{"id":132,"date":"2008-06-16T09:31:30","date_gmt":"2008-06-16T13:31:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=132"},"modified":"2008-06-16T09:31:30","modified_gmt":"2008-06-16T13:31:30","slug":"policy-news-from-esas-public-affairs-office-18","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2008\/06\/16\/policy-news-from-esas-public-affairs-office-18\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy News from ESA&#8217;s Public Affairs Office"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>In this issue:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>ESA hosts House and Senate Briefings on Cellulosic Biofuels<\/li>\n<li>BIOFUELS: Struggling with ethanol backlash, Senators question waiver\u2019s  effects<\/li>\n<li>CLIMATE: Bipartisan House bill would create carbon sequestration fund<\/li>\n<li>RECREATION: Education and Labor panel to mark up \u201cNo Child Left Inside Act\u201d<\/li>\n<li>NOAA, NSF, NASA: House appropriators aim to boost agency, climate science  funding<\/li>\n<li>AGRICULTURE: New farm bill funding faces first challenge<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<hr style=\"border: 2px dotted #336699\"><strong>ESA hosts House and Senate Briefings on Cellulosic Biofuels<\/strong>\n<p>On June 11, the Ecological Society of America hosted House and Senate  briefings on \u201cThe Sustainability of Cellulosic Biofuels.\u201d Three scientists  discussed the ecological and economic considerations surrounding the use of  cellulosic sources \u2013 the leaves, stems, and other fibrous parts of a plant \u2013 for  producing biofuels. Speakers included Dr. Phil Robertson of the Kellogg  Biological Station at Michigan State University, Dr. Doug Landis, an  entomologist from Michigan State University, and Dr. Madhu Khanna, an  agricultural economist at the University of Illinois.<\/p>\n<p>Combined, the two timely briefings drew an audience of over 115, including  Senate Agricultural Committee and other congressional staff, representatives  from federal agencies, as well as other interested parties from industry and the  scientific community.<\/p>\n<p>The scientists shared their expertise about the potential for cellulosic  biofuels to offer a substantially greater energy return on investment compared  to grain-based sources, such as corn. They cautioned, however, that  environmental benefits are not guaranteed. The environmental success of  cellulosic biofuels will depend on which crops are chosen, the practices used to  manage them, and where the crops are located geographically.<\/p>\n<p>In meetings with their Congressional representatives, the three scientific  experts also highlighted the need for continued funding of critical  multi-disciplinary research supported by federal agencies such as the National  Science Foundation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of  Energy.<\/p>\n<p>For more information on the briefing and to view the speakers\u2019 presentation  slides, please visit:  https:\/\/esa.org\/pao\/policyActivities\/briefing062008.php<\/p>\n<p><strong>BIOFUELS: Struggling with ethanol backlash, Senators question  waiver\u2019s effects <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A waiver of the renewable fuels standard would do little to relieve the  strain from high corn and commodity prices this year but may stymie development  of second-generation biofuels, federal agriculture and energy officials  said.<\/p>\n<p>The remarks before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee come as  Congress faces increasing pressure to revisit the renewable fuels standard  included in last year\u2019s energy bill.<\/p>\n<p>Committee members indicated on June 12 they are not ready to scale back the  mandate yet. But some lawmakers said it is becoming increasingly difficult to  defend ethanol to livestock producers and consumers who are concerned about high  food and feed prices.<\/p>\n<p>Last year\u2019s energy bill expanded the national biofuels mandate to 36 billion  gallons by 2022, including 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol. The law calls for  at least 9 billion gallons of biofuels, nearly all ethanol, to be blended into  the motor fuel mix this year. The EPA is expected to make a decision by the end  of next month. If EPA were to waive the mandate, it would likely provide little  relief for corn prices, U.S. Department of Agriculture chief economist Joe  Glauber told the Senate panel.<\/p>\n<p>U.S. ethanol production is already on track to exceed this year\u2019s requirement  for 9 billion gallons of fuel, indicating the mandate itself would do very  little this year. The biggest effect of the waiver would be a decline in future  investments in new plants and technology, Glauber said. The Energy Department\u2019s  Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy agreed that the slow-down would be an  incredible loss, since the next major area of investment is cellulosic ethanol  and next-generation biofuels.