List, cc Dr. Rau
This is to comment on both the Senate Amendment 3140 and Greg’s
reaction, both received today..
1.. The actual amendment is near the end of the Senate discussion on
the amendments - found at
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2016/02/02/senate-section/article/S470-2
<https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2016/02/02/senate-section/article/S470-2>,
saying (in full):
"Amendment No. 3140, as modified
(Purpose: To require certain Federal agencies to establish consistent
policies relating to forest biomass energy to help address the energy
needs of the United States)
At the end of part IV of subtitle A of title III, add the
following:
SEC. 30__. POLICIES RELATING TO BIOMASS ENERGY.
To support the key role that forests in the United States
can play in addressing the energy needs of the United States,
the Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall,
consistent with their missions, jointly--
(1) ensure that Federal policy relating to forest
bioenergy--
(A) is consistent across all Federal departments and
agencies; and
(B) recognizes the full benefits of the use of forest
biomass for energy, conservation, and responsible forest
management; and
(2) establish clear and simple policies for the use of
forest biomass as an energy solution, including policies
that--
(A) reflect the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy and
recognize biomass as a renewable energy source, provided the
use of forest biomass for energy production does not cause
conversion of forests to non-forest use.
(B) encourage private investment throughout the forest
biomass supply chain, including in--
(i) working forests;
(ii) harvesting operations;
(iii) forest improvement operations;
(iv) forest bioenergy production;
(v) wood products manufacturing; or
(vi) paper manufacturing;
(C) encourage forest management to improve forest health;
and
(D) recognize State initiatives to produce and use forest
biomass.”
[RWL: I find this amendment language to be quite acceptable from both a CDR
and biochar perspective - and so hope someone can say which words they would
have changed. Of course, I wish that the term carbon-negativity had appeared
rather than carbon neutrality.
2. Re the last line (2)(D), last week I gave testimony on Colorado
SB16-003 bill that passed a few days later on our legislature’s final day.
Despite almost every bill dealing with energy or climate failing on a party
line basis this year, this bill had 2 votes in opposition (one in each house).
The Colorado bill contained a paragraph asking the state foresters to
address the potential role of biochar in forest health. P 3, line 21 reads:
“USES FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS IN FORESTS, INCLUDING BIOCHAR, ENERGY,..”
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/0FE77EB9EE65CA4887257F2400641EE2?open&file=003_rer.pdf
<http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/0FE77EB9EE65CA4887257F2400641EE2?open&file=003_rer.pdf>
All the testimony, mainly from foresters and all positive, noted that Colorado
forests are overstocked - with no funds to remove (and productively utilize)
our huge supply of beetle-killed trees. I mention this in hope some foresters
will help Colorado on this CDR path.
3. So, I find this Amendment 3140 to be in perfect agreement with
Colorado state action. And the reason is that our SB16-003 recognizes the
need for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). The text of the 65-signatory letter
mentions only energy. There is no hint the 65 authors were considering CDR -
nor understand how much all CDR advocates desire a continually increasing
forest. Removing forests is prohibited in Amendment 3140. Use of forest
biomass does not have to be carbon positive - and especially if one is
employing biochar (or, with more difficulty, BECCS).
4. So, considering this list’s focus, I suggest there is no universal
validity to sentences such as this from the actual letter (given in its
entirety by Andrew a few days ago).
“This well-intentioned legislation, which claims to address climate
change, would in fact promote deforestation in the U.S. and elsewhere and make
climate change much worse. "
I see the exact converse as being more accurate; the letter has a
very narrow view of what is possible using free sunlight and photosynthesis to
CDR advantage. If we want healthy growing forests, they can and should be
managed for CDR purposes. I therefore suggest that the 65-author letter should
not be used in any way to discourage CDR via biomass and so have to disagree in
part with Greg.
5. I do agree with Greg that we need a much broader NET policy
(neither Amendment 3140 nor the letter has such an aim) and that ocean biomass
should not be ignored (and especially when used to improve soil fertility).
Ron
> On May 14, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Exactly why a much broader NET policy and R&D focus is needed, and one that
> does not ignore the ocean.
> Greg
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 14, 2016, at 12:57 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> Attached letter (untitled) from 65 scientists protesting the US approach to
>> forest biofuels.
>>
>> This shows generally that expansion of biofuels as a precondition to BECCS
>> will neither be easy nor uncontroversial.
>>
>> A
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
>> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>> <document_cw_03.pdf>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
