House Dems Agree on Global Warming

Waxman agreed to bar the EPA for five years from calculating how much greenhouse gas emissions are generated when forests are converted to crop fields for ethanol and biofuels.
……………………………………………..

Well, that’s real environmentalism for you. Typical of the Blue Dogs really. Grotesquely irresponsible, and eternally willing to kiss corporate ass.

This is major suckage. I would guess/bet even the farmers know this is wrong. And it isn’t change.

And Waxman agreed to bar the EPA for five years from calculating how much greenhouse gas emissions are generated when forests are converted to crop fields for ethanol and biofuels.
.
So pretty much we’re f*cked, then. Do you understand that, JNS?

Wow. That’s really disappointing. Perhaps we should let the health insurance companies be in charge over-hauling the health care system….oh wait, never mind.

And Waxman has agreed to ask the EPA to roll back its new requirements that farmers offset rural land developed in other countries.. -from “the final sticking points” link above.
.
.
Ethanol is an environmental disaster. This bill looks like a disaster. A watered-down, ineffective plan from weak Democrats. A prelude to Healthcare reform?

“The Death of a Good Bill (Or Why Americans Hate the House)”
.
–headline fixed–

JNS, it would be nice if you would note that renewable energy and green energy are not interchangeable terms. There’s definitely overlap, but biofuels sure aren’t green.
.
And Waxman agreed to bar the EPA for five years from calculating how much greenhouse gas emissions are generated when forests are converted to crop fields for ethanol and biofuels.
.
This is utter horsesh!t. Censoring scientific information? I expected this crap from the Bushies, but the Dems need to either do better or just start calling themselves Republicans.

“And Waxman agreed to bar the EPA for five years from calculating how much greenhouse gas emissions are generated when forests are converted to crop fields for ethanol and biofuels.”
.
No, the sentence should read “… when forests are converted to crop fields for FOOD.”
.
The theory they’re talking about (which was soundly rejected by the EU last year) says that if you use corn in the US for ethanol, a farmer somewhere else in the world plants more corn (or soybeans) to replenish the FOOD supply. Ethanol’s already penalized “when forests are converted to crop fields for ethanol and biofuels,” and they don’t argue against that penalty.
.
It’s pure theory, and in fact has never been observed in the real world. Corn exports are up. Corn carryover last year was up. Soybean acres are at a record high this year. According to the theory, those should all be down.
.
More than 100 scientists from places like MIT, Berkeley, UC Davis, Argonne National Laboratories, etc. signed a letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger in California earlier this year saying the theory is too shaky for policy. Even the theory’s authors admit there’s no reliable way to predict any effects.
.

And Waxman agreed to bar the EPA for five years from calculating how much greenhouse gas emissions are generated when forests are converted to crop fields for ethanol and biofuels.
.
Oh good. The last thing we need is the EPA to collect data about an impending global crisis.
.
Global warming is kind of like health-care reform. If I thought Congress was capable of taking decisive action, I’d be hopping mad that they aren’t. What a parade of stupidity.
.
And of course the bill will tank in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Another sell-out – bu’ I be not surprised no more.
.
Arrgh

skipnhop Says:
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 10:41 am
“And Waxman agreed to bar the EPA for five years from calculating how much greenhouse gas emissions are generated when forests are converted to crop fields for ethanol and biofuels.”
.
No, the sentence should read “… when forests are converted to crop fields for FOOD.”
.
The theory they’re talking about (which was soundly rejected by the EU last year) says that if you use corn in the US for ethanol, a farmer somewhere else in the world plants more corn (or soybeans) to replenish the FOOD supply. Ethanol’s already penalized “when forests are converted to crop fields for ethanol and biofuels,” and they don’t argue against that penalty.
.
.
I understand that “greenhouse gas” is emitted when you turn the soil from forest to crop fields, and that there is a penalty when turned for ethanol/biofuel. Does this bill allow that there is no penalty for converting forest to food? -based on the theory that there is no environmental impact in doing so (zero sum gain- you gave up trees but you get food). And that we’re not keeping stats? Doesn’t that encouraging more deforestization? -without the ability to measure the effect of turning the soil?
.
JNS, I don’t doubt it is “a potentially lucrative program of energy offsets for farmers.”

The question is, why does ethanol get penalized once for emissions from planting, harvesting, transporting corn for ethanol. And then again for planting, harvesting, transporting corn or soybeans for FOOD?

One of those activities would take place with or without ethanol.

No one denies that farming creates emissions. You could just as easily pin the emissions on Coke and Pepsi, for instance, for their growth and increased use of high-fructose corn syrup, which raises the demand for corn. This theory says “Anything that increase demand for corn or soybeans should be capped or penalized.”

It’s policy aimed at depressing crop prices, which, incidentally, trigger price control payments if they get too low. So ethanol subsidies or crop subsidies, the money’s going out either way. We might as well get the double bonus of decreasing the impact of Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabian oil.

[...] interesting idea, but similarly, a Waxman-Markey bill that isn’t considerably watered down would have a similar effect and also have the benefit of correctly situating the oil problem within [...]