT Researchers seem to think C&T works great in Europe, but they are 'Academic Elitists.'

I'm sure some will be more swayed by the blogs, viral e-mails, political think tanks, and pundits they normally rely on for information.

Before this gets out of control, can I suggest we argue:

What will CAP and Trade mean for BioDiesel? Can we speculate the ramifications and the merits of which, within this narrow subject?

Basically, I'm saying that if you want to jack my thread with far-right lunatic-fringe propaganda, as I've seen some do with other threads, please refrain.

What will CAP and Trade mean for BioDiesel? Can we speculate the ramifications and the merits of which, within this narrow subject?

That all depends on how the EPA defines Biodiesel.
There's pending issues going on right now with indirect land-use issues related to Biodiesel made from new feedstock (ie. palm, canola, soybean, etc).

If that goes into effect, I can forsee taxes on Biodiesel equally as high as they are going to be on Diesel fuel and other energies; which will negate any benefit to Biodiesel made from new feedstocks.

However, if the EPA changes it's mind and we see the $1.00 credit for Biodiesel stick around regardless of the feedstock it's made from, then I can see Biodiesel becoming EXTREMELY popular if Cap & Trade goes into full effect.

Granted, we're still waiting for the Senate's version of C[r]ap and Trade.

If Cap & Trade doesn't kill the economy and anyone still has dollars left to spend (I predict a HUGE increase in inflation due to the price of energy skyrocketing with this scary monster), then I could see Biodiesel benefitting.

However, if Cap & Trade knocks the economy even harder than the current crisis we're in, then I can see the US spiraling into another depression but even worse because now no one will be able to afford energy (ie. gas, oil, natural gas, electricity).

ok, I answered the question so now I can give a little commentary.

[commentary]
What BENEFIT will CAP & TRADE bring to supposedly reducing green house gases? How will taxing companies for using energy help? Where will that money go? From my view, it's just a handy way to pay for all the spending government is doing right now.

As I understand it, all those taxes they're going to impose on energies ARE NOT going to be spent to help the environment. They're just that; taxes.

I personally think Cap & Trade is a joke. It does NOTHING to help the environment but will increase the cost of ALL energy, will raise inflation (because companies are just going to pass the added cost on to the consumer), and Congress will just be using it to fund these stupid bail outs and possibly the new socialized health care fiasco.
[/commentary]

quote:

Originally posted by Graydon Blair:
What will CAP and Trade mean for BioDiesel? Can we speculate the ramifications and the merits of which, within this narrow subject?

Thanks for answering the question and keeping the rhetoric to a minimum!

quote:

Originally posted by Graydon Blair:
That all depends on how the EPA defines Biodiesel.
There's pending issues going on right now with indirect land-use issues related to Biodiesel made from new feedstock (ie. palm, canola, soybean, etc).

If that goes into effect, I can forsee taxes on Biodiesel equally as high as they are going to be on Diesel fuel and other energies; which will negate any benefit to Biodiesel made from new feedstocks.

The research that I've been doing seems to suggest the same thing. It makes sense. BD made from new feedstock has a much higher carbon footprint than BD made from recycled feedstock.

quote:

Originally posted by Graydon Blair:
However, if the EPA changes it's mind and we see the $1.00 credit for Biodiesel stick around regardless of the feedstock it's made from, then I can see Biodiesel becoming EXTREMELY popular if Cap & Trade goes into full effect.

Did you hear the credit would be ending? I hadn't heard that. I think maybe you are saying that the EPA may change its mind as to the consideration of new vs recycled feedstock, and whether producers of BD from new feedstock will have to buy credits.

quote:

Originally posted by Graydon Blair:
Granted, we're still waiting for the Senate's version of C[r]ap and Trade.

If Cap & Trade doesn't kill the economy and anyone still has dollars left to spend (I predict a HUGE increase in inflation due to the price of energy skyrocketing with this scary monster), then I could see Biodiesel benefitting.

