Stabenow Amendment Step in Right Direction for Agriculture
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), along with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and four other senators, should be commended for their sponsorship of legislation unveiled this week that further supports and clarifies the opportunities for the agriculture and forestry sectors in a climate change regulatory system. The bill is an amendment that would modify climate change legislation that, until now, had been considered a non-starter among agricultural interests. The so-called Kerry-Boxer bill, passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today, provides little in itself that would allow farms, ranches and forestlands to contribute to the fight against climate change or benefit from practices that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
And while the Stabenow amendment represents a significant improvement over the agricultural provisions in Title V of the House-passed American Clean Energy Security Act (ACES), more can be done by lawmakers to maximize the role of U.S. agriculture and forestry in stemming climate change before final legislation is adopted.
The positive steps taken by the Stabenow amendment include the certainty that agriculture and forestry will not fall under the offset title cap and the explicit designation of USDA as the agency responsible for a farm and forestry offsets program under a cap-and-trade system. The amendment provides the clearest path to date to an operationally and environmentally acceptable program for biological sequestration offsets, the program representing the source of the vast majority of farm and forestry offsets and co-benefits deliverable under the right circumstances.
The amendment also rewards “early actors” (those who have adopted emission-reducing practices prior to regulation) and protects them from being disadvantaged under a new regulatory scheme. It also prevents producers from losing carbon offset credits because of other benefits they may receive for ecosystem service improvements.
The topic of biological sequestration offsets rules remains the signature issue for an effective farm and forestry offset program. While the proposed Stabenow language would benefit from more precise guidance, it does address the so-called “permanence” issue by providing for an operationally and environmentally acceptable duration; the explicit assignment of liability for reversals; “sequential activities”; “carbon easements” that improve land use flexibility; renewable crediting periods; and “any other option” that meets the requirements.
From these provisions, USDA could, and should, design a program that will work effectively for farmers, rancher and forestland owners.
However, there remain significant omissions in the Stabenow amendment that must be addressed. A provision that requires a 150-percent payback in the event of an intentional reversal of a sequestration project should be lowered to a more legitimate 100-percent, recognizing that circumstances such as land sales or financial hardships may require an intentional reversal. Additionality and baseline provisions should be improved to allow producers to earn the same offset credits enjoyed by peers, even though circumstances prevented those producers from engaging in the practices begun earlier by their peers.
What is missing from the Stabenow amendment? One provision that needs to be added is a directive that would place a five-year hold on the requirements imposed by the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) that impose an indirect land use change (ILUC) penalty on agriculture and forestry based biofuels (but not fossil fuel types) to allow for more extensive and defensible research of the complex ILUC issue. Final climate change legislation must also align and broaden the definition of eligible renewable biomass that currently vary across different federal programs and arbitrarily exclude important and much needed biomass resources. And the measure must grandfather existing soy biodiesel producers under the greenhouse gas reduction requirements of the EISA RFS.
The steps that Stabenow and her Senate colleagues have taken to ensure that the contributions and interests of farmers, ranchers and forestland owners are properly addressed are critically important and very much appreciated. Much more work remains to be done in crafting the enabling polices that can harness energy and climate solutions from the land, but the Stabenow-Baucus amendment is a step in the right direction for agriculture.
Recent Comments & Trackbacks