Japan Shifts Policy to Allow Use of U.S. Ethanol

first_img By Hoosier Ag Today – Apr 18, 2018 Facebook Twitter Facebook Twitter SHARE SHARE Japan Shifts Policy to Allow Use of U.S. Ethanol Home Energy Japan Shifts Policy to Allow Use of U.S. Ethanol The U.S. Grains Council (USGC), the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), Growth Energy and their member organizations welcome the news Tuesday that the Japanese government’s new biofuel policy will allow imports of ETBE made from U.S. corn-based ethanol.“The U.S. Grains Council is pleased by this decision and that Japan recognizes these improved benefits of U.S. product. We continue to work around the world, sharing the benefits of U.S. ethanol with other countries that are serious about reducing their GHG emissions,” said Tom Sleight, president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Grains Council, which has an office in Japan working closely with the Japanese government and industry. “From this decision, it is unequivocal that continued improvements in carbon intensity reductions are critical to gain and maintain market access for U.S. ethanol.”The change comes as part of the county’s update of its existing sustainability policy, approved in 2010, in which only sugarcane-based ethanol was eligible for import and which only allowed sugarcane-based ethanol for the production of ETBE, an oxygenate. The new policy calls for an increase in the carbon intensity reduction requirements of ethanol used as a feedstock to make ETBE to meet a 55 percent reduction, up from 50 percent, and recognizes corn-based, U.S.-produced ethanol’s ability to meet that goal, even with the higher greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction standard.Japan will now allow U.S. ethanol to meet up to 44 percent of a total estimated demand of 217 million gallons of ethanol used to make ETBE, or potentially 95.5 million gallons of U.S.-produced ethanol annually. Japan imports nearly all of the ETBE from ethanol that it uses.This decision by the Japanese government is based on its evaluation and life cycle assessment update of U.S. corn-based ethanol. The U.S. industry’s efforts to maximize production efficiency through technological innovations that lead to higher GHG emission reductions for corn-based ethanol and the emergence of co-products like distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) have supported this new access to the Japanese market while positively contributing to the feed and energy value chains.“For the first time, the U.S. ethanol industry will have the opportunity to compete for a portion of Japan’s fuel blending market,” said Growth Energy Chief Executive Officer Emily Skor. “This new policy represents a new trade opportunity for the U.S. to continue to work with Japan to demonstrate the economic value, sustainability, and environmental advantages of utilizing our product in their consumer market for motor fuels.”U.S. organizations promoting the global use of ethanol will continue to work closely with the Japanese government as it implements its new policy and provide updated technical information about GHG reductions and other benefits of corn-based ethanol.Since 2014, the U.S. ethanol industry and the U.S. government have partnered to develop a robust ethanol market development program that demonstrates the environmental, health and economic benefits of ethanol use and why strong ethanol policies include a role for trade.“We are pleased Japan now allows ETBE imports from U.S. corn-based ethanol, as this opens an important and growing market for American farmers. ETBE is an ethanol-based oxygenate frequently used in overseas markets. Japanese consumers will now have access to cleaner, cheaper, American high-octane fuels. We look forward to beginning a dialogue on how Japan’s new policy could be improved, such as moving towards direct blending rather than having to convert our ethanol into an ether like ETBE. But we certainly welcome Japan’s first step toward the use of U.S. ethanol,” said RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen. Previous articleMobile App for Cover Crop Field GuideNext articleNo Relief from Tariff Retaliation in Farm Bill Hoosier Ag Todaylast_img read more

Lessons From the Last Great Recession

first_img August 4, 2020 1,380 Views Related Articles  Print This Post Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago COVID-19 Foreclosure Moratorium 2020-08-04 Christina Hughes Babb Past results suggest today’s foreclosure moratoria are an appropriate response to the pandemic, according to a new study from the Ziman Center for Real Estate at the University of California.The foreclosure moratoria allowed under the CARES Act have benefitted homeowners and the overall economy and has left little or no negative impact, according to Stuart A. Gabriel, Director of the Ziman Center for Real Estate at the University of California, Los Angeles. He explained the benefits of the foreclosure moratoria, citing past evidence from the 2008 financial crisis, in an economic letter entitled “Foreclosure and Eviction Moratoria: Just Do It.” The foreclosure moratoria allowed under the CARES Act helped reinforce “shelter-in-place” orders this spring as governments worked to stem the spread of the coronavirus. The moratoria also helped prevent neighborhoods from the negative impacts foreclosure can bring, such as urban blight. “Large-scale eviction and home foreclosure in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic likely would have been detrimental to virus spread, homelessness, and other health and social outcomes,” Gabriel wrote. “Such policies would also have been the wrong prescription for the broader economy. Evidence from our recent study suggests that the recent COVID 19-related moratoria on residential foreclosure and eviction ultimately will reduce the economic costs of the current crisis and will hasten an economic recovery as the virus abates.” Gabriel wrote that his positive view of foreclosure moratoria is “evidence-based,” rooted in outcomes from the financial crisis of 2008 when California enacted foreclosure moratoria and increased lender foreclosure costs as the financial crisis brought nearly 800,000 to the brink of foreclosure. California created policies to encourage mortgage modifications and the maintenance of foreclosed homes to prevent neighborhood blight and the inevitable damage it does to home prices in the surrounding area. The UCLA research estimates California state laws were responsible for preventing 250,000 foreclosures, keeping home prices 6% higher than they would have been otherwise, and improving home equity by $350 billion across the state. Furthermore, “we find that the policies did not create any adverse side effects for new California borrowers as regards credit rationing,” Gabriel wrote. Thus, Gabriel strongly supports the foreclosure moratoria put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy “provided immediate relief in the wake of widespread job loss” and ultimately will “mitigate the severity of the current economic downturn,” according to Gabriel. However, the moratoria in place may not be enough. The moratoria should be partnered with mortgage interest rate modifications in order to lower monthly payments for borrowers, Gabriel suggested. He also recommends that relief should be extended to multifamily rental investment properties. The economic letter was released in advance of a more extensive research paper titled, “A Crisis of Missed Opportunities? Foreclosure Costs and Mortgage Modification During the Great Recession.” Lessons From the Last Great Recession Tagged with: COVID-19 Foreclosure Moratorium Previous: How Much Will Foreclosures Surge in the Months Ahead? Next: The Industry Pulse: Changes at Brookstone, MSI The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Krista Franks Brock is a professional writer and editor who has covered the mortgage banking and default servicing sectors since 2011. Previously, she served as managing editor of DS News and Southern Distinction, a regional lifestyle publication. Her work has appeared in a variety of print and online publications, including Consumers Digest, Dallas Style and Design, DS News and DSNews.com, MReport and theMReport.com. She holds degrees in journalism and art from the University of Georgia. Share Save The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days agocenter_img Subscribe About Author: Krista F. Brock Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago in Daily Dose, Featured, Foreclosure, Government, News Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Sign up for DS News Daily Home / Daily Dose / Lessons From the Last Great Recessionlast_img read more

[Breaking] Bar Council Of India Issues Show Cause Notices To SCBA President Dushyant Dave And Other Office Bearers

