King Corn vents spleen

Why farm-state pols rage against the EPA’s biofuel stance 3

crybabyHis Majesty is furiousWhy are farm-state pols howling against recently proposed EPA rules on biofuel and greenhouse gas emissions?

As I reported last week—echoed by Time’s Michael Grunwald—the agency made extremely generous assumptions regarding the GHG footprint of crop-based fuel. What’s more, the proposed rules actually enshrine the titanic biofuel mandates farm-state pols worked into the 2007 Energy Act. Sure, corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel emerge as net GHG emitters under the proposed EPA rules; but those “first-generation” fuels are grandfathered in under the Act. And cellulosic ethanol gets a big thumbs up (even though it remains, as ever, five years away from commercial viability). In other words, the proposed rules have no direct effect on the biofuel industry.

So why don’t these guys shut up? Why for example, is Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) trading pointed letters with the EPA and denouncing the agency’s use of science? Why did House ag committee chair Collin Peterson (D.-Minn.) just introduce legislation that would prevent the EPA from applying life-cycle GHG analysis to biofuels? Why go to such lengths to reverse rules that don’t harm the industry you’re trying to protect?

In a remarkable rant delivered at a House committee meeting this week (MP3 here via FarmPolicy blog), Peterson delivered some insight into his rage.

First, he vented a bit. “I’ve had it,” he said with an air of angry resignation. “You [the EPA] are going to kill off the biofuel industry before it gets started.” At points, he aired Nixonian suspicions of ethanol critics’ motivations: “I don’t trust anybody anymore! ... Why are we being picked on? Because some people don’t like corn ethanol.”

Eventually, he got to the point: “What I’m upset about is not so much what’s going on today, but the interaction of this [i.e., the GHG footprint of biofuel] with the climate change bill.” He added that discussion of the GHG performance of biofuels should essentially be taboo: “You’re putting us in a position to talk about something that we shouldn’t be even be talking about.”

The chairman went on to declare that because of the proposed EPA rules around biofuel, he officially opposes the Waxman-Markey climate bill. “I will not support any kind of climate change bill, even if you fix this,” (i.e., the EPA take on ethanol’s GHG footprint). He softened his stance slightly a few seconds later, allowing that he might consider supporting Waxman-Markey if it contained explicit language guaranteeing that the EPA would not meddle in biofuel policy.

Mind you, the Waxman-Markey language under consideration already excludes agriculture’s considerable GHG emissions from penalty under any cap-and-trade scheme. The big goal of agribiz lobbying around Waxman-Markey is to take that indulgent treatment once step further: ignore our emissions, but give us credit for sequestering carbon. (No one’s ever demonstrated for me precisely how industrial ag sequesters carbon.)

I think the deal is this: Peterson is worried that if a cap-and-trade scheme comes into place, and the EPA is on record calculating that corn ethanol is a net emitter of greenhouse gas, then down the road the industry could be penalized or even shut down. That’s why farm-state pols are shrieking like banshees about proposed EPA rules that don’t have any immediate effect on the industry they’ve spent years supporting.

One more thing: This fight is absolutely about keeping the government goodies coming to com ethanol. Just last year, Peterson himself bluntly expressed doubt about whether cellulosic “would ever get off the ground,” and declared it at least 10 years away from viability. No one can deny that Peterson is a good soldier for agribiz interests, from whom he soaks up prodigious amounts of campaign cash.

Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Follow my Twitter feed; contact me at tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. justlou Posted 10:44 am
    15 May 2009

    The corn growers, ethanol industry and political backers have pretty much absolved themselves from how the consumption of corn for fuel has impacted land use and food prices in other parts of the world.  That their control of land use in the US leads to "uncontrollable" land use in other parts of the world is something that they are unwilling to acknowledge or they are quite willing to distort in their telling of how the world works.  It is all "hypothetical" to them. 

    Permalink

  2. John Valente's avatar

    John Valente Posted 10:34 am
    16 May 2009

    While much is said about the corn ethanol industry's rejection of indirect effects calculations, let's get one thing right. Even if you include these indirect effects, sugarcane biofuels passes the test. That's what California and the U.S. EPA says. Don't believe me read these two links.Sugarcane Ethanol Industry Eager to Implement Renewable Fuel StandardSugarcane Ethanol Passes California TestSugarcane may be first generation but has second generation performance.

