Climate Bill moves to Senate, but can biofuels be saved?
- Nathanael Greene
- Director of Renewable Energy Policy, New York City
- Blog | About
- Posted July 7, 2009 in Moving Beyond Oil , Solving Global Warming
The day I went on vacation (June 26th), the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) bill. It was an exciting way to kick off a break but came with the bitter-sweet knowledge that concessions wrung by Rep. Collin Peterson and entrenched big-ag threaten to turn biofuels into dirty fuels and our biofuels policies into bad ag subsidies that make global warming worse.
Today in the Senate, my colleague Dave Hawkins is testifying before the Energy and Public Works Committee and will be outlining the urgency of moving forward and addressing eight key strengths and eight key improvements that are needed as the Senate takes up ACES. (You can find his testimony here.) NRDC's president, Frances Beinecke also has a blog today focusing specifically the three biofuels related fixes that the Senate needs to address. I want to put a fine point on one of these.
Peterson forced Waxman and Speaker Pelosi to prohibit EPA from including GHG emissions from international indirect land-use change for at least 5 years when determining if biofuels actually reduce global warming pollution compared to oil as required under the renewable fuel standard. As Hawkins said today: "If EISA’s requirement for full life-cycle analysis is postponed, then NRDC believes it is necessary to delay further implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard as well."
In other words, if we can't tell whether the biofuels being mandated by the RFS2 are actually reducing global warming pollution or are actually worse than oil, Congress should suspend the RFS2 entirely. A commenter on my last post put it well when he said:
...[L]et's at least be evenhanded: repeal the current law's 36 billion gallon biofuels mandate during that evaluation period. After all, biofuels proponents are repealing the safeguards that accompanied that mandate. First, let's do no harm, because who could be against good science and process particularly when the stakes of the climate are so high?
I wrote about this deal before the vote. There are a few minor saving graces: Waxman and Peterson filed letters with Speaker Pelosi and President Obama indicating that their deal was just a deal for getting the bill passed indicating that we can count on Waxman to fight again when the bill comes back for House-Senate conference. Also the prohibition is just for indirect land-use emissions outside the country of origin meaning that domestic land-use change emissions will continue to be included as will indirect emissions from non-land changes (e.g. fertilizer use). But to give a sense of how damaging this requirement to use faulty carbon accounting is consider the following table from EPA proposed RFS2 rule (large PDF) (excerpted from Table VI.C.1-1):
The international land-use change is the largest single source of pollution associated with biofuels (corn ethanol specifically in this case). There's lots of room for valid debate about the methodology for calculating these emissions, but by 2015, the RFS would force us to use 9.4 billion gallons more of biofuels than we'll use this year (about double what we used last year), and by 2022 the RFS will reach 36 billion gallons.
As I wrote about early last year, the when the EU decided to take its time accounting for emissions from land-use change, they also lowered their biofuels targets. If we're not going to use the best available science, we need to stop requiring more and more biofuels until we can get them right.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Tim M — Jul 8 2009 03:04 PM
Nathanael,
I think that we all agree that today's biofuels are not perfect, but the policy that you are proposing - suspension of the RFS until we have sound science to predict indirect land use (which could take years) - will have devastating effects on the US biofuels industry. Make no mistake; suspension of the RFS will kill the US biodiesel industry. The consequences will be that biofuels investment money won't be there when it is needed because our Congress pulled the rug out from under an industry and investors won't go back.
We all want good science, but I think more of the story needs to be included in the picture that you are painting. I would welcome the opportunity to talk with you about this.
Tim M
Dan Conable — Jul 8 2009 04:47 PM
Nathaniel,
Here's an element that some of us who work on biomass energy in the Northeast tried to interject into the discussion of Waxman/Markey at the time it was reported from committee:
The bill's definition of renewable cropped biomass was similar to that in EISA. That appeared to mean that, insofar as cropped biomass was concerned, only biomass harvested from land that was part of an active farming operation could be considered "renewable". "Fallow" land could produce biomass, but only if it was idled as part of a regular crop rotation, according to EPA's proposed RFSII rule published in early May. This interpretation took some millions of acres of idle, open land in the Northeast that could be producing closed-loop biomass (e.g. warm-season grasses like switchgrass, shrub willow, etc.) off the table as a source of renewable biomass. Excluding the product of this land, insofar as Federal incentives was concerned, would tend to drive biomass energy crop production onto land now producing food or supporting livestock production. A perverse result, to say the least.
