News Coverage
Proponents of Indirect Land Use Voice Opinion
Published November 12, 2008
Although the U.S. EPA isn’t expected to release a policy proposal for
public comment on the specifics surrounding the renewable fuels
standard enacted in the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007
(RFS) until later this fall, groups on both sides of the indirect land
use change argument are making their voices heard.
Scientists and biofuel industry members submitted a letter to U.S. EPA
Administrator Stephen Johnson on Oct. 23, arguing that more research
needs to be done before indirect land use impacts should be included
in any policy. (See Scientists ask EPA to delay indirect land use
proposal.)
Now a coalition of mostly non-profit environmental groups has issued a
letter to the administrator stating the case for the inclusion of
indirect land use impacts, stating: “Consideration of all of the
science in an open and transparent comment process will be key to
ensuring that the regulations accomplish the emissions reductions
Congress intended when they directed that indirect emissions from land
use changes be included.”
The group, consisting of the Environmental Defense Fund, the National
Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Friends of
the Earth, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental
Working Group, argues that indirect land use change is the “ripple
effect” resulting from converting land from food production to fuel
production.
"There is no doubt that greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) caused by land
use change are substantial, and that those associated with renewable
fuel production can easily make the difference between reducing or
increasing GHG emissions relative to gasoline,” the letter stated.
Rather than stunt the advanced biofuels industry by including indirect
land use changes to the policy, the group asserted that the inclusion
of such changes will help determine which second-generation feedstocks
will have the least impact. “Properly done, accounting for indirect
land-use will improve the ability of investors and developers to
distinguish promising approaches from dead ends and drive investments
and innovation towards these feedstocks and technologies,” the group
stated.
The EPA is not expected to issue a final ruling on the RFS until
mid-2009.
