Trade and rural revitalization were the key topics that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack addressed in his the keynote speech at the 2010 Commodity Classic on Friday – but at the press conference it was anything goes.
During his speech, Vilsack talked about the importance of biotechnology and biofuels, especially stressing the economic impact projected for 2022 if we meet the Renewable Fuel Standard. “190,000 people will be employed in the biofuels industry and if you leverage all the indirect jobs it will be closer to 807,000 jobs,” Vilsack said. In addition, $95 billion will be invested in the expansion of the biofuels industry over the next 12 years. “Most importantly, it will prevent us from having to import $350 billion of foreign oil,” he added.
The speech was fine, but the Secretary’s press conference was much more interesting. In fact, it was the longest and most candid press conference I have seen with him yet. Questions ranged from Toyota versus US beef, to calling USDA the Department of Food, to whether E15 will be approved.
Last week, the EPA announced a delay in the decision on increasing the blend level to E15 until the end of the summer. Vilsack commented that the purpose of the delay is due to ongoing testing by the Department of Energy to determine what engines can use the higher blend without ill effects. It has already been established that newer vehicles, and all flex-fuel vehicles can use the higher blend safely, “Which suggests to me that we’re going to see an increase in the blend rate,” said Vilsack. He then noted that it will be important to use rural development resources to make sure the distribution systems create the opportunities for people to use higher blends.
Listen to Vilsack’s comments about E15 here:
Download his comments with this link: Vilsack comments on E15
The new rule for the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS2, represents the first time the federal government has ever had to develop regulations based on the unproven theory of international indirect land use change. This is kind of like trying to make a recipe without knowing the ingredients.
EPA’s Transportation and Regional Programs Division Director Sarah Dunham talked about how they did that during a presentation at the National Ethanol Conference this week.
She said that having to incorporate indirect land use change into the rule “contributed to the evolution of the science in this year. There’s no question the science evolved significantly over the last year through this process and will continue to evolve going forward.” However, she added, “Just because we issued a final rule doesn’t mean that it’s done, it’s just the first step in moving forward with this.”
In other words, they’re not sure whether this first recipe they have put together will be a cake or a mistake. It still needs more testing in the kitchen because of what they call “inherent uncertainty.”
“There is inherent uncertainty in these assessments,” Dunham said. “And we thought it was important to try to formally recognize that uncertainty” and incorporate it into the analysis. The National Academy of Sciences has been asked to do a review of the whole lifecycle assessment and indirect land use change component and report back in two years.
I would call this inherent insanity. Why in the world would our federal government try to regulate something based on a half-baked theory and uncertain projections? It makes no sense at all. It would make much more sense to throw out the entire indirect land use change modeling effort until the science is fully evolved, not just partially.
It’s official now. Humans beings are polluting the planet just by exhaling.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this week officially declared carbon dioxide, the stuff we exhale, as one of six greenhouse gases that “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.”
According to EPA, on-road vehicles contribute more than 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, but how much do humans contribute? From what I can figure – and correct me if I am wrong – there are 305 million people in the United States who exhale an average of 12 times per minute. There is approximately .037 grams of CO2 in each exhalation, which means we breathe out about 135 million grams of CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY MINUTE. That seems like a lot to me. Adding in the entire world population of nearly seven billion people (since everyone breathes, but not everyone drives a car) it’s up to about 3 billion grams per minute, if my math is right. So, I figure that if we would just exhale less, we could save the planet.
Seriously, the EPA conclusion could have serious ramifications for agriculture. The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) has serious concerns with the implications regulating GHG emissions could have for America’s corn farmers and the livestock industry. The American Farm Bureau Federation released a statement saying that EPA’s decision “could carry severe consequences for America’s farmers and ranchers.”
Despite the so-called “Climate gate” emails that have raised questions in the last couple of weeks about the manipulation of scientific data with regard to global warming caused by GHG emissions, EPA states that, “Scientific consensus shows that as a result of human activities, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are at record high levels and data shows that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years, with the steepest increase in warming in recent decades.”
You would think that would cause world leaders and our own government to at least want to take a second look at the whole issue to see if there really is a major cause for concern.
You would think, but then again – don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
Apparently, last week’s International Energy Agency (IEA) numbers regarding future oil supplies were fudged to protect the innocent or at least our frail economic recovery. According to a whistleblower who whispered in the ear of The Guardian, the world is much closer to running out of oil that we think.
So, what is to be gained or lost by such skullduggery? Stockbrokers, bankers and oil investors jumping out of windows…sure, but what is the downside? (Insert sarcasm here).
The comments in the UK’s respected Guardian stated that the IEA has inflated its 2009 report of oil reserves for fear that the truth would shock world markets into a reactionary panic. IEA is alleged to have put its role as an industry watchdog in the kennel for the time being to fend off a potential buying panic…even at the risk of being exposed for overplaying supplies and chances for finding increased reserves.
On face value this might seem to be based on at least a modicum of twisted logic, but what are the ramifications for world governments who govern, plan and even invest based on IEA’s data? Consider that they also develop their own energy policies based on such essential information.
