In need of a clean | Checkbiotech

Home | Contact Us | Partnership | Site Map

left shadow

Checkbiotech - for emerging fields of science

NEWSLETTERS SUBMIT CONTENT

Checkbiotech Home

Sign In | Register

bottom shadow


	View Edit Domain: BioEnergy Title: * Body: America’s climate-change bill is a bundle of compromises<br /> <br /> The headline is a big one: for the first time, America’s House of Representatives agreed, by 219 votes to 212, on Friday June 25th to cap emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. The bill envisions modest reductions of 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, but the cuts get more swingeing over time (under the assumption that technology to mitigate emissions will improve). By 2050 the cuts should hit 83%.<br /> <br /> But environmental campaigners have gritted their teeth as the bill has passed through the legislative process. Drafted by Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, with support from the Obama administration, the bill originally envisioned a cap-and-trade system whereby credits conferring the right to emit greenhouse gases would be sold to the highest bidders. The revenue from such an auction would be used to offset increasing energy bills.<br /> <br /> But to the ire of the green faithful, the bill will now give away 85% of the permits to emit carbon, while auctioning off the rest. Even in that form, though, the bill looked like it might generate opposition from fiscally conservative Democrats or those that represented states with lots of farmers. The support of those Democrats would be needed to get the legislation past near-unanimous Republican opposition.<br /> <br /> To mollify the farmers, Mr Waxman had to agree that “indirect land-use changes” would not affect how American farmers producing crops to make ethanol would be considered under the bill. Farmers had howled that, by the original proposals, planting more crops to produce ethanol would mean less land devoted to food crops. This would clearly cause food prices to rise. Farmers in (say) Brazil might then cut down Amazon rainforest to make up the shortfall in America. That chopped-down Amazon would have counted against the Iowan corn farmer when carbon credits were doled out. Mr Waxman agreed to suspend the provision for five years, so the National Academy of Sciences could further study the subject.<br /> <br /> The next big trade-off also came late in the day at the insistence of the farmers. The Department of Agriculture, rather than the Environmental Protection Agency, will determine what counts as a carbon “offset”. This means that farmers who prevent carbon emissions by, for example, planting trees or reducing tillage, would get carbon credits. The EPA is reckoned to be a tough regulator that would make sure farmers did not get credits for doing things that they would do anyway. The Department of Agriculture is expected to be more friendly to farmers.<br /> <br /> Many of the mainstream environmental groups-the Natural Resources Defence Council, the Environmental Defence Fund, the Sierra Club and others-have said that the bill is flawed but far better than nothing. More than that, they claim that once in place it can be tightened over time.<br /> <br /> But the bill must pass the Senate where farm states have even more clout than in the House (since each state, no matter how sparsely populated, gets two senators). It must go through another clutch of committees, each of which is susceptible to lobbying by special interests with long experience of getting their way. The energy committee, for example, has already passed a bill on renewables that has disappointed greens. The Senate’s majority leader, Harry Reid, wants a vote on the package by mid-September.<br /> <br /> With just a few months to go before global talks in Copenhagen on a successor to the Kyoto protocol other big countries are showing their hands on climate change. Russia and Japan have announced targets that are well shy of the goals set by European countries, currently leading the world with their green ambitions. China and India are refusing to countenance any hard ceilings on their own emissions. An American carbon bill is regarded as a necessary step before anything of substance can be agreed in Copenhagen. But a weak bill might mean that the impetus for serious discussions is lacking.<br /> <br /> Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2009. All rights reserved.<br /> <br /> <br /> Captcha: Please Enter Code : * Time Zone: * Select the time zone Vocabularies Newsletter: Domain: Show summary in full view Input format Filtered HTML Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically. Lines and paragraphs break automatically. Full HTML Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically. Lines and paragraphs break automatically. news_filter Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically. More information about formatting options			Related Articles USDA meets Obama's 30-day biofuels directive to help meet co... USDA Announces Funding for Two Renewable Energy Programs Obama makes 11th-hour climate change push Province funds greener industry Last-Minute Nod to Farmers Could Undermine Climate Bill Sec. Vilsack to headline National Ethanol Conference U.S. Biofuel Camelina Production Set to Soar Obama to outline biofuels strategy Fiberight cellulosic ethanol project lands $25M USDA loan gu... Wood panel workers plan biomass subsidies protest Top BioEnergy Articles

Home | Partnership | Contact Us | Site Map | News Site Map
© 2000-2012 Checkbiotech.org | Disclaimer