25x’25

By all accounts coming out of the Commodity Classic in Anaheim, CA last week, Tom Vilsack gave the speech of his relatively brief tenure as Agriculture Secretary. Vilsack’s 30 minutes before thousands of grain and soybean producers has been alternately described as “heartfelt,” “effective” and a “home run.” In his first speech to a major gathering of agricultural producers since joining the Obama administration a little more than a year ago, Vilsack struck a theme that closely tracks the 25x’25 Vision for rural America, telling his audience of a multi-faceted plan to revitalize rural communities and make the cultivation and growth of the biofuels industry a key component of that plan.

Stating that “rural America is the heart, soul and guts of America,” Vilsack should be commended for his call for dual strategies of domestic and global expansion, in tandem with expanding non-farm rural opportunities. And while much of his speech addressed overseas marketing strategies, the secretary also promised to pursue the expansion of biotechnology and to sustain policies that foster the biofuels industry.

Vilsack struck the right note when he stressed the domestic importance of building up the biofuels industry, pointing to funds being made available through the energy title in the 2008 Farm Bill and citing the Obama administration’s support of green initiatives, including a major biofuels initiative announced last month. “We are going to make sure that biofuels is a national industry,” Vilsack said.

The speech offered a rhetorical follow-up in Anaheim to a more nuts-and-bolts presentation made before the Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee in Washington earlier in the week. That’s when Vilsack announced he’s pursuing a “Regional Innovation Initiative” that aims to reverse what he said were decades of recession for rural areas. He said a decline resulting from a poorer, older, less educated rural America continues to lose both jobs and population.

The initiative, he said, “will focus less on individual community and project-by-project efforts and focus more on recognizing that smaller communities are part of a regional economy and looking for ways in which we can bolster the regional economy in order to create greater activity.” Along with expanding rural broadband and linking local production with local consumption of farm products, the pillars of Vilsack’s initiative also include the growth of biofuels and biobased products, the development of ecosystem markets to pay farmers for storing carbon, and forest restoration and private land conservation.

Vilsack should be commended for his recognition that the approach to economic development in rural America must be overhauled and that a major path to reviving farm communities is through the promotion of strategies that play on their strengths. 25x’25 has long advocated that America’s farms, ranches and forestlands can help meet our nation’s energy needs and still provide ample, affordable and safe food, feed and fiber – all while providing the benefits of an improved economy, more jobs, a cleaner environment and a more secure nation. It is encouraging to see Secretary Vilsack’s clear and heartfelt articulation of those same goals.

25x'25 Policy/Funding 25x'25 Vision, Agriculture, Biofuels, clean energy, Climate Change, Congress, economic development, Emissions, energy security, ethanol, Farms, job creation, national security, renewable energy, rural America, Sustainability

While much of the debate over climate change revolves over the source of rising temperatures, there is broad consensus that the climate is indeed changing. U.S. average temperature has risen more than two degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years and is projected to rise more in the future. Precipitation has increased an average of about 5 percent over the same period and projections generally indicate that northern areas will become wetter, and southern areas, particularly in the West, will become drier. These changes directly impact agricultural productivity and profitability, and reinforce the need for policy makers to fully fund those programs that can help our nation’s farmers, ranchers and forestland owners adapt to changing climatic conditions.

The Obama administration’s budget proposal for fiscal 2011 includes $50 million for USDA to conduct basic research around steps farmers, ranchers and forest landowners can take to adapt to increasingly unstable weather patterns, increased fire risk and threats from insects and disease that may come with changes in climatic conditions. The department would make adaptation information available to farmers through the department’s extension network.

Adaptation research at USDA and across the federal government can lead to improved weather data collection and forecasts for farmers; technical assistance, such as extension services on new crop varieties; the development and sharing of knowledge on options in land use, forestry, and agriculture; better risk assessment; investment prioritization; and drought and saline-resistant crops.

An assessment based on dozens of existing climate change studies and put together by the U.S. Global Change Research Group, a panel of scientists, researchers and officials from 13 federal agencies, including USDA, said last year that climate change will increase productivity in certain crops and regions, but reduce productivity in others, particularly in the Midwest and Great Plains regions. The USGCRG says agriculture is one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate, but increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases and weather extremes will pose significant adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production.