According to the Guardian’s high-level IEA source, estimates of global oil production growing from its current level of 83 million barrels per day to 105 million barrels per day are as bogus as the Tooth Fairy. The source said many IEA officials believe even 90 million barrels per day is unreachable, but the agency will not lower its forecast because it fears panic could spread through financial markets.
If we have indeed entered the “Peak Oil Zone” (that strange and unfamiliar place where we actually feel the pressure to get real about “energy policy” not oil policy) then it is time to fess up like an alcoholic at an AA meeting. “Hi my name is Joe Consumer and I have a petroleum problem.” (more…)
During a House Agriculture Subcommittee hearing today on the future of next generation biofuels, full committee chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) challenged a comment made in the opening statement of USDA Under Secretary Dr. Rajiv Shah.
While praising the agriculture industry for meeting the demand for corn-based ethanol, Dr. Shah stated that “very importantly — increased corn acreage supported greater ethanol output.”
Not so, said Chairman Peterson. “We’re virtually using the same corn acreage that we did way back in 1977,” said Peterson. “The big difference is we had a 90.8 bushel average in 1977 and today we’re up to 164 bushels.”
He said that the mistaken belief that we are increasing acreage is perpetuating criticism of ethanol and stifling investment in next generation biofuels. “All of this foolishness about international land use and what’s going on in Brazil and all this other negative stuff that’s being put out by different interest groups with different agendas … it’s no damn wonder that nobody’s investing,” the chairman said bluntly. “People who want cellulosic ethanol have got to realize that corn ethanol has created the opportunity for us to even do this.”
“That word is not getting out to the public,” he continued. “All they here about is how terrible it is and how we’re going to starve everybody and all this other baloney that’s out there.” Making statements that farmers are increasing acreage to meet ethanol demand, Peterson says, “does a disservice by ginning up all these bogus arguments that we’ve been hearing.”
The concept of taxing sodas seems to have hit a sweet spot with some as a means to pay for health care.
Always the leader in ideas like this, California plans to hold hearings in the state legislature next month that may lead to taxes or fees on soda as a way of addressing obesity and healthcare problems in the state. A hearing of the Select Committee on Obesity and Diabetes will “hear from experts regarding the growing scientific evidence of links between soda consumption and obesity.” Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) says they need “to do more to educate the public about the health effects of drinking too much soda and consider options for reducing soda consumption among children.”
That sounds all well and good. From the federal level all the way down to the local level there is increasing emphasis on educating people to make healthier food choices, which would includes drinking more water or milk and less sugary drinks. But, whether taxes on soda would be used for better education or to pay for health care costs associated with obesity, the losers will be consumers – especially those with the lowest incomes. An additional tax on beverages would most heavily impact the people who are struggling the most in the current economy. A tax of a penny an ounce would add 12 to 20 cents on the average soda.
You may have seen the ads that Americans Against Food Taxes (AAFT) has been running opposing the concept of taxing food or beverages. AAFT notes that the food and beverage industry has already been working to reduce childhood obesity through innovation, nutrition education, and encouraging physical activity. Many, if not most, schools have removed soda machines and have limited the amount of high sugar, high fat foods and beverages in school lunch programs.
The biggest problem with the whole taxing concept is that it will probably not do anything to deter consumption, which is allegedly the goal, especially among the lower income groups. Proof of this is cigarette taxes. The prevalence of smoking is higher in those who have spent less time in school (9-11 years – incidence 38%) and those who are living on the poverty line (33%). It is very likely that a soda tax would have little impact – probably none at all – on the people who are most at risk for obesity-related illnesses.
You can join the fight and support AAFT’s efforts by going to www.nofoodtaxes.com.
A new climate change bill was introduced this week – but is it any better than the first one?
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) debuted the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act,” an 821-page bill designed to “create clean energy jobs, reduce pollution, and protect American security by enhancing domestic energy production and combating global climate change,” as well as creating millions of green energy jobs. Part of that includes reducing carbon emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 compared to 2005 levels.
“This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our energy future and makes it clear that we will combat global climate change with American ingenuity. It is our country’s defense against the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate change,” said Kerry. “Our health, our security, our economy, our environment, all demand we reinvent the way America uses energy. Our addiction to foreign oil hurts our economy, helps our enemies and risks our security.”
Senator Boxer said, “We know clean energy is the ticket to strong, stable economic growth — it’s right here in front of us, in the ingenuity of our workers and the vision of our entrepreneurs. We must seize this opportunity, or others will move ahead.”
However, reaction to the measure has been mixed. U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is not a fan.
“As I have stated many times before, I want to support legislation that addresses climate change and provides a more secure energy future for America. Unfortunately, the legislation introduced today by Senators Boxer and Kerry follows the House-passed bill down the path of higher energy costs, job losses and economic pain for no benefit. Further, it would only hurt farmers, ranchers and forest landowners and provide them no opportunity to recoup the higher costs they will pay for energy and the other inputs necessary to work the land. I cannot support this bill.”
If there is one thing certain about indirect land use change (ILUC) it would be that it is uncertain.