first_imgTop Stories[Breaking] Bar Council Of India Issues Show Cause Notices To SCBA President Dushyant Dave And Other Office Bearers Nilashish Chaudhary17 May 2020 8:19 AMShare This – xThe latest development in the public strife between the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has taken a more serious turn with the BCI on May 17 unanimously resolving to issue show cause notices to SCBA President, Mr Dushyant Dave, Acting Secretary, Mr. Rohit Pandey and Executive Committee Member, Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj as to why disciplinary action must not be…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe latest development in the public strife between the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has taken a more serious turn with the BCI on May 17 unanimously resolving to issue show cause notices to SCBA President, Mr Dushyant Dave, Acting Secretary, Mr. Rohit Pandey and Executive Committee Member, Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj as to why disciplinary action must not be taken against them.Terming SCBA’s May 12 letter which rejected  the BCI’s decision to stay SCBA’s earlier Resolution to suspend its Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora , as “improper and indecent”, and further alleging that defamatory, derogatory and/or filthy words were used by the Office Bearers, the BCI expressed the prima facie view that the 3 individuals committed acts of misconduct punishable under Sections 35 and 36 of the Advocates Act, 1961.”The Council is pained to note that a few Members of Executive Committee of SCBA, not only illegally refused to comply with this Council’s resolution dated 10.05.2020, but have also used derogatory, defamatory, abusive or filthy words for the Council and its Members. The statements and comments issued by Mr. Dushyant Dave, President, SCBA, the letter dated 12.05.2020 sent to BCI by Mr. Rohit Pandey (the purported Acting Secretary), both of which appeared on social and electronic media and messages and comments exchanged by Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Members of Executive Committee among themselves and brought to our notice, betray a clear and hostile design of these Members of Executive Committee to disregard, defame and flout the most innocuous and reasonable directions contained in the BCI’s unanimous resolution dated 10.05.2020, which was passed, keeping in view the dignity and prestige of the SCBA”, claims the BCI.The entire sequence of events, leading to this Resolution wherein the BCI seeks proceedings against the said individuals is detailed thus:-“After taking a holistic view of the facts, circumstances and developments that have emanated post 8th May 2020 resolution of Executive Committee of SCBA, representation dated 10.05.2020 by Mr. Ashok Arora, Resolution by BCI dated 10.05.2020, statements in social and/or electronic media by the above named Members of Executive Committee of SCBA, messages exchanged by these Members of Executive Committee and the improper indecent letter dated 12.05.2020 by Mr. Rohit Pandey addressed to Secretary BCI, we are of the prima facie view that the Members of SCBA, namely, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rohit Pandey and Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Advocates have committed acts of misconduct punishable under Sections-35, 36 and other relevant provisions of Advocates Act 1961 read with BCI Rules and they deserve to be proceeded with for appropriate action as per provisions of law.” In its Resolution, the BCI has asserted that they did have the powers to pass the Resolution dated May 11 and has relied on directions of the Apex Court, seeking to substantiate this claim.Furthermore, BCI has alleged that allowing Mr. Pandey to function as Acting Secretary is a “further perpetuation of gross unlawful act”, an act they urge the General Body of the SCBA to look into at an appropriate time.The BCI Secretary has thus been directed to enclose the statements issued by the aforementioned names, as well as the ‘derogatory and defamatory comments’ made in social/electronic media along with the show cause notice which is to be served.The reply to these notices is sought to be received at the BCI office within 15 days of the notices receiving the same. Absence to do so, it is stated, would be deemed to mean that they have nothing to say by way of a response. Earlier, in an extraordinary move on May 11, the Bar Council of India (BCI) had passed a Resolution to stay with immediate effect the Supreme Court Bar Association’s (SCBA) decision to suspend its Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora, along with a slew of other decisions taken by the lawyers’ body on May 8.The SCBA had thereafter returned the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) Resolution dated May 11 without admitting it or dealing with its contents.Referring to the BCI’s Resolution as illegal, unauthorised, without jurisdiction and unwarranted, the SCBA wrote to the BCI Secretary on May 12, communicating the SCBA’s stand as follows:- “The Bar Council of India is established under the Advocates Act, 1961 and its power, duties and responsibilities are circumscribed by the said Act. The BCI has no power or authority to supervise much less control any Bar Association in the country including the SCBA.The alleged Resolution purportedly passed by the BCI is illegal, unauthorised, without jurisdiction and unwarranted. It invades the rights of the Supreme Court Bar Association to manage and run its affairs.”The dispute has its genesis in the move made by Ashok Arora to call an extraordinary meeting to remove Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave as SCBA President over a resolution passed by SCBA in February to condemn the public comments made by Justice Arun Mishra in praise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.Following this move, SCBA  Executive Committee suspended Ashok Arora as the Secretary on May 8.Click here to download BCI’s Press ReleaseRead BCI ReleaseSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more