Addendum to Bura Seminar

At the conclusion of Thursday's seminar, Renata received a question about the government's commitment to biofuel production.  I piped up inquiring if anyone knew anything about the Energy Bill recently passed by Congress (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007).  

I did some brief, research, and here's what I found:

• "H.R. 6 would expand the renewable fuels standard to 9 billion gallons in 2008 (presently 4.7 in 2007) and progressively increase it to a 36 billion gallon requirement by 2022.  Additionally, H.R. 6 makes a historic commitment to cellulosic ethanol by requiring that by 2022 the United States produce 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol." (From the executive summary)
  
• Starting in 2016, the increase in the renewable fuel standard must be met with what the government deems advanced biofuels, based on cellulosic/non corn starch feedstock derived ethanol.  This is the historic commitment.  But wait...
• However, the EPA Administrator is given authority to temporarily waive part of the biofuels mandate, if it is determined that a significant renewable feedstock disruption or other market circumstance might occur.  This loophole is wide, and seems to lessen the commitment by some degree.  Nevertheless, a framework is in place.
• Bura herself may be interested in this note..."Grants are authorized for R&D and commercial applications of cellulosic biofuels.  The Secretary of Energy is required to report to Congress on the feasibility of algae as a feedstock for biofuels production." (From the CRS Summary).
• Lastly, renewable fuels produced from new biorefineries will be required to reduce by at least 20% the life cycle greenhouse gases relative to life cycle emissions from gasoline and diesel.  Based on what Renata had to say, it seems that this goal is feasible.

I would direct anyone looking for more information to the following report:

Selected Issues Related to an Expansion of the Renewable Fuel Standard

F.T.C. inquires about offsets

The nascent carbon offset industry in the United States is more popular than some might think.  Last year, corporations and individuals purchased more than $54 million in carbon offsets.  Popular, maybe.  Organic pet food is a $50 million industry.  Irrespective of their appeal, offsets represent an intrinsically different assignment of value, perhaps not seen since the war bonds of the 1940s.

For such a noble surrender of money, consumers would certainly hope that their dollars and cents produced the intended effect, in this case, keeping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.  Who ensures that offset vendors are doing what they promise?

Wednesday, The New York Times reported on the first hearings on the world of carbon offsets by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  The article is brief, but mentions efforts previously unbeknownst to me by companies such as Delta, Volkswagen, Dell, and Bank of America.  I've always wondered about federal oversight of offsets and recently questioned their efficacy when I decided to postpone whether or not to purchase offsets for 2008.

The FTC is responsible for regulating advertising claims, protecting consumers by providing accountability.  On January 8th, the agency hosted "eco in the market," a conference intended to start the ball rolling on revising environmental advertising standards and recommendations.  You can view a series of webcasts archived after the event at the conference website.

The article lacks depth, but it seems that even the FTC isn't sure what to make of offsets.  With so many individuals and even corporations jumping on board, it appears appropriate that the government is analyzing the burgeoning industry for best practices and signs of fraud.

Have an opinion or concern about carbon offsets? You can submit comments to the FTC yourself, simply by visiting their website.