skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Nathanael Greene’s Blog

Will the biofuels industry hang itself in the climate bill?

Nathanael Greene

Posted June 18, 2009 in Moving Beyond Oil, Solving Global Warming

Tags:
, , , ,
Share | | |

Last week I wrote about the danger of industry-backed changes to the Waxman-Markey climate bill that could, perversely, incentivize deforestation and increase global warming emissions.  Comparing the current bill language to the drastically weaker alternative advocated by Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, House leaders face a relatively clear choice between bioenergy done right and bioenergy done wrong.

A Washington Post editorial yesterday reinforces the importance of that choice, arguing that "Congress must ensure that it does not give biomass suppliers incentives to produce a fuel that is barely better -- or that is perhaps worse -- than fossil fuels."

Last week, I told EPA the following at their public hearing on their proposed rule to implement the RFS (here's the full draft of my testimony, which I mostly but not entirely stuck to):

The 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels demand alone will require an amount of biomass roughly equal to our annual average timber harvest for the past two decades (15.5 billion cubic feet of green wood).

Given current trends in deforestation around the world, the history of forest conversion by our timber industry, and even recent trends in CRP enrollment, it is impossible to imagine adding this much new demand for biomass to our lands and not creating new pressure for conversion of our natural forests and grasslands.

The laws of supply and demand are not laws of physics, but as capitalists, we believe they are the laws that govern our markets. Only your regulation can keep this new demand from having a huge negative impact.(emphasis added)

Now the biofuels industry is pushing to gut both the biomass sourcing safeguards and requirement for full accounting of the GHG emissions from biofuels. This means that while we force American's to buy three and a half times more biofuels than they do today, we'll have no ability to protect our most sensitive forests or wildlife habitat and no ability to know if we're getting something that's actually better than gasoline or diesel.  Basically the biofuels industry wants to put the market in overdrive, take the safety railings off and then blind EPA. 

If they succeed, the renewable fuel standard should be suspended at least until the situation is fixed. It will be the worst irony if the biofuels industry succeeds in turning the biofuels backlash into its own coffin, but that's what they're pushing Peterson to do.

Share | | |

Comments

Joel VelascoJun 18 2009 04:38 PM

Nathanael,

Pls don't lump all of the biofuels industry together! While there are clearly some folks (you know them by name!) who are pushing to gut the lifecycle analysis of biofuels by the EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as well as California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), they are representative of ALL of the biofuels industry.

My industry, the Brazilian sugarcane industry (UNICA), has welcomed the full accounting of the GHG emissions from biofuels even before it scored points with NGOs. Disagreeing on methodological assumptions for calculating indirect effects globally should not be seen as gutting sound regulations.

Regards

Joel Velasco
Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association
http://english.unica.com.br/

PS: For those who aren't following what we've been saying to regulators, see http://bit.ly/FGVEx and http://bit.ly/xVtAN

George TesserisJun 18 2009 07:12 PM

"The 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels demand alone will require an amount of biomass roughly equal to our annual average timber harvest for the past two decades (15.5 billion cubic feet of green wood)."

Hence the conundrum of doing biofuels right. You need a large volume of biomass; not the kind of volume you can get by gathering dead leaves and twigs. Is there any way to do it right?

I read yesterday about three biomass projects that have already resulted in deforestation in Western Massachusetts.

Do you have any idea how beautiful Western Massachusetts is?

Comments are closed for this post.

About

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 NRDC.org.

Feeds: Nathanael Greene’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In