The “War on Science” Continues . . .
May 17th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
And, again, there is no “war on science” . . . the headline is a joke, poking some fun at those who saw a war on science during the Bush Administration every time politicians played politics in subjects involving science, but who have gone deaf, blind, and mute when the same behavior now occurs.
In this instance, the continuation of politics as usual involves biofuels. Despite what I saw as very favorable terms for evaluating biofuels recommend by EPA, a bipartisan group of 42 members of Congress has decided to tell EPA what scientific methods it should use to evaluate the carbon dioxide footprint of biofuels, based on its judgments as to the scientific merit of those methods. From a press release issued Friday:
Today, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (MN) and Ranking Member Frank Lucas (OK) along with a bipartisan group of 42 Members of Congress introduced a bill to correct flawed provisions in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that are limiting the potential for clean, homegrown renewable biofuels to meet our nation’s energy needs. . . The bill eliminates the requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency consider indirect land use when calculating the greenhouse gas emissions associated with advanced biofuels. Currently, there is no reliable method to predict accurately how biofuel production will affect land use in the United States or internationally.
The answer is “biofuels”. Thus, the science needs to be produced in such a way as to support that answer. I suppose that the agencies will get this message soon enough.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Sorry to be so thick, but what is the question for which biofuels is the answer?
May 17th, 2009 at 10:36 am
The Bipartisan (Biofuel) “War on Science”:…
Biofuels are the answer. Politicians will alter the scientific inquiry accordingly. …
May 17th, 2009 at 10:44 am
[...] are the answer. Politicians will alter the scientific inquiry [...]
May 17th, 2009 at 11:00 am
-1-David
Well, from the press release linked above, i suppose the question might be posed as:
““How do we meet the Renewable Fuel Standard mandates?”
Alternatively, the question might be:
‘How do we appease corn belt politicians?”
May 17th, 2009 at 11:39 am
In my assessment this is a very, very sloppy post by Prof. Pielke. First, who is he attacking? The bipartisan members of Congress who propose that indirect land use change not be considered as part of GHG emissions for biofuels? If so, on what grounds? I’m not seeing any criticism of the scientific merits of their position.
Or are we attacking the Bush Administration critics who constantly whined about the “war on science”? If so, why? It’s not clear to me that the Congressional proposal is unscientific or without scientific merit. And without establishing that, it’s a bit premature to call anyone unscientific or even to use the occasion to highlight the irony stemming from past cries of “war on science”.
Roger’s sense that EPA’s terms are “very favorable” is great, but the post he linked to was mainly about the GHG payback period used for corn ethanol. Scientifically speaking (of course), what does that issue have to do with whether indirect land use is included in estimates of lifetime GHG emissions? Why should EPA’s decision on one area affect the other?
May 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
-5-CurtFischer
1. You write, “I’m not seeing any criticism of the scientific merits of their position”
There are scientific merits to their position?
2. The payback period matters because even if one includes indirect land use in the lifecycle emissions calculations, one can still gin up a CO2 benefit for ethanol. So EPA went out of its way to appease politicians, so far, as I argued in that earlier post, that they probably have already compromised the emissions benefit of the policy in any case.
Finally, anyone who thinks that biofuels policy is about science, well, I won’t get very far with my argument . . .
May 17th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
[...] http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet…; [...]
May 17th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I think dismissing the systematic effort of the bush administration to undermine critical scientific evidence and facts particularly in the areas of biodiversity and climate change is foolish and dangerous.
Moreover, I agree with CurtFischer that this is a very sloppy posting. I assume based on the response to CF that you are against biofuels, but while I agree with you in part, this post lacks the requisite nuance. Corn ethanol, like natural gas, is dangerous specifically because it is a transition fuel at best, but once we reach it, fossil fuel interests will continue to drag out any progress. While corn ethanol and to some extent sugar ethanol are problematic, the biofuel option should not be ignored. Algal biofuels offer what might be a more viable alternative with further development.
May 17th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Re-read (or read) the press release. The argument here is that the Members of Congress behind the press release are attacking the science because it does not support biofuels to the extent that they would like. They are seeking a change in the calculations – removing consideration of indirect land use in the generation of biofuels – in order for their preferred policy choice to be accepted. The calculation they seek is not better in any scientific terms; arguably from an impact perspective it is worse. It is better for their political interests. They are conflating a political interest with a scientific claim. It happens a lot.