<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Peterson’s Waxman-Markey amendment: the nitty gritty and what it means]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by ecoplasm http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:46:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/1 Actually, what 'waste aeration' refers to is a process that oxygenates manure effluent in anaerobic lagoons sufficiently well to prevent the methane generation that would normally result from anaerobic activity.  This is no mystery since it is already an approved methodology with the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for both manure and wastewater treatment systems.  It just sounds exotic because most of us in the US removed our GHG thinking caps between 2000 and 2007 and are still largely ignorant - even many of our so-called policy experts. It is embarrasing to play catch-up to the Europeans on what was originally home-grown Clinton/Gore-era policy design; California has been dutifully resurrecting early EPA policy and borrowing heavily from the European 'forbidden zone' although, Zaius-like, not quite getting it right and claiming full credit for it all (damn dirty apes!).

Don't worry though, plenty of people at both the EPA and USDA know what 'waste aeration' means, and the USDA has been funding scientific research and development projects for this and many of the other practices on the list above for quite some time (some of our more important conservation programs with regard to water quaility have been more or less successfully administered by the USDA for many years).  Check the IPCC 4th Assessment Report if you want to see a similar list.

And this 'Peterson list' is not new either, it comes from the Senate side (much credit goes to Stabenow and the 'Gang of 16') and was part of the Lieberman-Warner debate last year.  It actually originally included non-agricultural offset projects such as landfill and wastewater methane capture, but those got scrubbed last week - by Waxman, not Peterson.  So don't blame the ag community for an all-ag offsets program.  As it is right now, WM doesn't leave much for the EPA to do with regard to offsets, except to qualify international forestry offsets (which EDF and others would like to phase out altogether by 2018).

As for Life Cycle Analysis, I'm not sure why you think the EPA is, or would be, so good at this.  There's not much evidence for them having any overwhelming mastery of this area - got to go to Berkeley or Carnegie Mellon or Argonne to find that.  Anyway, how is a biofuels life cycle analysis that is conducted TODAY relevant to an economy that will TOMORROW be under a mutli-sector carbon constraint (assuming we pass some legislation)??  LCA is a retrospective (backward-looking) and heavily assumptive methodology; trying to look ahead (predict the future) with LCA is much like tossing chicken bones, not really science.  Don't get too hung up on a policy fashion trend that has already peaked (like pointy-toed high heels) with the serious environmental policy wonks (none of the girls are wearing that stuff anymore).  Selecting 'scientific' analytical tools to meet some influence group's desired result was a hallmark of the past adminsitration's EPA, hopefully not this one's.

 

]]> Actually, what 'waste aeration' refers to is a process that oxygenates manure effluent in anaerobic lagoons sufficiently well to prevent the methane generation that would normally result from anaerobic activity.  This is no mystery since it is already an approved methodology with the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for both manure and wastewater treatment systems.  It just sounds exotic because most of us in the US removed our GHG thinking caps between 2000 and 2007 and are still largely ignorant - even many of our so-called policy experts. It is embarrasing to play catch-up to the Europeans on what was originally home-grown Clinton/Gore-era policy design; California has been dutifully resurrecting early EPA policy and borrowing heavily from the European 'forbidden zone' although, Zaius-like, not quite getting it right and claiming full credit for it all (damn dirty apes!).

Don't worry though, plenty of people at both the EPA and USDA know what 'waste aeration' means, and the USDA has been funding scientific research and development projects for this and many of the other practices on the list above for quite some time (some of our more important conservation programs with regard to water quaility have been more or less successfully administered by the USDA for many years).  Check the IPCC 4th Assessment Report if you want to see a similar list.

And this 'Peterson list' is not new either, it comes from the Senate side (much credit goes to Stabenow and the 'Gang of 16') and was part of the Lieberman-Warner debate last year.  It actually originally included non-agricultural offset projects such as landfill and wastewater methane capture, but those got scrubbed last week - by Waxman, not Peterson.  So don't blame the ag community for an all-ag offsets program.  As it is right now, WM doesn't leave much for the EPA to do with regard to offsets, except to qualify international forestry offsets (which EDF and others would like to phase out altogether by 2018).