Everyone recognizes that increased agricultural productivity will be required in the future to supply the needs of a more populous plant. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization says global food production will have to increase 70 percent by 2050. Research in increasing agricultural production will be key to feeding the world’s growing population, which is forecast to grow to about 9.1 billion people by mid-century, including a 33-percent rise to 5.2 billion people in Asia.Throughout history, agricultural enterprises have coped with changes in climate through changes in management and in crop or animal selection. However, according to the USGCRG, the projected changes in climate are likely to challenge the U.S. capacity to produce food, feed, fuel, and livestock products as efficiently as it does now.

The USGCRG says that while many crops show positive responses to elevated carbon dioxide and lower levels of warming, higher levels of warming often negatively affect growth and yields. Extreme events such as heavy downpours and droughts will reduce crop yields, and forage quality in pastures and rangelands generally declines with increasing carbon dioxide concentration. The researchers say increased heat, disease and weather extremes also are likely to reduce livestock productivity.

Providing nothing short of the best tools available to maximize U.S. agricultural production under any climatic circumstances is a policy that has kept the nation a global leader in the production of food, feed and fiber. To not fully fund research on how climate change could impact our agricultural output – not to mention producers’ net returns – through changes in growing conditions and reduced yields would undermine the very system that has allowed U.S. agriculture to grow the most diverse range of crops and animals in the world, resulting in more than $200 billion a year in safe, abundant and affordable food commodities. Congress has an obligation to fully fund USDA’s ongoing need to see how crop production might be influenced by extreme weather conditions.

25x'25 Carbon Initiative Agriculture, Climate Change, Emissions, House of Representatives, Senate, Sustainability, USDA

From starches, crop oils and animal fats to cellulose and methane, America’s farms, ranches and forests are capable of supplying much needed bioenergy feedstocks without compromising their ability to feed and clothe much of the world. Our rural areas can also be a bountiful source of wind, water, solar and geothermal power and a highly effective sink for carbon. And all the while, they can provide needed environmental services such as protecting and improving soil, water and air quality, enhancing wildlife habitat and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In approving several biofuel policies last month, the Obama administration has offered a good start on tapping into the energy potential of rural America. Now, with what appears to be a renewed focus on energy legislation on Capitol Hill, the White House and Congress need to maintain that momentum by agreeing on a stable, long-term, comprehensive energy plan and policy platform that creates new markets for renewable energy solutions from the land. And it’s time for all renewable energy stakeholders to engage with policy makers to bring about a secure framework for new and innovative means of production.

Such a plan enhances predictability and will build confidence among investors. With financial backing and the strength, creativity and productivity of bioenergy entrepreneurs, America’s farmers and foresters will rise to the challenge of feeding and fueling the nation. The key to success is giving the markets and innovators the lead to blaze new paths. The temptation to try to add more regulation to the mix, to over-steer, must be resisted. Any farmer will tell you that you can’t regulate a crop or a calf into growing. It takes planning, nurturing, patience and a little faith in the process.

Farmers, ranchers and foresters operate on a long horizon. What they plant this spring is often tied to crops years in the future. Shifting to energy crops such as those that may be grown for biomass or managed to sequester carbon requires many to make substantial investments in production and handling equipment. If we’re going to ask our nation’s farmers to stake their families’ future on renewable energy, we have to provide them with the security of a solid, long-term policy and strong market signals. That requires the harmonization of our food, energy and environmental policies. Energy security, national security and food security are all inextricably linked to each other and to how we treat our environment.

To reinforce the message and keep policy makers on a path that nurtures the clean energy sector, all stakeholders, from farms and forests to laboratories, board rooms and committee chambers, need to play a role in shaping integrated policies that meet the needs of the market and the goals set by the Congress.

It’s time for farmers, ranchers and forest managers, along with conservation, energy and business leaders to come together and forge consensus on energy and climate policies that makes sense. We need to listen to each other – really hear each other – and find ways to collaborate. The energy, the security, the jobs and the innovation are going to come from the field, from finding ways to use our land resources to address our food and energy needs and our environmental goals.

