Tag Archives: agriculture
EPA Should Do More to Reduce Competition Between Food and Fuel Crops
WASHINGTON (August 6, 2013)—The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement today that it would allow food-based biofuels to make up the shortfall in cellulosic ethanol production this year was a missed opportunity to reduce pressure on food supplies and curb the clearing of forests for farmland, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said today. However, UCS experts are encouraged by EPA’s statement that it plans to reduce food based biofuel volumes in 2014 and urges the agency to act on this commitment as quickly as possible. The science advocacy group submitted comments to EPA earlier this year urging the agency to exercise the flexibility provided by Congress in implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to reduce competition between food and fuel while continuing to encourage the commercialization of the non-food cellulosic biofuel industry. The RFS was designed to promote renewable fuels that do not compete with food supplies. Unfortunately, EPA’s decision calls for so-called “advanced” food-based biofuels such as biodiesel and sugarcane ethanol to make up for a production shortfall in cleaner cellulosic biofuels this year. But UCS is optimistic the agency will correct the problem for 2014. In the announcement today, EPA stated its plans to reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel mandates in 2014 to reflect the slower-than-expected pace of cellulosic biofuel commercialization. “We have a responsibility to ensure we move towards cleaner fuels that won’t strain food supplies, accelerate agricultural expansion and drive deforestation,” said Jeremy Martin, a senior scientist with UCS’s Clean Vehicles Program. “The agency should revisit the overall mandate structure and set reasonable targets for the duration of the program — not just one year’s worth — to ensure we are meeting that responsibility.” Markets for corn, sugar and vegetable oil are tight and thus any expansion of mandates for food-based biofuels will put pressure on food prices, forcing the expansion of agricultural land into forested areas. “EPA has the authority to do what is right and prevent accelerating the expansion of food based biofuels such as sugarcane ethanol and biodiesel,” Martin said. “Cellulosic fuels still offer the best bet for replacing large amounts of oil without disrupting our food supplies.” Today EPA also extended the deadline to comply with the 2013 standards by four months, to June 30, 2014. When created in 2007, the RFS contained a 2013 goal of 1 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol. While the EPA’s decision to reduce the mandate reflects the state of current production capacity, the industry is scaling up rapidly and will continue to grow in the years to come. Ineos, for example, recently began commercial-scale production at a refinery that is turning yard and vegetative waste into fuel. Along with vehicle efficiency and other technologies, cellulosic fuels can help the country cut its projected oil use in half over the next 20 years. UCS research suggests there is enough non-food material in the United States, including wastes and fast-growing grasses, to meet the total 36 billion gallon biofuel target under the RFS. While progress has been slower than originally hoped in 2007, UCS believes the RFS is still moving production in the right direction. But to make the RFS work, EPA needs to update their analysis and targets. Martin has written about the critical decisions facing EPA over the future of biofuels on UCS’s blog, the Equation. He has also testified on biofuels policy at two recent congressional hearings. Continue reading
Revealed: The Keys To Reducing The Impact Of Agriculture On Climate Change
Research published in the journal Science (5th July 2013) shows that allowing land use to be determined purely by agricultural markets results in considerable financial and environmental costs to the public. While the research has looked specifically at the UK, the same methods could be applied to any area of the world with similar results for many countries. Land use in most of Europe is dominated by agriculture. Nearly half the total annual value of EU agriculture is based on public financial support surpassing 70%, 40% and 30% in the case of Ireland, UK and Spain, respectively to name a few. The study demonstrates the importance of bringing ecosystem services into decision-making and to make full use of the potential gains from working with the natural environment and the underpinning biophysical processes. The study acknowledges that this does not come without practical challenges. A key challenge concerns the mechanics of securing the participation of farmers in delivering land-use changes to benefit society. A recommendation that the research team puts forward involves the reform of the European Union’s (EU’s) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Recasting the CAP as a Payment for Ecosystem Services mechanism would reward farmers for delivering a bundle of key of ecosystem services including climate change mitigation by the reduction of emission of greenhouse gases, water regulation, recreation and biodiversity conservation. “The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy must account for the cost of not working with nature. It is time to reward farmers for securing the vital ecosystem services that are highly valued by society. Farmers can be the stewards of our landscapes so that we as a society we can pass them in a healthy state to the next generations.” Continue reading
Forestry And The Farm Bill
TUE JULY 23, 2013 Forestry and the Farm Bill By JULIA ALTEMUS As the U.S. House and Senate inched towards a Conference Committee on the farm bill last week, some believe the failure of Congress to pass a farm bill in 2012 (instead passing a nine-month extension), and the current stalemate, illustrates how impotent this policy has become. Some believed the extension was a gift to the taxpayer, who would have been stuck with paying for potentially exorbitantly expensive insurance, and price support subsidies, while others believed the extension eviscerated a score of important programs. With Congressional leaders, on both sides of the aisle, searching for inefficient, wasteful and outdated programs, at a time when federal budget deficits have simply become unsustainable; one thing is for sure, instead of addressing the urgent challenges our farm, food and wood fiber system faces, the farm bill has become a patchwork of programs that not only fails to support each other, but are often contradictory. Without a larger discussion about long-term goals for a system we want and can afford, this failure is no surprise. A potential solution being brought forward by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) is the replacement of permanent agricultural laws from 1938 and 1949 with the commodity title, which would allow the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP or food stamps, to continue as an appropriated entitlement rather than be formally reauthorized. It is still unclear when the House will agree to a conference committee and whether negotiators can produce a bill that could pass that chamber. Early indications are that the republican version of the bill will be unacceptable to nearly all democrats. Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) formally requested a conference on the farm bill last week, while she and other Senate leaders joined Administration officials in chastising the House for separating farm programs from SNAP. A group of republican House members began meeting last week to discuss the stand-alone nutrition title, and published reports indicated they were considering cuts in the neighborhood of $120 to $130 billion dollars over ten years, six times greater than the amount the original farm bill would have cut. If the Senate conferees demand a conference report that includes nutrition programs, it is unclear whether House conferees would report it back to the House, or whether it could even pass if they did. Unfortunately, many good programs funded by the farm bill are caught in the food stamp crossfire. Forest management, as well as forest research and forestry assistance, has long been within the jurisdictions of the Agriculture Committees. Although most forestry programs are permanently authorized, forestry has usually been addressed in the periodic farm bills. The 2008 farm bill contained a separate forestry title, with provisions establishing national priorities for forestry assistance. These provisions required statewide forest assessments and strategies; provided competitive funding for certain programs; created new programs for open space conservation and for emergency reforestation; and prohibited imports of illegally logged wood products. Forestry provisions were included in other titles as well—the conservation title revised the definition of conservation actions to include forestry activities for all conservation programs; the trade title required special reporting on softwood lumber imports; the energy title established two woody biomass energy programs; and the tax title included three provisions altering tax treatments for forests and landowners. These are all good provisions and are awaiting reauthorization. In addition, the 2013 House and Senate versions include several new and important forestry related provisions, with the majority originating in the House version. Provisions include codifying the Silvicultural Rule, repealing the Administrative Appeals Act, extending Stewardship Contracting, expanding forest health by including a 10,000 acre categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel reduction projects, expanding the Good Neighbor Authority, a categorical exclusion for salvage projects after a declared disaster, and a “know your customer” provision directing the U.S. Forest Service to analyze how the National Forests are meeting the needs of nearby wood consumers. The farm bill is reauthorized every five years. Assuming Congress will find a path forward and pass a bill this year, now is the time to address the many challenges facing our farm, food and wood fiber systems before the 2013 farm bill expires in 2018. We need a public policy agenda that supports a fair and sustainable system that builds resiliency and is able to withstand shocks in the market place, climate-induced events, and many other economic and environmental challenges. On behalf of the Montana Wood Products Association, I am Julia Altemus, thanks for listening. Continue reading