The research I linked to above from MIT suggests in plain English that the effect of cap and trade on the economies of Europe has been 'imperceptible'.

quote:

Originally posted by Graydon Blair:
However, if Cap & Trade knocks the economy even harder than the current crisis we're in, then I can see the US spiraling into another depression but even worse because now no one will be able to afford energy (ie. gas, oil, natural gas, electricity).

The same research suggests the sky has not fallen in Europe.

I haven't heard that the credit would be ending, but I have read that the NBB is fearful of that happening if the EPA does rule that New feedstocks aren't as beneficial to the environment as used feedstocks.

While the effect of Cap & Trade on European countries may be "imperceptible", the US has traditionally had the lowest energy costs in the world. By adding a tax to all energy used, I just don't see how it won't impact inflation. If everyone starts charging more for their products and services because they have to cover the cost of the energy tax that's possibly going to be heaped on them it's just a matter of time before inflation goes up.

Also, I really don't want to be paying $4 to $5/gallon; which is what gas technically costs over in European countries because of the high tax on fuel there. Heck, even up in Canada the price of fuel is significantly higher than here in the US due to high taxes levied on it.

I also don't agree with Cap & Trade being passed on the basis of "saving the environment" when the taxes levied aren't going to be designated for "environmental purposes". It also seems oh-so-convenient that something like this may pass when we're looking at MASSIVE spending on the part of the government with possibly some of the biggest expenditures the US has ever known in the form of socialized health care. I just don't buy it.

-Graydon

It's not a forgone conclusion that this passes.

When and if it does I would expect that the effect on the US Economy will fall somewhere on the spectrum between 'imperceptible' (like in Europe) and 'kill the economy' (as speculated).

quote:

Originally posted by Graydon Blair:
the US has traditionally had the lowest energy costs in the world

I'm not sure this is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Graydon Blair:
Also, I really don't want to be paying $4 to $5/gallon; which is what gas technically costs over in European countries because of the high tax on fuel there. Heck, even up in Canada the price of fuel is significantly higher than here in the US due to high taxes levied on it.

Right, but in fairness that has nothing to do with C&T. It's always been that way. Europeans pay more taxes in general, but also get more entitlements.

I don't want to get into another debate about entitlements, their merits, or why in 37 pages of thread Americans have the market cornered on complaining about taxes.

I do want to ask: how much do you think the cost of a gallon of gas will go up as a result of the 'tax' (as you call it)? 10%? 100%? If it's the latter it will be levels we've already dealt with.

What about the cost of a megawatt of energy? Obviously it depends how much your state gets from coal vs natural gas vs hydroelectric.

I don't think it will double, or anything like that, but if it did at the expense of the promotion of Green energy, that is a price I personally would be willing to pay.

If it 'won't work' as a few predict, then that is another story, but it's hard to separate the real data from the politics in this debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Graydon Blair:
I also don't agree with Cap & Trade being passed on the basis of "saving the environment" when the taxes levied aren't going to be designated for "environmental purposes". It also seems oh-so-convenient that something like this may pass when we're looking at MASSIVE spending on the part of the government with possibly some of the biggest expenditures the US has ever known in the form of socialized health care. I just don't buy it.

-Graydon

Here's what I'm not understanding: The TRADE part of cap and trade means that the 'tax' (as you call it) is paid by the carbon producer to the 'green' company. How does that expand the government's tax revenue?

I can't think of a more politically feasible way of doing it. If you just Carbon Tax corporations they pass the cost onto consumers, and no one benefits BUT the Government.

On top of that, if the money doesn't go to 'Carbon Credit Sellers' then it WILL definitely go to European-lite style Socialized Medicine and similar entitlements, and some people will nuts about 'wealth redistribution'. (To be clear, I'm talking about the Opt-Out Public Option, not medicare, medicaid, veterans health, SSI, unemployment, disability, food stamps, or any other current socialized entitlements that are here to stay and no politician stumps against).

I'm just not seeing how this is a conspiracy to expand the Government for the sake of expanding the Government. I actually believe some people, myself included, genuinely believe that our current GHG footprint is unsustainable, and something needs to be done.

I'm open to better plans, but I don't see how a straight up Carbon Tax, as you seem to suggest, makes either you or me happy.

quote:

I personally think Cap & Trade is a joke. It does NOTHING to help the environment but will increase the cost of ALL energy, will raise inflation (because companies are just going to pass the added cost on to the consumer), and Congress will just be using it to fund these stupid bail outs and possibly the new socialized health care fiasco.

Setting aside our views of how to solve the health care problems of the country, it seems to me that you are describing a bad/worst case scenario of the gov selling carbon "pollution permits" or some such. If it is indeed cap and TRADE, then this will give people who use energy more efficiently a leg up in the market. Everyone who is in an affected area of business a serious incentive to figure out how to lower their footprint. Smaller footprint = higher profits. This will put some smart people in companies all over the US to work on this. Right now, with energy costs low (compared to EU for example), they can see profits by using energy less efficiently, thereby putting out more GH gasses. No?

My concern is with the details, and how some people will, no doubt, find ways to game the system, along the lines of enron.

'Carbon tax' is basically a guilt tax for having the audacity to use as much energy as we can afford. We're supposed to feel horrible because now the rest of the world wants what we've got and there's not enough for everyone to live like we do.

Of course the people like AlGore who are promoting this have some of the largest personal 'carbon footprints' of anyone in the world. We're supposed to believe they're entitled to that because they know what's best for us. It's the old "Do as I say not as I do" Liberal BS, and I'm not buying into it.

Buy 'carbon offsets'? Sure, from his own company which is tax exempt. AlGore runs around telling everyone they need to conserve, starts his own 'Carbon Offset' company, and tells everyone they can buy carbon offsets so they won't feel guilty for their energy usage. So if everyone were to believe Al Gore's theory, who will end up making a lot of money? Al Gore.

Now that's a Very Convenient Truth.

quote:

MONDAY • FEBRUARY 26, 2007

A VERY INCONVENIENT TRUTH: POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER ‘TRUTH’:

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”

Come on John. Anyone can copy / paste propaganda.

No one is proposing a 'Carbon Tax'. That is NOT the same as cap and trade. The money is exchanged between private enterprises, and does not go to the Gov, for starters.

So what if Al Gore uses 12 times more energy than the average household. His house is probably also 24 times bigger, and his home office is probably staffed and 48 times bigger than the average American. (full disclosure, I never voted for his ticket.)

You neglected to name your source, by the way.

ANYWAY, BACK TO CAP AND TRADE:

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew M:

quote:

I personally think Cap & Trade is a joke. It does NOTHING to help the environment but will increase the cost of ALL energy, will raise inflation (because companies are just going to pass the added cost on to the consumer), and Congress will just be using it to fund these stupid bail outs and possibly the new socialized health care fiasco.

Setting aside our views of how to solve the health care problems of the country, it seems to me that you are describing a bad/worst case scenario of the gov selling carbon "pollution permits" or some such. If it is indeed cap and TRADE, then this will give people who use energy more efficiently a leg up in the market. Everyone who is in an affected area of business a serious incentive to figure out how to lower their footprint. Smaller footprint = higher profits. This will put some smart people in companies all over the US to work on this. Right now, with energy costs low (compared to EU for example), they can see profits by using energy less efficiently, thereby putting out more GH gasses. No?

My concern is with the details, and how some people will, no doubt, find ways to game the system, along the lines of enron.

I agree with that, and would like to add:

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew M:
Here's what I'm not understanding: [re: Graydon Blair's point] The TRADE part of cap and trade means that the 'tax' (as you call it) is paid by the carbon producer to the 'green' company.

Will costs to the credit buyer be passed on to the consumer? Yes.
Will revenue to the credit producer be passed on to the consumer? Yes.

Will some companies be put out of business (straw that broke camel's back) by this new cost? Yes.
Will some companies be created by this new source of revenue? Yes.

Does this create an incentive to lower your carbon footprint? Yes.
Will some people commit fraud and take advantage of the system? Yes.

Will the Government find a way to 'get their cut' on the credits? Yes.
Will the majority of the revenue go to the credit seller? Yes.

Is this a redistribution of wealth? Yes.
Isn't every tax a redistribution of wealth? Yes.

