The Climate Bill’s Biofuel Boondoggle

flickr user aero nerd

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


In what may be this week’s worst amendment to the Waxman-Markey climate bill, a midwestern Congressman has introduced a provision that would ban the EPA from accounting for the full carbon footprint of biofuels.

Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), the powerful chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, is expected to attach the amendment before releasing the bill to the House floor, where a vote is expected as early as tomorrow. The change would prevent the EPA from accounting for the way that growing biofuel crops in the U.S. drives food production abroad, causing deforestation that contributes to climate change. Ignoring this “indirect land-use change“–the technical term for a phenemon that can account for up to 40 percent of corn-based ethanol’s carbon emissions–would allow the fuel to qualify under the 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard, making it eligible for government subsidies.

In effect, the ethanol industry is hiding behind the difficulty of calculating its own environmental footprint. Though the EPA  has already devised a method to account for the land-use impacts of biofuels, the amendment prohibits the agency from implementing it for six years, at which point the National Academy of Sciences will have completed a study that is supposed to resolve lingering uncertanties with the method. 

 

Yet those “uncertainties” are much smaller than Congress wants to admit. In California, regulators have already spent the past year and a half closely studying ethanol’s land use impacts (part of an effort to calculate how it could be used to meet the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which mandates a 10 percent reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity of all fuels by 2020). The state commissioned three major universities to study the issue, held numerous workshops with industry, reviewed the ample peer-reviewed literature on the subject, and ran models to test its assumptions. The result? A finding that corn-based ethanol would at the very best release 18.7 percent less greenhouse gas than conventional fuel–still not enough to meet the 20 percent reduction needed to qualify for the federal Renewable Fuel Standard.

And that’s the rosiest scenario. When the state accounted for more realistic land-use impacts, four of the 11 corn-based ethanols it reviewed released more greenhouse gasses than regular gasoline.

So here’s California’s message to Congress: “There is an uncertainty associated with land-use emissions of biofuels,” grants Anthony Eggert, science and technology policy advisor to the California Air Resources Board. “But we do know enough to know that there is an impact. It’s not zero. And we think our estimate that we currently have is a good one.”

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

Our fall fundraising drive is off to a rough start, and we very much need to raise $250,000 in the next couple of weeks. If you value the journalism you get from Mother Jones, please help us do it with a donation today.

As we wrote over the summer, traffic has been down at Mother Jones and a lot of sites with many people thinking news is less important now that Donald Trump is no longer president. But if you're reading this, you're not one of those people, and we're hoping we can rally support from folks like you who really get why our reporting matters right now. And that's how it's always worked: For 45 years now, a relatively small group of readers (compared to everyone we reach) who pitch in from time to time has allowed Mother Jones to do the type of journalism the moment demands and keep it free for everyone else.

Please pitch in with a donation during our fall fundraising drive if you can. We can't afford to come up short, and there's still a long way to go by November 5.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Our fall fundraising drive is off to a rough start, and we very much need to raise $250,000 in the next couple of weeks. If you value the journalism you get from Mother Jones, please help us do it with a donation today.

As we wrote over the summer, traffic has been down at Mother Jones and a lot of sites with many people thinking news is less important now that Donald Trump is no longer president. But if you're reading this, you're not one of those people, and we're hoping we can rally support from folks like you who really get why our reporting matters right now. And that's how it's always worked: For 45 years now, a relatively small group of readers (compared to everyone we reach) who pitch in from time to time has allowed Mother Jones to do the type of journalism the moment demands and keep it free for everyone else.

Please pitch in with a donation during our fall fundraising drive if you can. We can't afford to come up short, and there's still a long way to go by November 5.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate