<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 2007 Farm Bill Trashes Climate Through Inaction</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/07/01/2007-farm-bill-bills-climate-through-inaction/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/07/01/2007-farm-bill-bills-climate-through-inaction/</link>
	<description>Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jess</title>
		<link>http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/07/01/2007-farm-bill-bills-climate-through-inaction/#comment-47465</link>
		<dc:creator>Jess</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:15:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/07/01/2007-farm-bill-bills-climate-through-inaction/#comment-47465</guid>
		<description>Wow... Thanks for these indepth comments. I must say I think you are both misrepresenting/reading too far into what I wrote (although I contend I was not as clear as I could have been as I will blame the long weekend for that!).

My conclusion and critique was simply that the proposed Farm Bill does not do enough to address agricultural emmissions (which make up a significant % of the US's total GHG emmissions). I highlighted the energy initiatives because, as we all agree, they are a step in the right direction. I did however want to add a needed caviat about the negative impacts of food-based fuels. 

Thanks for reading and for the extra food for thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow&#8230; Thanks for these indepth comments. I must say I think you are both misrepresenting/reading too far into what I wrote (although I contend I was not as clear as I could have been as I will blame the long weekend for that!).</p>
<p>My conclusion and critique was simply that the proposed Farm Bill does not do enough to address agricultural emmissions (which make up a significant % of the US&#8217;s total GHG emmissions). I highlighted the energy initiatives because, as we all agree, they are a step in the right direction. I did however want to add a needed caviat about the negative impacts of food-based fuels. </p>
<p>Thanks for reading and for the extra food for thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jessejenkins</title>
		<link>http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/07/01/2007-farm-bill-bills-climate-through-inaction/#comment-47432</link>
		<dc:creator>jessejenkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:16:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/07/01/2007-farm-bill-bills-climate-through-inaction/#comment-47432</guid>
		<description>Jess, thanks for the post on the farm bill.  These days, agriculture and energy policy are inextricably linked.

I think you miss the mark a bit when you talk about the problems with biofuels support in the farm bill. The sections you mention are all talking about supporting cellulosic ethanol development, which utilizes non-food crops and agricultural or forestry wastes to produce ethanol.  While the problems you blogged about &lt;a href="http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/05/08/environmental-groups-condemn-ipcc-push-for-biofuels/" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; are all valid when it comes to biofuels - using edible crops or prime farmland to produce biofuels puts pressure on food prices and clearing virign rainforest for palm oil production is just plain stupid - using plentiful amounts of existing agricultural, forestry and urban waste streams that include cellulosic materials (e.g. corn stover, wheat straw, rice hulls, timber slash and mill residue, etc.) to produce ethanol is pretty smart energy policy.  While conventional corn, and to a slightly lesser degree, soy-based biofuels are marginally beneficial at best and potentially destructive at worst and lack the potential to scale to a meaningful level of output, cellulosic biofuels offer a largely environmentally benign and potentially quite scalable (partial) solution to both our oil dependence and transportation's contribution to climate change.

The USDOE and USDA estimated that over 1 billion dry tons of biomass could be collected in the US every year by the 2030s, enough to produce offset approximately 1/3rd of our current oil use (see &lt;a href="http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf" rel="nofollow"&gt;this study&lt;/a&gt; [pdf]).  If we adopt plug-in hybrid vehicles that slash our oil demand by 1/3rd, we've suddenly found a very low-carbon way to power our vehicle fleet: plug-in hybrids using cellulosic ethanol or other advanced biofuels for their liquid fuel.

I welcome the Farm Bill's support for cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels development, as they offer a way to utilize biomass for transportation that has the potential to avoid the pitfalls and problems of corn ethanol while making a real impact on greenhouse gas emissions and our oil addiction.

James is a bit too optimistic though when he says "Both these companies have produced cellulosic ethanol and the only barrier now is the investor support, which will be supported by our tax dollars regardless."  

It is true that both companies have produced cellulosic ethanol on a pilot scale, as have several other companies.  But there is a large difference between the proof-of-concept pilot scale demonstration plants that have very little production capacity and a fully-scaled commercial plant.  I don't doubt that someone - probably one of these two companies - will make it to commercial scale soon, but that is not an effortless transition.

Additionally, while the production of cellulosic ethanol from various feedstocks will likely be perfected (or at least adequately demonstrated) soon, harvesting/gathering, transportation and handling large amounts of feedstocks is not a trivial manner either, and challenges remain here as well.  In fact, I would argue that finding and collecting suitable feedstocks at large enough quantities, low enough costs and predictable enough supplies remains the largest challenge to the full commercialization of cellulosic ethanol.

So yes, several companies are almost there.  But securing investment isn't the &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; hurdle left for these companies, and I wouldn't go investing in them thinking they'll be up and running in no time flat.  Significant (but ultimately solvable) challenges remain to the commercialization of cellulosic ethanol and there's no guarantees which company will solve them first, or best.  The provisions in the Farm Bill and in the energy package will certainly help though...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jess, thanks for the post on the farm bill.  These days, agriculture and energy policy are inextricably linked.</p>
<p>I think you miss the mark a bit when you talk about the problems with biofuels support in the farm bill. The sections you mention are all talking about supporting cellulosic ethanol development, which utilizes non-food crops and agricultural or forestry wastes to produce ethanol.  While the problems you blogged about <a href="http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/05/08/environmental-groups-condemn-ipcc-push-for-biofuels/" rel="nofollow">here</a> are all valid when it comes to biofuels - using edible crops or prime farmland to produce biofuels puts pressure on food prices and clearing virign rainforest for palm oil production is just plain stupid - using plentiful amounts of existing agricultural, forestry and urban waste streams that include cellulosic materials (e.g. corn stover, wheat straw, rice hulls, timber slash and mill residue, etc.) to produce ethanol is pretty smart energy policy.  While conventional corn, and to a slightly lesser degree, soy-based biofuels are marginally beneficial at best and potentially destructive at worst and lack the potential to scale to a meaningful level of output, cellulosic biofuels offer a largely environmentally benign and potentially quite scalable (partial) solution to both our oil dependence and transportation&#8217;s contribution to climate change.</p>
<p>The USDOE and USDA estimated that over 1 billion dry tons of biomass could be collected in the US every year by the 2030s, enough to produce offset approximately 1/3rd of our current oil use (see <a href="http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf" rel="nofollow">this study</a> [pdf]).  If we adopt plug-in hybrid vehicles that slash our oil demand by 1/3rd, we&#8217;ve suddenly found a very low-carbon way to power our vehicle fleet: plug-in hybrids using cellulosic ethanol or other advanced biofuels for their liquid fuel.</p>
<p>I welcome the Farm Bill&#8217;s support for cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels development, as they offer a way to utilize biomass for transportation that has the potential to avoid the pitfalls and problems of corn ethanol while making a real impact on greenhouse gas emissions and our oil addiction.</p>
<p>James is a bit too optimistic though when he says &#8220;Both these companies have produced cellulosic ethanol and the only barrier now is the investor support, which will be supported by our tax dollars regardless.&#8221;  </p>
<p>It is true that both companies have produced cellulosic ethanol on a pilot scale, as have several other companies.  But there is a large difference between the proof-of-concept pilot scale demonstration plants that have very little production capacity and a fully-scaled commercial plant.  I don&#8217;t doubt that someone - probably one of these two companies - will make it to commercial scale soon, but that is not an effortless transition.</p>
<p>Additionally, while the production of cellulosic ethanol from various feedstocks will likely be perfected (or at least adequately demonstrated) soon, harvesting/gathering, transportation and handling large amounts of feedstocks is not a trivial manner either, and challenges remain here as well.  In fact, I would argue that finding and collecting suitable feedstocks at large enough quantities, low enough costs and predictable enough supplies remains the largest challenge to the full commercialization of cellulosic ethanol.</p>
<p>So yes, several companies are almost there.  But securing investment isn&#8217;t the <i>only</i> hurdle left for these companies, and I wouldn&#8217;t go investing in them thinking they&#8217;ll be up and running in no time flat.  Significant (but ultimately solvable) challenges remain to the commercialization of cellulosic ethanol and there&#8217;s no guarantees which company will solve them first, or best.  The provisions in the Farm Bill and in the energy package will certainly help though&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Speirs</title>
		<link>http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/07/01/2007-farm-bill-bills-climate-through-inaction/#comment-47122</link>
		<dc:creator>James Speirs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 18:22:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/07/01/2007-farm-bill-bills-climate-through-inaction/#comment-47122</guid>
		<description>Things are done alot differently here in the US. As being a Canadian now living in the US I can attest. I find it interesting in your article and throughout other write-ups on the cellulose ethanol front that scientists say we're almost there... Have they ever heard of IOGEN? Or better yet BlueFire Ethanol? These companies are ready to deploy today. Is Canada going to really help IOGEN move forward? I know that BlueFire Ethanol has received a 40 million dollar grant from the DOE and they will likely be the receipient of monies to help project financing through the loan guarantee program (4 billion alone earmatked for 2008 biofuel projects). Both these companies have produced cellulosic ethanol and the only barrier now is the investor support, which will be supported by our tax dollars regardless. Renewable energy companies that can address the GHG emmissions and produce on large scales are our up and coming Exxons and is truely the next big thing to hit the stock market since the dot com days, only sustainable... North America has a big thirst to quench for energy and that's why these projects will move forward and investor support will come eventually. This is the biggest investment oportunity that has come around in a long time and I am amazed that most are blind to it. At the same time, these renewable energy companies are also helping make an impact on our climate in the effort to reduce GHG's, BlueFire Ethanol actually reduces the GHG's by over 90% compared to fossil fuels. California Gov. has mandated to reduce GHG's by 20% by 2020. This will force blenders to use cellulose ethanol to meat that mandate and there will be 1 company that will be able to fill that need... BlueFire, with it's current project in California for 18 million gallons and future ones. The big difference betweed these two front runners for Cellulose Ethanol is Iogen is using a narrow feedstock whereas BlueFire uses post sorted trash from any landfill, like Waste Management for instance, and turns a wide feedstock of green waste into ethanol using their patented concentrated acid hydrolysis system. That means that the growing concern of North America's trash can actually be turned into energy all the while near populated areas making distribution less costly than trucking in corn ethanol from the midwest... Not to mention BlueFire's feedstock is free, actually on it's way to be thrown away, whwer as corn ethanol's feedstock continues to drive the price of corn up and hence the domino effect to corn syrup, beef etc...
My money is on BlueFire, which will be America's fastest growing cellulose company witht he jump start it has. The equivalent would be investing in Google 4 years ago, with the biggest difference that BlueFire is trading now, today for anyone to invest in. They trade under the symbol: BFRE and publish their entire procedure on their website, www.bluefireethanol.com

America wants to become energy independant, and the Farm bill is just one more factor that will help that become a reality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Things are done alot differently here in the US. As being a Canadian now living in the US I can attest. I find it interesting in your article and throughout other write-ups on the cellulose ethanol front that scientists say we&#8217;re almost there&#8230; Have they ever heard of IOGEN? Or better yet BlueFire Ethanol? These companies are ready to deploy today. Is Canada going to really help IOGEN move forward? I know that BlueFire Ethanol has received a 40 million dollar grant from the DOE and they will likely be the receipient of monies to help project financing through the loan guarantee program (4 billion alone earmatked for 2008 biofuel projects). Both these companies have produced cellulosic ethanol and the only barrier now is the investor support, which will be supported by our tax dollars regardless. Renewable energy companies that can address the GHG emmissions and produce on large scales are our up and coming Exxons and is truely the next big thing to hit the stock market since the dot com days, only sustainable&#8230; North America has a big thirst to quench for energy and that&#8217;s why these projects will move forward and investor support will come eventually. This is the biggest investment oportunity that has come around in a long time and I am amazed that most are blind to it. At the same time, these renewable energy companies are also helping make an impact on our climate in the effort to reduce GHG&#8217;s, BlueFire Ethanol actually reduces the GHG&#8217;s by over 90% compared to fossil fuels. California Gov. has mandated to reduce GHG&#8217;s by 20% by 2020. This will force blenders to use cellulose ethanol to meat that mandate and there will be 1 company that will be able to fill that need&#8230; BlueFire, with it&#8217;s current project in California for 18 million gallons and future ones. The big difference betweed these two front runners for Cellulose Ethanol is Iogen is using a narrow feedstock whereas BlueFire uses post sorted trash from any landfill, like Waste Management for instance, and turns a wide feedstock of green waste into ethanol using their patented concentrated acid hydrolysis system. That means that the growing concern of North America&#8217;s trash can actually be turned into energy all the while near populated areas making distribution less costly than trucking in corn ethanol from the midwest&#8230; Not to mention BlueFire&#8217;s feedstock is free, actually on it&#8217;s way to be thrown away, whwer as corn ethanol&#8217;s feedstock continues to drive the price of corn up and hence the domino effect to corn syrup, beef etc&#8230;<br />
My money is on BlueFire, which will be America&#8217;s fastest growing cellulose company witht he jump start it has. The equivalent would be investing in Google 4 years ago, with the biggest difference that BlueFire is trading now, today for anyone to invest in. They trade under the symbol: BFRE and publish their entire procedure on their website, <a href="http://www.bluefireethanol.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bluefireethanol.com</a></p>
<p>America wants to become energy independant, and the Farm bill is just one more factor that will help that become a reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
