Energy bill misses mark

Congress is considering a dramatic change in the way government controls industrial pollution, especially the production of greenhouse gasses.

One of the disadvantages is that the proposal, as it currently stands, misses a great opportunity to make significant advances in the development of biomass fuels. If this doesn't change it would be a great loss for Florida.

The proposal by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., that recently received committee approval has the goal of reducing greenhouse gasses by establishing a dramatically new concept for the buying and selling of carbon credits through a mechanism known as "cap and trade."

Simply put, the plan would place a cap on the amount of carbon or greenhouse gasses that industry can create. If a company produces less carbon than the government cap, it would be able to sell its left-over "credits" to companies that produce more.

The idea is to create economic incentives to encourage industries that pollute less, while essentially taxing those that pollute more. After all, if we accept that human activity - such as manufacturing - plays a role in global warming, then we should take reasonable action to address this by creating incentives to adopt more environmentally friendly practices.

However, a very troubling part of the current proposal is that it places a significant burden on a range of industries, from agriculture to electric utilities, while ignoring one of the most promising strategies for addressing the greenhouse gas issue.

In a "cap and trade" system, farmers wear a large bull's-eye. That's because agriculture is such an energy-intensive industry. Whether it's fuel in the tractor, fertilizer for the crops, or delivery of food to the grocery store, agriculture uses a great deal of energy. On average, 65 percent of farmers' operating costs are fuel, electricity, fertilizer and chemicals so any increase in these costs will devastate already thin operating margins.

Experts also predict that "cap and trade" could spike energy prices between 15 and 125 percent - forcing local producers in our communities to pay more for seed, equipment, machinery, steel and other supplies.

While placing an additional burden on farmers, the bill misses a great opportunity to encourage the development of renewable biomass fuels that would be a boon to agricultural lands. Biomass simply refers to the energy that can be gotten from plants and plant derived substances. These substances include food crops, grassy and woody plants, residues from agriculture or forestry, and the organic component of municipal and industrial wastes. And these fuels are inherently more environmentally friendly, producing less total greenhouse emissions than fossil fuels. These "energy crops" could add additional revenue to farm operations without expanding our overreliance on corn-based ethanol.

One congressional committee has shot down a proposal to allow wood taken from mature forests on federal land as a kind of "renewable biomass," an approved source of clean power. And the definition of a renewable feedstock prevents biomass collected from federal land from being used in the renewable fuels mix. This is a nuance that could eventually trump sustainable forestry practices and degrade our national forests.

This is an especially important issue to Florida, because this subtropical state is uniquely positioned to produce enormous quantities of biomass fuels on a year-round basis.

The global climate energy bill should take its cues from the comprehensive definition of "renewable biomass" adopted with last year's Farm Bill. That measure encourages drawing from a broad range of renewable energy reserves - both to protect and sustain the environment and provide clean sources of energy.

Addressing global climate change is an important goal that requires innovative thinking. But a proposal that ignores the great store of environmentally friendly fuels that we have in biomass is missing an historic opportunity.