In a letter this week to Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson used the word “uncertainty” four times in referring to using ILUC modeling for implementation of the expanded Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2).
Jackson said in her letter that it is “clear that there are significant uncertainties associated with these estimates and in particular, with the estimate of indirect land use change.”
“Therefore, I have asked my staff to quantify the uncertainty associated with specifically the international indirect land use change emissions. They are working closely with USDA as well as incorporating feedback from experts who are commenting on the rule. This analysis will allow us to quantify the impact of the uncertainty on the lifecycle emissions. We will present these estimates in the final rule, and I plan to incorporate those estimates of uncertainty in my regulatory decisions.”
After receiving the letter, Sen. Harkin withdrew an amendment to the Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations Act which would have prohibited the EPA from spending funds to include international ILUC emissions in the implementation of the RFS2 for a period of one year. “I think our amendment got EPA’s attention,” Harkin said.
The comment period on the implementation of the RFS2 ends today and according to Jackson, the EPA has already received “thousands of comments, and expects to get many more by the closing deadline.” She is certain about that.
Now is the time for all good corn growers to come to the aid of their country.
The September 25 deadline for comments on the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) is coming up this week and growers are urged to make their voices heard on this important issue.
If you have not done so yet, now is the time. The National Corn Growers Association is one of many agricultural and biofuels organizations that offers an easy way to make comments directly to the Environmental Protection Agency. Just click here for more information.
The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) has published shocking news in a new report: federal subsidies for fossil fuels are twice that of renewables.
Unbelievable. But, that’s what the report says, according to a summary on the ELI report store website.
The largest U.S subsidies to fossil fuels are attributed to tax breaks that aid foreign oil production, according to research released by ELI. The study, which reviewed fossil fuel and energy subsidies for Fiscal Years 2002-2008, reveals that the lion’s share of energy subsidies supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases. Fossil fuels benefited from approximately $72 billion over the seven-year period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion.
“The combination of subsidies—or ‘perverse incentives’— to develop fossil fuel energy sources, and a lack of sufficient incentives to develop renewable energy and promote energy efficiency, distorts energy policy in ways that have helped cause, and continue to exacerbate, our climate change problem,” notes ELI Senior Attorney John Pendergrass. “With climate change and energy legislation pending on Capitol Hill, our research suggests that more attention needs to be given to the existing perverse incentives for ‘dirty’ fuels in the U.S. Tax Code.”
The report found that about $16.8 billion in subsidies went to corn-based ethanol over the seven year time frame.
During his speech, Vilsack talked about the importance of biotechnology and biofuels, especially stressing the economic impact projected for 2022 if we meet the Renewable Fuel Standard. “190,000 people will be employed in the biofuels industry and if you leverage all the indirect jobs it will be closer to 807,000 jobs,” Vilsack said. In addition, $95 billion will be invested in the expansion of the biofuels industry over the next 12 years. “Most importantly, it will prevent us from having to import $350 billion of foreign oil,” he added.
EPA’s Transportation and Regional Programs Division Director Sarah Dunham talked about how they did that during a presentation at the 
According to EPA, on-road vehicles contribute more than 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, but how much do humans contribute? From what I can figure – and correct me if I am wrong – there are 305 million people in the United States who exhale an average of 12 times per minute. There is approximately .037 grams of CO2 in each exhalation, which means we breathe out about 135 million grams of CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY MINUTE. That seems like a lot to me. Adding in the entire world population of nearly seven billion people (since everyone breathes, but not everyone drives a car) it’s up to about 3 billion grams per minute, if my math is right. So, I figure that if we would just exhale less, we could save the planet.
Apparently, last week’s International Energy Agency (IEA) numbers regarding future oil supplies were fudged to protect the innocent or at least our frail economic recovery. According to a whistleblower who whispered in the ear of The Guardian, the world is much closer to running out of oil that we think.
While praising the agriculture industry for meeting the demand for corn-based ethanol, Dr. Shah stated that “very importantly — increased corn acreage supported greater ethanol output.”
Always the leader in ideas like this, California plans to hold hearings in the state legislature next month that may lead to taxes or fees on soda as a way of addressing obesity and healthcare problems in the state. A hearing of the Select Committee on Obesity and Diabetes will “hear from experts regarding the growing scientific evidence of links between soda consumption and obesity.” Senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) says they need “to do more to educate the public about the health effects of drinking too much soda and consider options for reducing soda consumption among children.”
You may have seen the ads that 
“As I have stated many times before, I want to support legislation that addresses climate change and provides a more secure energy future for America. Unfortunately, the legislation introduced today by Senators Boxer and Kerry follows the House-passed bill down the path of higher energy costs, job losses and economic pain for no benefit. Further, it would only hurt farmers, ranchers and forest landowners and provide them no opportunity to recoup the higher costs they will pay for energy and the other inputs necessary to work the land. I cannot support this bill.”
If there is one thing certain about indirect land use change (ILUC) it would be that it is uncertain.
The September 25 deadline for comments on the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) is coming up this week and growers are urged to make their voices heard on this important issue.
Unbelievable. But, that’s what the report says, according to a summary on the