25x25 Responds to Time Magazine Article

FROM AN EMAIL ADDRESSED: "To all 25'x25 Partners, April 2, 2008

Responding to widespread inaccuracies in this week's Time magazine cover story, the 25x'25 National Steering Committee is responding with a letter to the editors of Time expressing disappointment with the questionable characterization of biofuels and their role in the issue of greenhouse gas emissions in "The Clean Energy Scam," by Michael Grunwald. The letter was authored by steering committee member and former Congressman Thomas W. Ewing, who is also the Immediate Past Chairman of the USDA and DOE Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. The entire letter follows:


As a former Member of Congress and a leader in a diverse alliance of agricultural, environmental and conservation organizations working together to advance clean energy solutions, I am greatly disturbed with Time magazine's April 7th feature story on biofuels. In this article, Michael Grunwald criticizes biofuels yet offers no alternative to using petroleum to meet our energy needs - much of which comes from the Middle East.

Members of our alliance share the author's anxiety for the continued health of the Amazon rain forest and other "carbon sinks" that nature has provided around the globe. As champions of many forms of land-based renewable energy (biomass, wind energy, solar power, geothermal energy and hydropower, in addition to biofuels), we agree that environmentally sensitive lands should not be exploited in pursuit of renewable fuels.

Unfortunately, the story's message of concern is undermined by misinformation about biofuels and an over-simplified analysis of complex systems. The implication that biofuel production is responsible for the destruction of the Amazon rain forest ignores the reality that ever increasing worldwide demand for food and fiber is the primary cause of land use change in this and other regions. Simply eliminating biofuels will not stop land use changes from occurring, and in countries like Haiti that have already lost their forests, biofuels could help reestablish forests and offer more affordable and sustainable energy options. Similarly, information in the story about a recent study, which claims land-use changes brought about by increased biofuel production are producing more greenhouse gas emissions (Searchinger et al.), only tells half the story. What is missing is that Searchinger's methodologies have been widely questioned by respected biofuel life-cycle analysis researchers such as Michael Wang, with the Center for Transportation Research at the Argonne National Laboratory, who counter that Searchinger et al. used outdated, if not incorrect, data to reach their conclusions.

The story's reference to a UN food expert's dramatic condemnation of biofuel production fails to mention that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization almost immediately distanced itself from the remarks. The head of the UN Food Program recently noted that higher energy costs, erratic weather and low stocks are big factors contributing to the high cost of food around the globe.

Of particular concern is the ready dismissal of emerging technologies that will allow us to produce next generation biofuels from non-food feedstocks sustainably grown on underutilized and marginal lands not suited for food production. Conservation tillage and other agriculture and forestry residue management practices used to produce biomass energy feedstocks can also provide a constant buildup of soil organic carbon. Researchers at Ohio State have concluded that the total potential of carbon sequestration in U.S. soils, counting croplands, grazing lands and woodlands, is nearly 600 million metric tons of carbon, or the equivalent of more than 2,200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions - about 33 percent of total U.S. emissions.

We encourage the editors of Time to contribute to a much-needed discussion of the role renewable resources will play in improving national security and the environment while moving us closer to energy independence. We simply ask that they demand a basic level of accuracy and balance from the stories that they run.


The Full Press Packet and no doubt more will be coming at the 25x25 main website shortly.

25% By 2025

25% of our energy needs from rural America by 2025. That's an effort I can wrap my mind around.

At the Harvesting Clean Energy Conference and then a week later at the Sustainable Biodiesel Summit I ran into a few people involved in the 25x'25 Coalition. The first question out of my mouth was "what do you have going on in Oregon?" to which they answered "what do you want to do?" That's my kind of organization as well.

I've been reading up on them and I'm liking what I see. It's exciting to see policy goals phrased in the terms 25x'25 uses. Terms I fully understand and can get movitated by. Definitely allot more fun than doing CO2 math on the back of an envelope or talking about the need to change behaviors due to conflicting computer models. Their goals also side step quite a few of the divisive debates around biofuels or climate change as well.

According to the 25x'25 if the United States trasfered 25% of its energy usage over to American ag, forestry, and technology sources this capture of our energy usage at home would do several things. In a nutshell their goals:

$700 Billion in New Economic Activity

$180 Billion in new farm income with $37 Billion in 2025 alone.

4 to 5 Million new Jobs Created (many of these jobs in the poorest communities in the US)

-2.5 Million Barrels of Petroleum Consumed per Day

(by the way that's 105,000,000 gallons a day reduction in US petroleum needs)

1 Billion Ton reduction in CO2 emmissions

65 to 85 Billion Gallons of Biofuel a year

800 Billion Kwt's a year of Electricity (400 Billion of which would be biomass)

All the above from policy efforts refocusing on domestic energy production. With little efforts and slight tweeks to how we look at our energy portfolio in this country we could have a profound economic effect. Especially on those communities most in need and least interested in direct government programs.