Go here to see the letter:
The scientists, who express their personal beliefs in the letter but conduct research at some of the most prestigious laboratories in the country, outlined two fundamental problems with the proposed LCFS. On the one hand, they challenge the science of indirect land use change, calling it “controversial” and in its “nascent stage” with “clear omissions relative to the real world.” On the other hand, they criticize the selective enforcement of indirect effects against biofuels only, saying, “[e]nforcing different compliance metrics against different fuels is the equivalent of picking winners and losers, which is in direct conflict with the ambition of the LCFS.”
“No level of certainty justifies asymmetrical enforcement of indirect effects,” continued Dr. Simmons. “What the current proposal basically says is that using more biofuel will have ripple effects in the economic marketplace but using more petroleum, natural gas or electricity to power our cars and trucks will have zero ripple effects in the marketplace, ” he added, “which is, of course, not the case.”
Some of the signatories are working on technologies to accelerate the commercialization of advanced biofuels from alternative crops and waste materials. They acknowledge the need to protect pristine lands and forests from unsustainable commercial development, but say the current asymmetrical treatment of biofuels will only undercut efforts to make biofuels more sustainable and less land-intensive.
The California Air Resources Board plans to submit the final rule to the State Board in late April, and will be releasing a completed initial plan by the end of the week.
Again, the entire letter can be read here: