25x’25

Much like the way the Waxman-Markey legislation was drafted when it was first introduced in the House last spring, the Kerry-Boxer measure introduced in the Senate last week fails to establish the foundational enabling policies needed to optimize the role of farms, ranches and forestlands in reducing the nation’s carbon footprint and combating global  climate change. However, at this juncture, the Kerry-Boxer energy and climate bill is a work in progress. The Senate should take advantage of the work done by progressive agricultural and forestry interests to insure final legislation has a properly constructed policy platform that will actually allow the full potential of solutions from the land to address our energy and climate change issues.

While the bill does contain a number of helpful improvements to the American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009 (ACES), including  a price control “market stability reserve” mechanism which would allow the domestic offset sector equal opportunity with international offset suppliers, on balance it represents a major step backward for harnessing climate solutions from the land. A glaring shortcoming in the Kerry-Boxer measure, when compared to the legislation that came out of the House, is the failure to designate USDA to run the offsets program, a role critical for the cost-effective and knowledgeable administration of the program.

Kerry-Boxer also does not provide for the five-year delay found in the ACES Act in the implementation of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) penalties on biofuels producers. The ILUC provision, which was established by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, was enacted without the benefit of mature and defensible scientific study. And while the Kerry-Boxer bill recognizes that all biomass, including that in the solid waste stream, is renewable, it limits the definition to only one proposed program, ignoring the many proposals for “renewable biomass” included in other energy legislative proposals currently in play.

In addition to mitigating higher energy and input costs, a key objective of final legislation should be to allow those sectors that provide carbon offsets, particularly agriculture and forestry, to deliver quick, low-cost, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in a volume significant enough to help meet the national goals, which start with 20-percent below 2005 emission levels by 2020 in the Kerry-Boxer measure. Any climate change regulatory system must provide farmers, ranchers and forestland owners with the incentives necessary to participate in the system and contribute to the effort to stem emissions.

Since the ACES Act was passed by the House, the 25x’25 Carbon Work Group, a panel of more than 50 experts from across all related scientific and academic fields has identified a number of additional areas where additional changes and provisions are needed.  These areas include a range of biological sequestration provisions that the Work Group believes must be enhanced to insure the effective functioning of offset markets in final climate change legislation.

It is crucial that members of the Senate address the entire set of biological sequestration offset issues, including permanence, reversals, risk and liability responsibility, operational workability, and fungible trading of offsets and allowances at one hundred percent of face value, to insure a functional offset system within cap and trade. Also, it’s important that definitions of additionality and baselines, which determine how farms and forests are rewarded for emission reductions, be flexible so as to avoid heavy overhead costs and limited rewards. The objective of any climate change regulatory system should be to maximize GHG emission reductions while minimizing the costs of achieving those reductions.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), a member of three committees influential in formulating climate change legislation (Energy, Agriculture and Finance), is taking the lead in developing an improved offset title to the Kerry-Boxer measure and is expected to introduce her amendment later this fall. The two-term senator says she expects the Senate Finance Committee to “be very involved with allocations” and is expected to use her position as chair of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Energy to continue serving as a champion for farm and forestland interests as the legislation moves forward.

There are considerable resources available to lawmakers as they work toward establishing a viable and equitable climate change regulatory system. The 25x’25 Alliance stands ready to help in this effort.

25x'25 Carbon Initiative Agriculture, Carbon, carbon offsets, Climate Change, Congress, Emissions, Federal Leadership, GHGs, greenhouse gases, House of Representatives, Senate, USDA