Will it lower carbon emissions or fail to do so? Will it be a net expansive or contractile force on the economy? Will this bill be 'good' or 'bad'?

That obviously depends on the bill, as it stands, in the House of Representatives.

So what I humbly suggest is that we see what the current positions are for and against the bill, and debate its merits based on those positions.



Finally, since a worst-case-scenario has already been presented ('kill the economy' ), I'd like to present the bast case scenario. Think of this as the polar opposite of a Doomsday Scenario (Warning: Propaganda. See Disclaimer):

The year is 2014. Solar farms start popping up everywhere, even in cities of northern states, eager to reap the sales of Carbon Credits to Big Oil and Big Energy. Gas costs $4.00 per gallon, electricity costs $0.20 per / kwh).

Billions of dollars is invested in this type of solar technology, and overall efficiency approaches 90% (30% electric / 60% thermal).

Smaller home-sized units come to market. Sales of Plug-In Hybrids increases exponentially as drivers are eager to reap the benefits of the carbon credits the liberal government will allow them to sell, if they buy their electricity from these solar farms.

The Solar version of 'moore's law' kicks in. Overall efficiency increases to 97%. Government incentives redistribute more wealth from polluters to producers of 'green energy', and, with the prevailing popular consensus that solar is now "the answer", the cost of a home scale solar farm leads to the average American home producing more energy than it consumes.

Billions of dollars in investment, inspired by C&T, leads to a breakthrough in Algae farming, making Algae Oil ubiquitous and cheap ($0.25 / gallon). Similar to this, other forms of storing solar energy for use at night (like growing algae for use in a car, or a major breakthrough in battery technology ) are further refined and made more efficient.

The price of Energy crashes. Exxon-Mobile declared bankruptcy and is dissolved. The economy doesn't notice.

Ubiquitous and near free energy leads to a New Industrial Revolution. No longer is energy an obstacle. The ramifications are incomprehensible in 2009.

A rising tide lifts all ships, and global utopia is realized.

America saves the world.

USA! USA! USA!

**Think this is totally crazy? Did you know the amount of solar energy that hits the earth in one hour is enough to power the earth for one year?

quote:

Ubiquitous and near free energy leads to a New Industrial Revolution. No longer is energy an obstacle.

Ah yes, gimmie that good ol' 'free energy' propaganda, yowsa, yowsa.
I can remember back in the '50s when 'Reddy Kilowatt' was telling us kids that when we grew up nuclear power would make electricity too cheap to meter.
I didn't believe it then either.

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:

quote:

Ubiquitous and near free energy leads to a New Industrial Revolution. No longer is energy an obstacle.

Ah yes, gimmie that good ol' 'free energy' propaganda, yowsa, yowsa.
I can remember back in the '50s...

I said from the beginning that I was presenting a best case scenario to counter the worst case scenario. Is that propaganda? Yes. It's a best case scenario.

At least it's original propaganda, which I took a lot of time sourcing and providing examples for, not a single one of which did you contend.

Whatever happened in the 50's is now 60 years ago. How would the pre-industrial revolution people of the 1840's see the world of the 1940's?

If you remember the 50s, then you might have read the Popular Mechanics article that said computers would weigh 'only a few tons' and would 'fit in a single room' by the year 2000.

The fact is that if we could 'turn off the sun' for seconds every month (and I'm just talking about the energy that hits the Earth, not 'the whole sun') and harvest the energy, we could power the Earth for years at our current rate of consumption.

Don't take my word for it, do the math. The surface area of the earth is 510,072,000,000 m². Half of that is about 255,036,000,000 m² Multiply that by 1 KW/hr/m² which is about the average amount of solar energy that hits 1m² of earth per hour.

Thats 255 TerraWatts per hour. In 2004, the WORLD consumed 15TW.

Why are we not investing everything into trying to harness a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of percent of that, every day? It would be enough. (Answer: The "Clean Coal" lobby will tell you for $100.) Even with the chance that Cap and Trade fails in every regard but still leads to the realization of efficient solar technology, it will all have been worth it, IMO.