As for Life Cycle Analysis, I'm not sure why you think the EPA is, or would be, so good at this.  There's not much evidence for them having any overwhelming mastery of this area - got to go to Berkeley or Carnegie Mellon or Argonne to find that.  Anyway, how is a biofuels life cycle analysis that is conducted TODAY relevant to an economy that will TOMORROW be under a mutli-sector carbon constraint (assuming we pass some legislation)??  LCA is a retrospective (backward-looking) and heavily assumptive methodology; trying to look ahead (predict the future) with LCA is much like tossing chicken bones, not really science.  Don't get too hung up on a policy fashion trend that has already peaked (like pointy-toed high heels) with the serious environmental policy wonks (none of the girls are wearing that stuff anymore).  Selecting 'scientific' analytical tools to meet some influence group's desired result was a hallmark of the past adminsitration's EPA, hopefully not this one's.

 

]]> Comment #2 by ecoplasm http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:04:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/2 correction above (too quick on the post): EDF supports phasing out CDM offsets from projects that will fall under a country's sector-wide baseline, not all international forestry projects

]]> correction above (too quick on the post): EDF supports phasing out CDM offsets from projects that will fall under a country's sector-wide baseline, not all international forestry projects

]]> Comment #3 by trcyc305 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/ Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:38:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/3 Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), the powerful chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, is expected to attach the amendment to the bill before releasing it to the House floor for a likely vote tomorrow. The change would prevent the EPA from accounting for the way that biofuels contribute to deforestation by driving food production abroad. http://www.dvds-online-rental-review.com

]]> Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), the powerful chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, is expected to attach the amendment to the bill before releasing it to the House floor for a likely vote tomorrow. The change would prevent the EPA from accounting for the way that biofuels contribute to deforestation by driving food production abroad. http://www.dvds-online-rental-review.com

]]> Comment #4 by Meredith Niles http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/ Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:50:36 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/4 Actually Ecoplasm there have been indications to me  from the Hill that waste aeration is not just the process you describe, that it could (and I say could) include a more progressive list of practices including pasture and forage based animals.

]]> Actually Ecoplasm there have been indications to me  from the Hill that waste aeration is not just the process you describe, that it could (and I say could) include a more progressive list of practices including pasture and forage based animals.

]]> Comment #5 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/ Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:24:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/5 So much BS.  As with the CAFE standards, the best thing coming is higher petroleum and fertilizer costs that will force farmers to become more efficient in their handling of fossil fuel and other finite inputs.  The rest of this is just technocratic, political mumbo jumbo that won't make a rat's ass difference one way or another. The system dependent on fossil fuel and finite inputs and willfully deluding itself toward feeding 9 billion people packed into megaurban hell holes will continue its course to collapse. 

 

]]> So much BS.  As with the CAFE standards, the best thing coming is higher petroleum and fertilizer costs that will force farmers to become more efficient in their handling of fossil fuel and other finite inputs.  The rest of this is just technocratic, political mumbo jumbo that won't make a rat's ass difference one way or another. The system dependent on fossil fuel and finite inputs and willfully deluding itself toward feeding 9 billion people packed into megaurban hell holes will continue its course to collapse. 

 

]]> Comment #6 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/ Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:28:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/6 About a fifth of global warming is from land use changes. Last year the USDA held a press conference. Here is a quote from it:

"One of USDA's missions is to make sure the American people have access to safe, abundant and affordable fuel supplies."

It took years of massive protests to get our government to end the Vietnam war. What are the odds we will get it to stop propping up planet eating biofuels? Hell, we can't even stop the construction of new coal fired power plants or mountain top removal. The only chance we have is bottom up change. Seattle and Berkely have both just dropped biofuels.



]]> About a fifth of global warming is from land use changes. Last year the USDA held a press conference. Here is a quote from it:

"One of USDA's missions is to make sure the American people have access to safe, abundant and affordable fuel supplies."

It took years of massive protests to get our government to end the Vietnam war. What are the odds we will get it to stop propping up planet eating biofuels? Hell, we can't even stop the construction of new coal fired power plants or mountain top removal. The only chance we have is bottom up change. Seattle and Berkely have both just dropped biofuels.



]]>