<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Climate Security Act could be worse than the 2007 energy bill]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Russ http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/ Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:54:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/1 carbon or co2

Biod, can you clarify whether the prospectus you quoted (and your analysis as well) of 1.4Gt was for carbon or co2?

Also, since the 2007 energy bill included the 36 by 22 provision but kicked out the RFS, am I correct in inferring that W-L proposes to include an RFS?

Thanks.

]]> carbon or co2

Biod, can you clarify whether the prospectus you quoted (and your analysis as well) of 1.4Gt was for carbon or co2?

Also, since the 2007 energy bill included the 36 by 22 provision but kicked out the RFS, am I correct in inferring that W-L proposes to include an RFS?

Thanks.

]]> Comment #2 by LGT http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/ Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:08:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/2 Corn for fuel, NOT for food

... the requirement for renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biogasoline, will grow from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022.

Looking at this from a different perspective, it's high time someone broke out the news about ethanol to the unreasonable people in Egypt, Tahiti, El Salvador ... who demand corn for food!

http://msrb.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/food-riots-grip-egyp ...

]]> Corn for fuel, NOT for food

... the requirement for renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biogasoline, will grow from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022.

Looking at this from a different perspective, it's high time someone broke out the news about ethanol to the unreasonable people in Egypt, Tahiti, El Salvador ... who demand corn for food!

http://msrb.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/food-riots-grip-egyp ...

]]> Comment #3 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/ Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:38:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/3 Only one biofuel

Only biogas can actually reduce GHG, by enabling organic farming and recycling manure that would otherwise produce huge amounts of methane.  So they have inadvertantly doomed ethanol and biodiesel and boosted biogas?  Amazing!

My favorite biofuel!  Hehey.  So who really won that debate with Nathaneal Greene?  We did.  

Give it up NRDC.  Get on the plugin hybrid, renewable smart grid, energy conservation  bandwagon.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Only one biofuel

Only biogas can actually reduce GHG, by enabling organic farming and recycling manure that would otherwise produce huge amounts of methane.  So they have inadvertantly doomed ethanol and biodiesel and boosted biogas?  Amazing!

My favorite biofuel!  Hehey.  So who really won that debate with Nathaneal Greene?  We did.  

Give it up NRDC.  Get on the plugin hybrid, renewable smart grid, energy conservation  bandwagon.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #4 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/ Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:49:52 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/4 Production tax credit for wind

http://capwiz.com/windenergy/issues/alert/?alertid=112328 ...

This is what we really need, why doesn't NRDC get it?

The latest studies prove that 20% of electric power from wind is possible by 2015.  Without any backup or storage.  To do that triple the present installation rate must be acheived.

And grid transmission upgrade.  That upgrade is a perfect "New Deal" type project.  

It will actually reduce GHG, unlike the gas guzzling/fuel farming nonsense in the Lieberman-Warner act.  It will allow hybrid plugin vehicles to charge up on GHG free wind electricity.

Why is NRDC lobbying for the wrong bill?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Production tax credit for wind

http://capwiz.com/windenergy/issues/alert/?alertid=112328 ...

This is what we really need, why doesn't NRDC get it?

The latest studies prove that 20% of electric power from wind is possible by 2015.  Without any backup or storage.  To do that triple the present installation rate must be acheived.

And grid transmission upgrade.  That upgrade is a perfect "New Deal" type project.  

It will actually reduce GHG, unlike the gas guzzling/fuel farming nonsense in the Lieberman-Warner act.  It will allow hybrid plugin vehicles to charge up on GHG free wind electricity.

Why is NRDC lobbying for the wrong bill?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #5 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/ Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:31:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/5 Sorry for the confusion, Russ

My bad. I updated the post. I compare the Lieberman-Warner act to the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act to highlight how important it is to get it right this time. I couldn't really add much to Sean's critique, which I agree with.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Sorry for the confusion, Russ

My bad. I updated the post. I compare the Lieberman-Warner act to the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act to highlight how important it is to get it right this time. I couldn't really add much to Sean's critique, which I agree with.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #6 by Miles Grant http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/ Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:47:51 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/6 Life cycle GHG standards

The life cycle GHG standards in the 2007 energy bill DO require consideration of both direct and indirect land use change-related emissions, so they will make ever coming close to numbers like 36 billion gallons difficult, except for grandfathered corn ethanol refineries which were already under construction.