We assumed that such an outcome was no one's objective, but rather the accidental result of language designed to keep energy crops off of CRP land. (There is, of course, very little CRP land in the Northeast, and the idle land referred to here is not in any sort of formal reserve status; it's just land that has slipped out of production due to the complex of economic factors that have led to a decline in the agricultural industry. This land is also generally owned by a non-farmer.)
The lesson, it seems to us, is to be very cautious about thinking nationally about environmental and land use questions that turn out to have a very distinct local and regional character.
In any case, it would be unfortunate if, in its review of ACES, the Senate were to come up with any definition of "renewable biomass" that makes idle agricultural land an ineligible source. Those trying to commercialize cellulosic ethanol in this part of the country have read the propose RFSII rule as a severe blow to their prospects, leaving them with forest biomass as their only possible feedstock. We do not have millions of tons of corn stover available in this part of the world, and most of what we do have is plowed down by preference, or ensiled. The current version of ACES solves that problem with a very broad treatment of renewable biomass. One hopes that, in reviewing the bill passed by the House, the Senate will not revert to language that makes the most environmentally benign category of biomass imaginable -- perennial grass grown on idle farmland -- "non-renewable" under the law. Whatever that grass may or may not be, it is highly renewable.
Don Scott — Jul 9 2009 09:33 AM
Tim is right. EISA included very modest volume goals for biodiesel. Failure to implement those goals this year is allowing the very young biodiesel industry to wither on the vine. This small industry uses a responsible and diverse set of feedstocks to deliver very real GHG benefits. In 2008, biodiesel displaced petroleum CO2 emissions equivalent to removing 980,000 cars from the roadway. A thriving biodiesel industry stimulates investment in feedstock development like reclaimed lipids from wastewater and oil from algae. Biodiesel has enormous potential for even greater petroleum displacement, but only if we support the diversity of sustainable feedstocks currently available. We don't have to ignore indirect land use change to find that the current industry is sustainable, but we do have to quantify the lifecycle emission correctly. EPA's proposed modeling does not adequately credit biodiesel's emission reductions compared to petroleum.
R Brooke Coleman — Jul 9 2009 10:29 AM
Nathaniel,
You are right to yellow highlight the size of that indirect number. It is big. But the reality is, that number is not emissions from biofuel production. It is emissions from another product you say was pushed to the margin of the agricultural land footprint by biofuels. Even if you are right -- which is questionable from a modeling and causation perspective -- that number is still carbon emissions from land converted to produce (most likely) food, feed or fiber.
That is why it's "indirect" and not "direct" land use change, and that is why this is so controversial. That is why NRDC's use of "full lifecycle accounting for biofuels" is, in my opinion, misleading. You have redefined what full lifecycle means.
There are ways to prevent indirect effects, but pretending they are solely "biofuel emissions" is not right I don't think.
Geoff Cooper — Jul 10 2009 01:30 PM
So let me get this straight: NRDC is advocating for increased oil imports, higher gas prices, and cuts to American jobs? Wow.
Calling a "time out" on the volumetric requirements set forth by the RFS as advocated by NRDC is a knee-jerk and reckless idea. Not only would such an action crush the existing industry and strand billions of dollars of assets, but it would also assure that we never see the next generation of biofuels. Raising money for advanced biofuels projects is hard enough in the current economic climate; but kicking the barrel out from underneath the industry by suspending the RFS would undoubtedly chase the investment community away from biofuels for good.
No one is saying we should ignore indirect effects. Quite the contrary. What we are saying is let's be fair in how we look at the indirect effects of all fuels and let's make sure we can quantify those effects with defensible methodologies, statisitical rigor, and an acceptable degree of certainty. We aren't there yet. Let's catch our breath.
And has NRDC forgotten that the expanded RFS was part of the Energy INDEPENDENCE and SECURITY Act, not part of a climate bill? While the climate benefits of the RFS are very, very important, Congress' intent for the RFS extends well beyond GHG mitigation. Energy security, energy diversity, and job creation were the key drivers of EISA. Let's not forget that.
Does NRDC really want to call a "time-out" on displacing oil imports from Iraq, Venezuela, and Nigeria? Suspending the RFS would only make the U.S. more reliant on foreign oil, an increasing share of which will come from the dirtiest sources--extra heavy crude, Alberta tar sands, etc.
And does NRDC really want to call a "time-out" on the jobs, GDP, and tax revenue generated by the RFS? Would consumers benefit from a "time-out" on the lower gasoline prices that result from RFS-driven fuel supply extension?
I was quite surprised to see NRDC take this position and I really hope cooler heads will prevail as the Senate takes up climate discussions in the fall.
Looking forward to discussing this more with you.