Clearly, creating a thriving renewable energy sector is about more than just tripling our biofuels production within the next 12 years, or even meeting 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, as advocated by 25x’25. The White House planted a great seed and put down the first application of fertilizer. It’s up to all stakeholders to work together and start cultivating our home-grown, clean energy sector with a stable, long-term energy policy so that it becomes a cornerstone of America’s new energy future.

25x'25 Policy/Funding 25x'25 Vision, Agriculture, anaerobic digestion, Biofuels, Biomass, Carbon, cellulosic, clean energy, Congress, ethanol, Farms, Forestry, Geothermal, green jobs, greenhouse gases, national security, Obama Administration, renewable energy, Solar, Sustainability, Wind

With the EPA final rule implementing a revised Renewable Fuels Standard announced almost a month ago, criticism from biofuel opponents that started out strident and a bit over the top shortly after the rule was dropped Feb. 2 has faded. Critics were quick to charge the agency had come up with convenient findings to support its determination that corn grain ethanol qualifies it as a conventional biofuel under the RFS2. However, time and a closer look at the EPA’s decision-making process underscore the environmental benefits of corn ethanol that advocates have claimed for several years.

The Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007 (EISA) set qualifications for three types of biofuel: conventional, which must reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by 20 percent when compared with gasoline. Advanced biofuels must reduce those emissions by 50 percent and cellulosic biofuels must produce a 60-percent reduction over gasoline.

EPA first said corn ethanol reduced GHGs by only 16 percent. However, corn ethanol from plants in production in 2007 when EISA was passed was grandfathered in as eligible to meet the graduating RFS2 requirements (in 2010, nearly 13 billion gallons of biofuels are required to go on the market, an increase from 11.1 billion gallons in 2009). Before the final rule adopted Feb. 2, virtually any corn ethanol from plants built after 2007 would not benefit from the RFS mandate and would have to go head-to-head with conventional gasoline on the vehicular-fuel market.

However, EPA correctly made the assumption that future corn ethanol plants will utilize dry mill technology and will not use coal to fuel production, determining that new plants will meet the “conventional” biofuels threshold by reducing GHGs by 20 percent, giving them wider access to the marketplace.

In setting the initial, lower threshold, the agency used as a factor “indirect land-use change” (ILUC), the highly-disputed concept that claims higher domestic corn production in the United States to meet ethanol demand is leading to the displacement of sensitive acreage overseas to make up for food production lost here. Since the passage of EISA, more studies have been done that look at the issue in much greater detail. And while the EPA still cites ILUC – a consideration deemed “dubious” and “problematic” by ethanol advocates – in reaching its most recent decision, the agency acknowledges that technology is continuing to advance yields, suggesting up to 230 bushels per acre by 2022 (the 2009 crop year average was a record 165.2 bu/acre, compared to less than 120 bu/acre 20 years ago). If ILUC was taken out of the equation, the EPA says corn ethanol would actually reduce GHGs by more than 50 percent.

EPA officials should be commended for looking at a broader array of evidence in reaching their determination. However, the science behind ILUC is not yet mature and any ILUC analysis should be done only under broadly accepted methodologies that have been thoroughly vetted and peer-reviewed. To ensure a fairer comparison, life-cycle analyses that include ILUC should be applied to the entire spectrum of transportation fuels, including petroleum-based fuels, and not just biofuels.

Compounding the disproportionate ILUC emphasis being placed on biofuels is the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) use of ILUC as a factor in severely restricting the use of corn grain ethanol as a renewable fuel under the state’s low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). CARB, which is under legal challenge from ethanol advocates over the exclusion of the corn-based fuel from the standard, should reopen public comment on the LCFS and reconsider its restrictive standard. The EPA has shown efficiently made, conventional corn ethanol provides solid, demonstrable environmental benefits and producers should not be denied full and open markets.

25x'25 Energy Resources Biofuels, cellulosic, Emissions, EPA, ethanol, Farms, renewable energy, Sustainability, switchgrass