    Permalink

  3. JohnWalker Posted 2:04 pm
    22 May 2009

       THe recent decision by the California Air Resources Board had nothing to do with science.  If they and the EPA would use science the Earth would be enjoying a better prognosis.   Over 100 PhDs signed a letter to Governor Schwarzeneggar urging that the CARB base their decisions on science.  There are no science based conclusions re indirect land use changes from any fuel including gasoline at this point (although, it is known that an area the size of Texas has been set aside for oil exploration and that means roads which leads to illegal logging which people knowledgeable in deforestation recognize as the leading cause of deforestation).Link to the letter:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=194946The CARB was influenced by a "study" by Searchinger et al, which did not even make the models they used to arrive at their conclusions available to others so they could test their conclusions.  This is not science, it is religion and promulgation of propaganda.  Matthews & Tan severely criticized not only the authors of the study but the Journal Science for even publishing it: "Indeed if you wished to put US ethanol production in the worst possible light, assuming the worst possible set of production conditions guaranteed to give the worst possible ILUC effects, then the assumptions chosen would not be far from those actually presented (without argument or discussion of alternatives) in the Searchinger et al. paper. This, together with the fact that the paper is not replicable, since the models and parameters used are not accessible, places a question mark over the refereeing procedures used for this paper by the journal Science. A paper that seeks to place a procedure in the worst possible light, and refrains from allowing others to check its results, is perhaps better described as ideology than as science."
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14224393/Biofuels-and-indirect-land-use-change-effects-the-debate-continues  Another study highly critical of the Searchinger "study" pointed out that by improperly accounting for the substutution of DDGS (a coproduct of Ethanol fuel) Searchinger et al over estimated the land required to substitute for land used for corn for ethanol by 100%"A fundamental problem raised by several respondents arises from Searchinger’s
    inaccurate assumption (see 6 above) of ‘pound for pound’ displacement of corn.
    Allowing for the higher protein of DDGS, and also for land to replace the oil
    foregone (we assumed oil palm);     we calculate that Searchinger’s assumption about
    DOUBLES the land required to substitute for US corn-ethanol.    "
    http://www.renewablefuelsagency.org/_db/_documents/ADAS_Seachinger_critique.pdf The point here is that the scientific study of indirect land use changes has yet to provide conclusive, reliable (quantifiable) conclusions about land use changes.  The "study" by Searchinger et al is clearly not an example of anything close to a scientific inquiry of indirect land use changes for any fuel.Since the climate models are underestimating the acceleration of the Global Warming (most likely due to inadequate metrics of thawing permafrost) the direct affects of burning fossil fuels need to be updated.  After that is accomplished the most recent scientific conclusions on Ethanol's reduction of GHG emissions over gasoline (51%) will no doubt be due for an increase. http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0901220.shtml What those who say they understand that Global Warmng is real, and human activity induced, fail to face is that we do not have much time to start making appreciable reductions to CO2 emissions from gasoline consumption.  We have, at most, 10 years to make some appreciable reductions to CO2 emissiona.  It will take 20 years for hybrids to reduce CO2 emissions for cars about 10% to 20% (http://www.geocities.com/jwalkerxy/voltz.xls)  whereas we can triple ethanol production in 10 years and get an impact much sooner - when it will have a much bigger affect on global warming.  We need hybrids absolutely, but the inability of individuals to recognize the failure to increase ethanol production in the next several years will consign the Earth's population to the worst ecological disaster in human history.  The simple fact is you can replace the fuel faster (and more efficiently) than you can replace the cars that burn the fuel.  Delaying aggressive ramping up of ethanol production will allow global warming to increase to a point that we won't be able to slow it down no matter how much we reduce CO2 emissions 20 years from now.  Once the permafrost starts thawing too much it will be producing far more CO2 than we can cut from our output.  At 1,500 Billion tons of carbon http://www.physorg.com/news140441692.html the permafrost has about 55 times the total annual CO2 output of the entire  World.  Once defrosting of this organic material gets underway we will not be able to match it's production of CO2 (and methane) from decaying organic matter by any amount of CO2 emissions reductions.  That is why we must do those things which produce the quickest results (and still develop and deploy hybrids).   

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement