Administrative Atmosphere Changing for Climate Legislation
President-elect Obama and his top energy advisors have indicated that global climate change is second only to the economic crisis on the official environment and energy agenda, legitimizing it as a national concern and priority for action. Expressing and rallying support for his focus on climate change, Obama said “I support implementation of an economy-wide cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80% below 1990 levels by 2050” and, “when I am president… any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”
While the President’s agenda will likely drive new climate change legislation, the process is not exactly simple. During the tenures of the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses, climate change legislation was drafted, introduced, amended, re-introduced, considered and tabled several times. The two most mature pieces of legislation from the last Congress (110th) provide a platform for discussion:
- The (Dingell-Boucher) Committee on Energy and Commerce Climate Change Legislation Discussion Draft (House) (not yet introduced)
- S.3036 Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (Senate) (passed in Committee with an amendment by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works)
The bills are relatively similar, lengthy and complicated pieces of legislation. Both establish a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the market. Although agriculture does contribute to GHG emissions, some researchers claim that only a small portion (about 10%) of the total GHG offset potential from agriculture is related to emissions reduction, and about 90% can be achieved from soil carbon sequestration. In the drafted legislation, agriculture as an industry is not regulated according to GHG emissions. Instead, it is treated according to its potential to offset emissions from other “capped” industries (i.e. importers of fossil fuels) which elect to pay for the offsets from sequestration, rather than reduce their emissions below the cap.
Offset Optimism: Soil Carbon Sequestration
The beautiful thing about soil carbon sequestration (as opposed to some other technology-intensive sequestration options) is that much of the technology is relatively simple and inexpensive. It also typically includes additional benefits, such as enhancing soil quality for long-term agronomic productivity and helping to control erosion. Offset allowances via soil carbon sequestration are already available for purchase from private companies such as the Carbon Farmers of America, the Chicago Climate Exchange and the National Carbon Offset Coalition, among others, local, national and international.
Optimism Offset… Concern and Criticism for Offset Allowances
Despite enthusiasm for sequestration opportunities, the concept of offset allowances is criticized for discouraging real action to reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, there is general acknowledgment of the finite capacity of soils to store carbon. Nevertheless, all major climate change discussions have included offset allowances as an important element, including the Kyoto Protocol. President-elect Obama lent his support for domestic offsets by saying "I will also develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, creating new opportunities for rural America to help solve the climate crisis."
A lack of data verifying sequestration of carbon in soil based on management practices enhances the unease and criticism of offsets. For instance, scientists generally agree that the conversion of native grassland vegetation to agriculture has released soil carbon stores across the globe. Linear thinking suggests that the reverse conversion of cropland to grassland would thereby sequester carbon, and indeed some research verifies this. However, other research refutes the generalization, indicating that site characteristics may be more important than land use in determining the carbon sequestration potential of cropland versus grassland. However, in the language of the current climate change legislation drafts, “practices that increase agricultural soil carbon sequestration” and “conversion of cropland to rangeland or grassland” are considered side by side, as though both provide equally viable offsets for GHG emissions. Perhaps more precise language regarding the efficacy and viability of land-use conversion as an offset strategy will support the overall concept of offsets as a part of the strategy to achieve anthropogenic GHG reductions.
Climate and Carbon and Ag… Bridging Science and Policy
The support suggested by President-elect Obama’s statements and the climate change bills awaiting discussion in the upcoming session of Congress might mean the US will soon see rapid progress on climate change legislation, and that the agriculture sector will have a substantial role in making it work. Soil carbon sequestration has been and will continue to be an important theme moving forward with both a domestic energy plan and new climate change legislation. It is incumbent on agronomists and crop and soil scientists to clarify the real capacity of agricultural practices for soil carbon sequestration, to inform legislators and address the concerns about its viability as an offset for GHG emissions. By forming relationships with their congressional representatives, ASA-CSSA-SSSA members working in this area improve the likelihood that lawmakers receive up-to-date, relevant information when the issues are considered at the federal level. The Science Policy Office exists to help members establish and maintain such relationships. Contact us to learn more about your role as a scientist in the political process.
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Climate Debate--Terrestrial Systems
Summary of Climate Change Legislation
A cap and trade system is a system where economic sectors, broadly defined as electrical generation, industrial, and transportation, will be required to register with a Federal Greenhouse Gas Registry managed by a non-government entity (in S. 2191 the Climate Change Credit Corporation).
The covered facilities under the regulated sectors of the economy are allocated emissions allowances each year (2012-2050) that equal 100% of the total emissions for the broadly defined sectors in a given year. The goal is to limit the emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), effectively reducing emissions over the bill’s lifetime. The sum value of allocated emissions allowances equals the cap; each emissions allowance allows a covered facility the authorization to emit 1 carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Emissions allowances are considered to be “under the cap”. The environmental lobby will work towards reducing the cap, i.e. less emissions; whereas other lobbies work for a higher- or no- cap.
The offset allowances outside the cap are by their nature more stringent, but no farmer is required to participate in the offset program. The offset allowance is a regulated allowance monitored by the EPA. These allowances require a unit of reduction in the quantity of emissions or an increase in sequestration equal to 1 carbon dioxide equivalent at an entity that is not a covered facility. The reduction in emissions at the said facility, or increase in sequestration, is eligible to be used as an additional means of compliance for the offset certification submission requirements established under the emissions allowances section of the bill. These offset allowances are beyond the cap and could, if they are not true forms of sequestration (i.e. where sequestration is the capture, permanent separation, isolation, or removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, as determined by the EPA Administrator), weaken the bill. As a result there is pressure on the land-based sequestration lobby to develop a very scrupulous set of measuring, monitoring and verification criteria to ensure a high level of rigor.
What is happening in Congress and the Administration...
The Congressional leadership has stated that Climate Change is a priority for the 110th Congress. However, if movement on the bill does not occur in June (and this is questionable), it is likely that next year’s bills (introduced in the new Congress) will have a new approach. New Climate Change bills introduced in the 111th Congress will be shaped in the presence of several new circumstances. Next year, Senator John Warner (R-VA) will no longer be in office, meaning that a new Republican must step forward to co-sponsor. It is unclear who would be willing to do so. Additionally, the bill will likely be assigned to the Committee on Environment and Public Works (who authorizes language for the EPA), and needs to be passed by that committee before it goes to the Senate floor. That means that it will have to have bipartisan support from that committee. Finally, the new President will have to sign that bill into law. It is undetermined who will win the presidency and if that individual will be supportive of climate change legislation.
In short, there are many factors weighing into the climate debate on the domestic front. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
We are interested to hear from you! What is the role of our Societies in this debate? Please let us know what you think!
More links about Climate:
A cap and trade system is a system where economic sectors, broadly defined as electrical generation, industrial, and transportation, will be required to register with a Federal Greenhouse Gas Registry managed by a non-government entity (in S. 2191 the Climate Change Credit Corporation).
The covered facilities under the regulated sectors of the economy are allocated emissions allowances each year (2012-2050) that equal 100% of the total emissions for the broadly defined sectors in a given year. The goal is to limit the emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), effectively reducing emissions over the bill’s lifetime. The sum value of allocated emissions allowances equals the cap; each emissions allowance allows a covered facility the authorization to emit 1 carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Emissions allowances are considered to be “under the cap”. The environmental lobby will work towards reducing the cap, i.e. less emissions; whereas other lobbies work for a higher- or no- cap.
The offset allowances outside the cap are by their nature more stringent, but no farmer is required to participate in the offset program. The offset allowance is a regulated allowance monitored by the EPA. These allowances require a unit of reduction in the quantity of emissions or an increase in sequestration equal to 1 carbon dioxide equivalent at an entity that is not a covered facility. The reduction in emissions at the said facility, or increase in sequestration, is eligible to be used as an additional means of compliance for the offset certification submission requirements established under the emissions allowances section of the bill. These offset allowances are beyond the cap and could, if they are not true forms of sequestration (i.e. where sequestration is the capture, permanent separation, isolation, or removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, as determined by the EPA Administrator), weaken the bill. As a result there is pressure on the land-based sequestration lobby to develop a very scrupulous set of measuring, monitoring and verification criteria to ensure a high level of rigor.
