Models versus Common Sense

By Jeffrey Frost

When the models we use generate answers which violate common sense, it is time to check the prevailing assumptions within.  The Manomet study for Massachusetts, “Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study”, essentially concludes that global warming will be exacerbated by substituting forest biomass energy for fossil fuels for the production of electricity.  I do not have to think very hard or long to conclude that digging up ancient carbon from coal, oil, and natural gas is unlikely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to growing renewable biomass in our forests and harvesting it for energy use.  Yet, this is exactly what the Manomet study tells us, wrapped in massive amounts of very sophisticated analysis.

I have no wish to invalidate the strong work product produced by a stellar team regarding an analysis of prime importance:  Will renewable forest biomass or fossil fuels best serve our needs for a low-carbon energy future[1]?  I do suggest a need to examine the logic behind some of the prevailing assumptions – explicit and inherent – in this extensive analysis.  Here then are the questions which need to be answered:

1. How do you choose the point in the growth and harvest cycle for forest biomass at which to begin the analysis?  Manomet chose to begin the life cycle analysis with the day of harvest.  If they had taken the other extreme and started the analysis the day after harvest (the first day of sequestration), the results would have flipped entirely and showed the huge benefits of biomass over fossil fuels instead of the reverse finding.  Intuitively, the biomass must be grown and the carbon sequestered before it can be combusted anyway.  The most defensible answer is probably to begin the analysis midway between harvests which will improve the relative status of biomass substantially.

Delivering GHG Reductions under Various Climate Policy Options

By Charles Kerchner

With the economic concerns, health care debate, and climate skepticism delaying any immediate action on climate change policy in Washington, the door has been left open for other climate policy proposals. The question facing farm and forest landowners during this time of uncertainty is: How can the agriculture and forestry sectors deliver GHG reduction benefits under any policy option on the table?

To date, the lion’s share of attention has been given to the cap-and-trade policy (i.e., the Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer bill). Under a cap-and-trade system the agriculture and forestry sectors are expected to be uncapped sectors and are expected to deliver substantial quantities of offsets to capped entities at an early stage in the game.  This could represent a multi-billion dollar a year revenue stream for American foresters and farmers.  However, if a cap-and-trade system is not the chosen policy, there are still opportunities under the other options being considered.

U.S. Liquid Biofuels Carbon Markets Strategic Synthesis Executive Summary Announced

By Justine Sears

AgRefresh is proud to announce the release of the U.S. Liquid Biofuels Carbon Markets Monetization: A Strategic Synthesis Executive Summary Excerpt. This summary is an excerpt from our upcoming report detailing the liquid biofuels industry’s carbon market and renewable fuel credit market opportunities. The Excerpt was released in conjunction with an informational webinar that was well-attended by a variety of industry groups and biofuel producers. We received a number of insightful questions during the webinar and look forward to continuing to engage with clients and prospective clients about how the biofuels industry can access carbon markets.