Indirect Land Use Change is a theory used by biofuel opponents used to demonstrate the damages behind the production of ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol lobbyists were successful in keeping Indirect Land Use Change out of the pending American Clean Energy and Security Act, which has some activists upset that the bill focuses too much on industry interests instead of climate change.
According to this principle, as land is used for biofuel rather than food crops, the rising cost of food causes farmers elsewhere to clear pristine land. Because the pristine land stored carbon prior to its clearing, and because working the new farmland requires a steady stream of carbon, the growth of corn and other crops for ethanol or biodiesel could have a negative environmental effect before it's even burnt for fuel.
The proposed American Clean Energy and Security act gives many concessions to the agriculture industry. The most talked about is a restriction on the EPA that will prevent it from using international indirect land use change for at least six years. After this period ILUC will be removed from the legislation altogether and a study will be conducted by the National Academy of Science to confirm that the effects of ILUC are real. In addition, the carbon credits created by growers to be sold into the cap-and-trade system would be administered by the USDA, not the EPA, which seems counter-intuitive to many, at best. Farmers would also receive carbon-credits retroactively back to 2001.
Many eco-minded organizations, including The Serra Club and The League of Conservation Voters, who, it should be noted are in support of the bill, are, nonetheless dismayed with portions of the bill. As of Friday morning, there are still more than 200 proposed revisions for the American Clean Energy and Security act; perhaps a change to consider indirect land use change is among them.
Visit ecofactory on Twitter and visit us anytime at twitter.com/ecofactory !
