Bioeconomy & transportation advisory group
Related Policies/Programs in Place
Download 359.93 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Estimated GHG Reductions and Net Costs or Cost Savings
- Additional Benefits and Costs
- Level of Group Support TBD Barriers to Consensus
Related Policies/Programs in PlaceThese could include Recent Actions in XX Jurisdiction:
Type(s) of GHG ReductionsThis policy option is qualitative only and will not be quantified, however this policy may result in GHG reductions through various GHG reduction opportunities. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Opportunities The enhancement and / or further development of the Midwestern infrastructure will also provide a prime opportunity to implement greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction policies such as:
Estimated GHG Reductions and Net Costs or Cost SavingsThis policy options is qualitative only and will not be quantified. Key UncertaintiesWeight limitations must be taken into consideration, particularly for trucking across interstates as heavier loads take a greater toll on the roadways and increase the cost of roadway maintenance. Local governments must be directly involved to insure that local zoning policies do not negatively impact the infrastructure improvements identified as part of this policy. Additional Benefits and Costs1. Further development of the Midwest Bioeconomy 2. The development of more sustainable products with less use of chemical and less greenhouse gas emissions. 3. Health benefits associated with less pollution and less use of chemicals.
Feasibility IssuesNone Cited Status of Group ApprovalPending Level of Group SupportTBD Barriers to ConsensusTBD BT-5.1: Perennial Biomass Supply Policy DescriptionAccording to the 2007 Midwestern Governors Association Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform one of the key policy options to achieve the biobased products and transportation objectives is to: “Promote a perennial biomass supply. Because of the synergies between farm economics, biofuel production and environmental objectives, support the development of a perennial biomass supply. Develop and expand programs and incentives that encourage landowners to grow perennial crops and supply products to a bioenergy plant in a way that targets improvements in soil and water quality, wildlife habitat, soil erosion, and carbon sequestration.” The Midwest leads the nation in biomass production potential. A major challenge in the effort to build a cellulosic biofuels industry is to establish a consistent, reliable feedstock supply. The purpose of this policy option is to support the development of a perennial biomass supply that enhances the synergies between farm economics, biofuels production and environmental objectives, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policy DesignThe elements of this policy option include: 1. Develop and expand state programs and leverage federal programs and incentives that encourage landowners to grow perennial crops and supply products to bioenergy plants in ways that target improvements in soil and water quality, wildlife habitat, soil erosion, and carbon sequestration. Biomass should be sustainably harvested without depriving soils of important organic components but maintain soil nutrients and do not deplete wildlife habitat or jeopardize future feedstocks in quantity or quality. Develop, adopt existing, or leverage federal funding for voluntary land conservation programs such as conservation easements, open space programs, conservation reserve, or working lands programs. Corn and soy will continue to be extremely valuable crops throughout the Midwest. A portion of these crops has recently been diverted into biofuels production. Emphasizing cellulosic ethanol over starch based ethanol will allow added value for farmers and minimize unintended consequences in food and feed supplies. To ensure the highest level of effectiveness and participation in a sustainable biomass development program, care must be taken to recognize the concerns and goals of agricultural producers. Change, new technologies, and budding markets are a few of the concerns from producers that will need to be addressed. Absentee landowners may have very different long-term objectives and concerns than farmers who own their own land. Absentee landowners hold almost 50% of arable lands in a number of states in the Midwest. Education programs that demonstrate long-term benefits and a steady or growing product demand can alleviate concern and facilitate acceptance of biomass feedstock development. Education and outreach, especially for citizens, land owners and land managers, will be important both to underscore the importance of biomass and to teach best management practices (BMPs) for forest and biomass production on agricultural lands. Each state should develop model curriculum for education. 2. Identify appropriate locations for specific crops through the use of mapping, modeling and research. Some states are laying important groundwork by using modeling and research to determine the types of perennial crops that would be profitable, efficient and effective to grow and/or harvest for biomass-to-energy use. Identifying forests where thinning and biomass removal would be beneficial, and geographically efficient for transport, is also an important modeling requirement. Gather existing research and engage universities. (See also BT-3.3: Increase Regional Research Collaboration) Locating biomass production appropriately can have significant benefits for the environment, producers and markets. Focusing on plantings in flood plains, riparian buffer zones, highly erodible areas and land that would benefit significantly from a perennial cover crop will reduce, nutrient runoff, soil erosion and improve watersheds. Restoring wetlands can not only become a source for biomass but also a sink for nutrient run-off and a way to sequester carbon. 3. Ensure a balance between land conservation, biomass production and food/animal feed production including lands in conservation reserve type programs or under conservation easements. These uses are not mutually exclusive. Traditional row crops can be inter-planted with perennials that not only help with weed control but also can be harvested for biomass. Lands under conservation easements may need to allow some biomass removed regularly while maintaining conservation benefits. Evaluate the life cycle energy costs and carbon emissions for each feedstock. Each product needs to be evaluated in terms of its contribution to reducing GHG through displacing use of fossil fuels, carbon sequestration, reduction of fertilizer use (N20), and reduction of water use. Feedstocks which do not demonstrate a positive life-cycle energy cost and sustainable production should be phased out in favor of sources that do meet those criteria. 4. Implement voluntary land use tools and incentives that minimize the land use conversion of suitable farmlands to non-agricultural uses and prevent the loss of forests and wetlands to development. Conversion of these lands decreases the opportunities for a diverse and geographically efficient supply of biomass. Agricultural land provides economic, social and environmental benefits to the Midwest, including carbon sequestration in the soil. Among agricultural best practices, no-till farming, residue mulching, cover cropping, and crop rotations enhance carbon sequestration in soil and allow for sustainable production of biomass. 5. Support the formation of biomass commodity groups similar to corn and soybean commodity groups, which appropriately, form a strong constituency. Through appropriate state programs and agencies, assist in the formation of biomass commodity groups either by sub-region or by specific type of biomass, i.e., a Midwest Forest Biomass Producers. The formation of biomass commodity groups functioning regionally could significantly enlarge the sphere of influence and the ability to draw incentives and financing for biomass projects. Other organizations that unite growers, energy producers and end users are encouraged. 6. Develop quality controls for biomass to ensure that pests or invasive species are not introduced or promoted. Provide a framework for standards, such as pricing structures, as well as quality standards. Not all biomass is equal; specifications by type of biomass or end-use could define quality parameters (such as Btu content, size, moisture content). Producers need to be able to select biomass based on its energy potential and applicability for its intended end product. 7. Develop incentives, technological innovation in equipment and a regulatory structure to ensure necessary and consistent standards and pricing. Promoting new markets that require new kinds of feedstocks simultaneously can be problematic. (See BT-1.1, BT 4.2, BT-6.1) Explore new opportunities and technologies, such as: employing biochar for reducing CO2 emissions; sequestering carbon and improving soil productivity; and developing environmentally benign methods of stimulating growth of biomass. Goals: Develop the Midwest’s full potential appropriate sources of biomass and production facilities by 2025, to enhance the economic vitality of our region. Timing: Parties Involved: Farmers; co-ops (Cenex/farm members); academia; environmental groups; energy companies; government agencies; farm organizations; forest land owners; timber and agriculture companies; polymer, chemical, power industries; external agencies; partners in demonstration projects Download 359.93 Kb. Share with your friends:
|