She added, "I think we need to be a bit sober about that, and part of the monitoring I want to see is to make sure we're not ahead of ourselves about what's going to be available in the near term. I don't know if we're going to see the rapid ramp-up of good advanced biofuels that we believe is what should happen as a result of this rule."

But board member Dan Sperling, who heads the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, defended the rule. "This, in my mind, is an example of government at its best, doing policy that's good and responsive and responsible," he said. "All of the arguments are really the details about how to get those numbers right. If there's problems, there's a mechanism for making adjustments along the way."

Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

2 Comments

1. 1. fishman 11:09 PM 4/24/09

   It is my modist belief that people producing flawed or deliberately skewed data should be prosecuted for their grand fraud. Just as Berni M P S was criminal so is AG GW is just skewed data that has not held up under scientific examination. Yet congess still lets this proven lier. Being Stupid will be expensive.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. eco-steve 12:27 PM 4/28/09

   Fishman : Where is your proof that the climate change data is skewed? In England, people can be prosecuted for making incorrect statements. Free speech demands tight self discipline. Science is only science when claims are verifiable. The IPCC only consider strictly refereed data.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this