What is happening in Congress and the Administration...
The Congressional leadership has stated that Climate Change is a priority for the 110th Congress. However, if movement on the bill does not occur in June (and this is questionable), it is likely that next year’s bills (introduced in the new Congress) will have a new approach. New Climate Change bills introduced in the 111th Congress will be shaped in the presence of several new circumstances. Next year, Senator John Warner (R-VA) will no longer be in office, meaning that a new Republican must step forward to co-sponsor. It is unclear who would be willing to do so. Additionally, the bill will likely be assigned to the Committee on Environment and Public Works (who authorizes language for the EPA), and needs to be passed by that committee before it goes to the Senate floor. That means that it will have to have bipartisan support from that committee. Finally, the new President will have to sign that bill into law. It is undetermined who will win the presidency and if that individual will be supportive of climate change legislation.
In short, there are many factors weighing into the climate debate on the domestic front. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
We are interested to hear from you! What is the role of our Societies in this debate? Please let us know what you think!
More links about Climate:
President Bush
Congress-House
House Committee on Science and Technology
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Congress-Senate
Foriegn Relations
Environment and Public Works
Monday, May 07, 2007
Farming Carbon
The House Committee on Natural Resources recently held a hearing on geological and terrestrial sequestration of carbon dioxide. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a similar hearing in March.
Congress' new enthusiasm for technological climate change solutions has spread across both parties and throughout the Washington DC. On Tuesday, May 1 Senator Saxby Chambliss issued a press release on his hopes for voluntary carbon offset trading as a supplement to farm income.
Currently, farmers who wish to profit from the sequestration potential of their soils can sell carbon credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The exchange offers binding contracts to companies and cooperatives that wish to voluntarily offset their emissions. The CCX does not certify individual farms for sequestration. Instead, it relies on third-parties called aggregators who compile databases of farmers willing to adopt carbon-friendly management practices. From those databases, CCX randomly selects farms for field visits. Once an aggregator’s sample farms are certified its entire portfolio is ready for trading.
After an aggregator trades its portfolio, individual farmers receive their allotted share of the sale less a 10 percent administrative fee for the aggregator. There are only two aggregators presently working to certify conservation-minded farmers - the National Farmers Union’s Carbon Credit Program and the Iowa Farm Bureau Carbon Credit Aggregation Program.
Under both NFU and Iowa Farm Bureau aggregation plans all producers willing to adopt conservation tillage best practices are credited with 0.5 metric ton of carbon for each acre of eligible no-till cropping and 0.75 ton per acre for qualifying grass stands each year of the contract.
To be eligible, lands must be classified as "crop land" by the USDA's Farm Service Agency. Producers must also agree to use conservation tillage as defined in the Natural Resources Conservation Service National Handbook of Conservation Practices.
According to the Iowa Farm Bureau these definitions are: No-till/Strip-till - Managing the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and other plant residue on the surface year-round while growing crops in narrow slots or tilled or residue-free strips in soil previously untilled by full width inversion implements.
Fallow: In areas where non-tillage fallow is an acceptable practice, no credits shall be issued for the year in which the land is fallowed.
Crop Residue Removal: No credits shall be issued on otherwise eligible cropland (row crops and small grains) during any year in which crop residue is removed by harvest or burning. Crop harvest is permitted for alfalfa and grass hay and through grazing of grass.
As the programs have expanded, aggregators have placed additional regional requirements on sequestering farmers. The Iowa Farm Bureau's requirements are available here.
Since 2003, CCX carbon prices have hovered around $4 per ton of sequestered carbon. Assuming a price of $4 per ton, participating farmers will receive $2.00 per acre for no-till and $3.00 per acre for grass stands, minus the aggregation fee.
At present, aggregators don't attempt to gauge the carbon impact of individual farms nor do they quantify counterbalancing emissions of traces gases. Hopefully, ASA/CSSA/SSSA members can play a constructive role in the CCX, providing the scientific basis on which aggregators will improve their climate accounting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)