I don't think this is a matter of 'if' but 'when', and since I'm still young I'd really like to see it in my lifetime.

We know this is true because we take stored solar energy in the form of soybean oil and power our multi-ton vehicles off of it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FuriousGeorge,

Interesting discussion, but does anyone know any details of the Cap and Trade program, for example, costs to corporations for polluting, how its measured, etc vs. amount of credit given and how it is to be tabulated?

I dont want to speculate on wether it may be good or bad without more information. Is this information even available yet?

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyebiodiesel:
Interesting discussion, but does anyone know any details of the Cap and Trade program, for example, costs to corporations for polluting, how its measured, etc vs. amount of credit given and how it is to be tabulated?

I dont want to speculate on wether it may be good or bad without more information. Is this information even available yet?

All I know is that it passed in the HoR in a squeaker vote (219-210 or so), and, beyond that, what I've read on the Wikipedia Page about the bill.

The CBO, who's job it is to estimate how much legislation will cost, and who everyone loves to cite when they agree, had the following analysis, according to the article:

quote:

CBO analysis of the bill

A study in June 2009 by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicated that the bill would be roughly deficit-neutral for the government over the next decade:[6]

"...enacting the legislation would increase revenues by $873 billion over the 2010-2019 period and would increase direct spending by $864 billion over that 10-year period. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce future budget deficits by about $4 billion over the 2010-2014 period and by about $9 billion over the 2010-2019 period..."

The study also indicated that the tax burden on individual households would be limited:[7]

"...the net annual economy-wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household...households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245. Added costs for households in the second lowest quintile would be about $40 that year; in the middle quintile, about $235; and in the fourth quintile, about $340. Overall net costs would average 0.2 percent of households’ after-tax income."

The analysis did not attempt to quantify the environmental benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The report also stated that the "net financial impact of the program on households in different income brackets would depend in large part on how many allowances were sold (versus given away), how the free allowances were allocated, and how any proceeds from selling allowances were used. That net impact would reflect both the added costs that households experienced because of higher prices and the share of the allowance value that they received in the form of benefit payments, rebates, tax decreases or credits, wages, and returns on their investments." In other words, while a cap and trade system imposes costs on high emitters, it can generate revenues for low emitters that sell permits to them. By setting the proverbial emissions bar, the government determines who gains and loses.

One thing I saw, which actually relates to BioDiesel was a criticism of the bill:

quote:

The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the petroleum and natural gas industry, said the bill would place "disproportionate burden on all consumers of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, propane and other petroleum products", and by 2035, it would cause gasoline prices in excess of $4.00 per gallon by today's standards.

My first reaction to this was to take everything the API says with a small mountain of salt, when it comes to energy policy. Gas was already higher than that, and is currently not much lower, so my second reaction was to ask "what's the big deal?" Are they saying gas will be cheaper in 2035 otherwise? If so, I don't think anyone buys that.

Finally, since we know Fuel will be more expensive in 2035 anyway, and that C&T will necessarily make petro-fuel more expensive to some extent, I thought that this could be a good thing for producers of BD. Granted, I'm assuming that producers of BioDiesel will get a credit. I'm aware that there is a debate that the EPA will have to settle about how much Carbon a gallon of agri-BioDiesel offsets, so I guess a gallon of BD from WVO will be worth more Carbon Credits than a gallon from Virgin Feedstock.

Still, my personal take on this debate is that people have pretty much figured out that Ethanol is Carbon Neutral at best, and no one makes the same argument against BioDiesel. While you can make the case that the 'agri- side' of BD production is Carbon Positive, that depends a lot on how Energy Efficient the farm is... maybe they can use BioDiesel to run their tractors, since they can't use ethanol.

I'm also aware that there is a debate as to the ethics of using land for producing fuel rather than food. That may be a good point for farms around the world, and if you import Soybean Oil from Argentina I don't have much sympathy for you in that regard. However, last I checked aren't a sizable percentage of Domestic Farm Land Owners currently being paid NOT to grow crops? Maybe the general taxpayer can pay them less, while producers of BD can rent some of that land from them.

Vive le Free Market