I'm totally confused by your title trashing Lieberman-Warner considering your post only makes a passing mention of it. Also, is your subhead supposed to be a reference to Lieberman-Warner? If so, it's the Climate Security Act.

http://www.nwf.org

]]> Life cycle GHG standards

The life cycle GHG standards in the 2007 energy bill DO require consideration of both direct and indirect land use change-related emissions, so they will make ever coming close to numbers like 36 billion gallons difficult, except for grandfathered corn ethanol refineries which were already under construction.

I'm totally confused by your title trashing Lieberman-Warner considering your post only makes a passing mention of it. Also, is your subhead supposed to be a reference to Lieberman-Warner? If so, it's the Climate Security Act.

http://www.nwf.org

]]> Comment #7 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/ Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:19:16 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/7 Thanks Miles, I fixed that also

I was trying to draw a parallel between the Climate Security act and the 2007 Energy Bill, which didn't work so well, so your confusion is justified. I based this post on two NRDC discussions of the bill, one with the title Energy Bill Summary, which does not appear to be the final summary. So, at this point I can only apologize for my ineptness.

"The life cycle GHG standards in the 2007 energy bill DO require consideration of both direct and indirect land use change-related emissions, so they will make ever coming close to numbers like 36 billion gallons difficult, except for grandfathered corn ethanol refineries which were already under construction."

I agree of course, but what purpose do the mandates serve, considering that biofuels today don't meet these standards? My point is that legislators did not know that at the time. What would this RFS look like had they known? Would we still have a mandate for 36 billion gallons? Probably, but we shouldn't.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Will biofuel producers be allowed to go bankrupt because they can't meet the standards?
Will biofuel producers find ways to meet the standards?
Will vested interests find ways to maintain government mandates and subsidies?

Calls to revisit biofuel mandates in Europe have not gotten very far to date.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world



]]> Thanks Miles, I fixed that also

I was trying to draw a parallel between the Climate Security act and the 2007 Energy Bill, which didn't work so well, so your confusion is justified. I based this post on two NRDC discussions of the bill, one with the title Energy Bill Summary, which does not appear to be the final summary. So, at this point I can only apologize for my ineptness.

"The life cycle GHG standards in the 2007 energy bill DO require consideration of both direct and indirect land use change-related emissions, so they will make ever coming close to numbers like 36 billion gallons difficult, except for grandfathered corn ethanol refineries which were already under construction."

I agree of course, but what purpose do the mandates serve, considering that biofuels today don't meet these standards? My point is that legislators did not know that at the time. What would this RFS look like had they known? Would we still have a mandate for 36 billion gallons? Probably, but we shouldn't.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Will biofuel producers be allowed to go bankrupt because they can't meet the standards?
Will biofuel producers find ways to meet the standards?
Will vested interests find ways to maintain government mandates and subsidies?

Calls to revisit biofuel mandates in Europe have not gotten very far to date.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world



]]> Comment #8 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/ Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:23:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/lieberman-warner-is-a-mess/8 Dr. X

Two comments:

Don't pick winners.  We don't need incentives for wind - we need a mechanism that pays a premium for any energy source that reduces our CO2 emissions.  A big part of the problem with L-W is that it picks winners.

A production tax is sub-optimal.  Much better to structure the revenue as a payment, so that the person creating the value gets directly paid (as opposed to having to then sell it to someone who needs a tax shield).  Details here.

]]> Dr. X

Two comments:

Don't pick winners.  We don't need incentives for wind - we need a mechanism that pays a premium for any energy source that reduces our CO2 emissions.  A big part of the problem with L-W is that it picks winners.

A production tax is sub-optimal.  Much better to structure the revenue as a payment, so that the person creating the value gets directly paid (as opposed to having to then sell it to someone who needs a tax shield).  Details here.

]]>