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CLIMATE: Bipartisan House bill would create carbon sequestration  fund<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A bipartisan House coalition introduced legislation on June 12 to create a  multibillion-dollar fund aimed at speeding the deployment of carbon  capture-and-storage technologies.<\/p>\n<p>Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Ranking Member Fred Upton (R-MI) of the  House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, are teaming up on the industry-backed  bill, which focuses on a technology that fossil fuel electric utilities view as  a necessity if they are to survive under a future U.S. regulatory system that  places limits on heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n<p>The legislation would set up a $1 billion annual fund paid for by power  companies that use coal, natural gas, and oil. These utilities would in turn be  allowed to recover the costs from customers. The bill would add roughly $10-$12  total to residential customers\u2019 annual rates, according to the bill\u2019s  sponsors.<\/p>\n<p>The House Science and Technology Committee also will have jurisdiction over  the measure, which Boucher predicted has a good chance of passing both chambers  of Congress and becoming law before President Bush leaves office.<\/p>\n<p>Under the legislation, an industry-managed Carbon Storage Research  Corporation would run the fund as a division or affiliate of the nonpartisan  Electric Power Research Institute. It would distribute grants and contracts to  various private, academic and governmental bodies to help commercialize  technologies that capture emissions and stash the carbon underground.<\/p>\n<p>Boucher said his latest piece of legislation should not be seen as an  alternative to a mandatory cap-and-trade bill that still faces a much more  formidable challenge making it into law this year.<\/p>\n<p><strong>RECREATION: Education and Labor panel to mark up \u201cNo Child Left  Inside Act\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The House Education and Labor Committee will mark up legislation on June 18  intended to boost environmental science and education funding and programs at  the state and local levels.<\/p>\n<p>The \u201cNo Child Left Inside Act\u201d is part of a larger national movement to  reconnect children with the natural world, spurred by recent studies and a book  that suggest children who play outdoors and study nature are healthier, better  at problem-solving and develop a greater appreciation for the natural world.<\/p>\n<p>The original bill from Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD), proposed authorizing $100  million per year from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for environmental education  programs and inserting language into the No Child Left Behind Act that  encourages states to adopt environmental education plans.<\/p>\n<p>On June 18, the Committee will consider a substitute amendment to extend the  National Environmental Education Act through fiscal 2009, funding it at $14  million. It would also use separate funds to establish the \u201cnational capacity  environmental education grant program,\u201d which would allow the Secretary of  Education to award competitive grants to state and local education agencies and  to nonprofits.<\/p>\n<p>Under the plan, training for environmental educators would be modified. The  substitute includes provisions to encourage individuals from backgrounds  under-represented in environmental education to pursue careers in the field, as  well as facilitate interaction between educators and working professionals in  the environmental fields.<\/p>\n<p><strong>NOAA, NSF, NASA: House appropriators aim to boost agency, climate  science funding<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would receive $4.3  billion in fiscal 2009, $180 million more than the Bush Administration proposed,  under a bill House appropriators approved June 12.<\/p>\n<p>The Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations measure also includes $1.9  billion for climate change science. The $1.9 billion \u2014 $200 million more than  fiscal 2008 \u2014 will be spread across the budgets of NOAA, the National  Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation  (NSF).<\/p>\n<p>Overall, the $4.3 billion for NOAA is about $380 million over the agency\u2019s  fiscal 2008 budget. The subcommittee\u2019s $180 million increase on the President\u2019s  request \u2014 which was already a $200 million increase from fiscal 2008 \u2014  demonstrated a newfound commitment in the House to funding NOAA, but it remains  to be seen exactly how that money would be distributed.<\/p>\n<p>The Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee approved the  entire $56.8 billion bill, which also provides $6.9 billion for the National  Science Foundation and $17.8 billion for NASA. The full committee markup of the  bill will be on Thursday, June 19.<\/p>\n<p><strong>AGRICULTURE: New farm bill funding faces first challenge<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>As appropriators look for funding to support the new farm bill, Congress is  still working to make sure all 15 of its titles are enacted. Lawmakers approved  the bill last month and voted to override the veto from President Bush. But the  printed version of the Act that went to the White House was missing the trade  title, so that section of the bill was not legally enacted. To remedy the  problem created by the missing paperwork, the House and Senate approved the  entire farm bill again. It is expected to go to the White House the week of June  16, and Bush plans to veto it. Once the bill is vetoed, the House and Senate  will have to find time in their schedule to take up the override vote again.<\/p>\n<p>The farm bill\u2019s investment of billions of dollars of new spending in  conservation and energy will face its first test as the agriculture  appropriations markup process begins the week of June 16.<\/p>\n<p>The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee is scheduled to mark up its  fiscal 2009 spending measure June 19. The bill will allocate discretionary  spending for the Agriculture Department and could lay the foundation for the  farm bill\u2019s mandatory funds.<\/p>\n<p>The farm bill that Congress approved last month would invest $4 billion more  in conservation and $1 billion in energy over its five-year lifespan. The  funding is mandatory, so not technically subject to the appropriations  process.<\/p>\n<p>But the spending bill includes much of the technical assistance and  operations funding that lays the groundwork for the farm bill\u2019s mandatory  programs. And it could include some limits on mandatory money.<\/p>\n<p>The panel faces distinct challenges this year in finding significantly more  money to invest in the \u201cWomen, Infants and Children\u201d (WIC) program, which gives  assistance for children and mothers at nutritional risk. WIC could place a  strain on the overall agriculture budget. The weak economy and increased food  costs mean that more people are applying for the program.<\/p>\n<p>The spending panel has some relief in its budget allocation. The 302(b)  allocations the Appropriations Committee released on Friday would give  agriculture $20.6 billion \u2014 a significant step up from the administration\u2019s  $18.7 request and the $18.5 billion it received last year.<\/p>\n<p>Appropriators also have to find money to pay for the expanded workforce to  implement the new farm bill programs. One of the line items for conservation  programs is the discretionary \u201cconservation operations\u201d account, which pays for  staff for the Natural Resources Conservation Service and technical assistance to  help farmers and landowners come up with conservation plans.<\/p>\n<hr style=\"border: 2px dotted #336699\"><strong>Sources:<\/strong> Environment and Energy Daily, Greenwire, and Land  Letter\n<p>Send questions or comments to Nadine Lymn, ESA Director of Public Affairs, <a href=\"mailto:Nadine@esa.org\">Nadine@esa.org<\/a> or Colleen Fahey, Science Policy  Analyst, <a href=\"mailto:Colleen@esa.org\">Colleen@esa.org<\/a><\/p>\n<p>If you received Policy News from a friend and would like to receive it  directly, please send an e-mail to <a href=\"mailto:listserv@listserv.umd.edu\">listserv@listserv.umd.edu<\/a> with the  following in the body of the message: sub ESANEWS {your first and last name}<\/p>\n<p>If you wish to unsubscribe to ESANEWS and your biweekly Policy News, send the  command \u201csignoff ESANEWS\u201d to <a href=\"mailto:listserv@listserv.umd.edu\">listserv@listserv.umd.edu<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Visit ESA\u2019s website at <a href=\"..\/..\/\">www.esa.org<\/a><\/p>\n<p>See past editions of ESA\u2019s Policy News at <a href=\"..\/..\/pao\/policyNews\/\">www.esa.org\/pao\/policyNews\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Read the latest biweekly Policy News from ESA\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Public Affairs Office.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,91],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ecology-in-policy","category-policy-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}