skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Clean Power plan
Safe Chemicals

Nathanael Greene’s Blog

Bioenergy in the balance in the climate bill debate

Nathanael Greene

Posted June 9, 2009

, , , , , , , ,
Share | | |

As often as deforestation is decried as a driver of global climate change, it’s hard to believe that anyone would propose more deforestation as part of a climate bill.  But that’s what is about to happen in the House of Representatives as the Agriculture Committee takes a whack at the Waxman-Markey climate bill.  Part of what’s at stake is what type of bioenergy--including transportation biofuels and electricity-producing biomass--the government supports.

The Waxman-Markey bill, in its current version, does something very important.  It includes a set of biomass safeguards to ensure the federal government does not incentivize deforestation, destruction of protected federal forest lands, and increased global warming from biomass.  Furthermore, it doesn't mess with the carefully constructed GHG standards established as part of the renewable fuel standard. (For more the safeguards and standards, see this factsheet.)

That’s important because the bill also creates a huge new demand for biomass to burn for electricity through its renewable electricity standard, or RES. And this is on top of the existing mandate for biomass based fuels--the renewable fuel standard (RFS). I estimate that these two policies combined with the price signal created by the cap itself could lead to a biomass demand equal to nearly twice our average annual timber harvest for the past two decades (15.5 billion cubic feet of green wood). 

Absent biomass safeguards and the GHG standards, it is impossible to imagine that amount of additional demand would not drive deforestation, push destructive projects forward on federal lands, and contribute to global warming. The biomass safeguards and standards are an important balance to ensure the RES and RFS do what they're is supposed to do: fight global warming and provide truly renewable energy.

But now, thanks to influence from the timber industry and Big Ag, a fight is brewing.

Some members of Congress, led by Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson, are trying to push policies that would weaken the bill’s forest safeguards and ignore the carbon pollution from destroying forests. 

Peterson proposes to gut the Waxman-Markey biomass safeguards, opening areas that have been protected - including National Forest roadless areas, wilderness areas, National Monuments, and other protected federal lands - to biomass production.  He also wants to weaken GHG standards for transportation biofuels that Congress already passed, back in 2007, requiring that biofuels prove they are better than fossil fuels when it comes to carbon emissions from all steps of fuel production and use. 

If timber and agriculture interests and their congressional allies are successful in weakening the safeguards designed to ensure that we don’t burn irreplaceable forests for energy, the consequences for America’s federal forests will be disastrous and we will not achieve our pollution reduction goals. Combined the RES, RFS, and price signal of the cap itself could lead to GHG from biomass that would reduce the Waxman-Markey goal of a 17% reduction in emissions by as much as 6%.

Unfortunately, as House leaders strive to unify members and pass a landmark climate bill, these members’ voices are stronger than ever.  But without safeguards and GHG standards, we will be unable to tell if our bioenergy policies are doing more harm than good. We could easily end up wining the climate fight only to have to start trying to put an end to newly blind bioenergy mandates and incentives.

Share | | |


Todd BrinkmanJun 12 2009 03:36 PM

My understanding is that the use of forest material would be material that is already trimmed by the forest service for fire supression. That wood is piled up and burned right now. It seems like a better use to make it into ethanol.

I think people fear the slippery slope, but if you word it correctly, it could be a really good thing.

Of course, there's always the argument that we shouldn't manage our forests for fire and just let nature burn it as part of the cycle.

John ValenteJun 12 2009 04:03 PM

What everyone seems to be missing is what the corn ethanol lobby is asking Congress to do — just include domestic indirect land use effects but exclude international effects.

To wit, take a look at Bob Dinneen said in his comments at an EPA workshop this week, “There is simply no evidence that biofuel production in the U.S. has significant influence over land use decisions in other countries, and we have deep concerns regarding the EPA’s methodology. Moreover, during a conference call with reporters Dinneen said the corn ethanol lobby backs using domestic indirect land use for RFS2 modeling purposes, but that international indirect land use effects do not make sense since they are not linked to U.S. policy.

Now imagine if Congress bought into that proposal from the ag lobby. Any biofuel produced in the U.S. would not have indirect effecs since there’s no more land available in the U.S. and any additional land brought into agricultural production would be overseas, consequently outside of the scope of the regulation. In other words, stripping international effects is a poison pill.

TBJun 16 2009 03:43 PM

Are there numbers to support it? (foreign corn acres increasing in some proportion with ethanol increases, export numbers, etc.) I've never seen a good discussion with numbers.

Comments are closed for this post.


Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit

Feeds: Nathanael Greene’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In