Why are Kerry, Lieberman unveiling climate bill Wednesday?

NOAA map of spill from Flickr and SkyTruth .)

The Gulf oil disaster has spilled over into the climate bill debate. So why are Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) going to release their climate and energy bill at a press conference next Wednesday? The environment for it seems pretty muddy.

Their third partner, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), has pulled out as a key sponsor.

Several coastal-state Democrats have said no way will they support a bill that expands offshore drilling.

Republicans and some conservative Democrats have hardened their position favoring offshore drilling, despite the spill. The GOP, Graham included, is saying chill ‘til we know more about the cause of the spill.

In short, Kerry and Lieberman have lost supporters rather than gain them, as a result of the Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. And they didn’t have 60 votes to begin with.

So why launch this bill now? And how can they placate those on the left – like the two Senators from New Jersey and Bill Nelson of Florida – to bring them back into the fold? And what about Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who wants more protection for Mid-Atlantic states.

Changes to the bill
We know they are changing the section on offshore drilling. Originally they allowed states to veto drilling within 75 miles of their shores and offered revenue-sharing as an enticement to say yes.

Now, they’ll likely give adjacent states a veto too, and maybe move the boundary out. For sure they will strengthen safety requirements. Few are likely to argue with that.

If they’re smart they’ll exempt New Jersey and Florida, and maybe Maryland.

But will that do it?

Nothing to lose
They’re only unveiling their proposal, not putting it up for a vote. They’ve gotten as far as they can keeping it under wraps. Some fence-sitters have said they want to see what’s in it. Speculation is they’re hoping eventually to pick up a few Republican votes from New Englanders like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Scott Brown of Mass. and Judd Gregg of N.H., or George LeMieux of Fla. if the public raises a ruckus.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will not bring the bill to the floor for a vote unless he has 60 votes.

Reid may be banking on public sentiment fueled by the Gulf disaster tipping a few votes in their favor. He really has nothing to lose and reportedly was putting pressure on the sponsors to get the bill out there for others to see.

Kerry’s hoping some will be swayed by a growing coalition of support from business, faith communities, national security and environmental groups. I wonder about the 3 big oil companies that were ready to support it, if the bill is made much stricter about offshore drilling.

Presumably BP won’t be at the press conference unveiling the bill. Neither will Graham – though in the end they may be able to get his vote, if they don’t entirely ax the offshore drilling part.

This won’t be the final bill. There will be discussions and wheeling and dealing and amendments once it’s out in the open.

The impact of The Spill
A lot may depend on what happens with the spill. If it can’t be stopped and tars the coasts of many states, if there are constant photos of birds and wildlife covered with oil and people who have lost their livelihood, some drilling advocates may be forced to come around. It is an election year, remember.

And if the leak can be is stopped soon (don’t hold your breath), then perhaps those on the left will decide drilling isn’t so bad after all and will take the best they can get.

Many agree the current energy situation is untenable – whether they believe in global warming or not. The spill reminds us of that every day.

And those who believe strongly in climate change may, in the end, be unwilling to give up on a bill that caps carbon emissions and advances clean energy, even if it does open the door to limited new drilling offshore.

It’s probably worth a try.

(Sources include Greenwire, E&E News PM, Agence-France Presse via grist.org, CNN, E2Wire)

Home Star rebate plan OK'd by House panel

(Photo of energy-efficiency retrofit from Flickr and the Center for Neighborhood Technology)

Home Star, a residential energy-efficiency rebate program, was approved Wednesday by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.

The program, touted by the Obama Administration, would give 50% rebates of up to $1,500 for retrofitting homes to make them more energy-efficient. The rebates would come to consumers through the contractors doing the work. For an entire home upgrade, the rebate could be as much as $3,000.

Backed by the National Association for Manufacturers, the “Cash for Caulkers” bill is promoted as creating jobs and saving energy and therefore money and carbon emissions.

Democrats capped the bill at $6 billion, while Republicans said $1 billion was enough.

A similar bill is making its way through the Senate.

A related bill, Building Star, would provide rebates of up to 30% for commercial buildings.

For more on the Home Star program, see the White House Web site.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Can natural gas from shale save climate bill?

(Photo of natural gas rig in Louisiana from Flickr and photographer Daniel Foster)

Some Senators see incentives for natural gas from shale as a way to win more support for a climate change bill in their chamber. Leading the way to add those incentives are Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennett, the latter a swing vote himself.

New discoveries of shale gas (not to be confused with dirty shale oil) reserves, plus the technology to drill for it, have made shale gas a cleaner replacement for coal to make electricity, as well as a potential backup for wind and solar. Natural gas has about half the carbon emissions of coal. And wind and solar will need a backup, at least at the start, because of their dependence on the weather. Natural gas generators can be fired up quickly to serve that purpose.

New discoveries have increased natural gas reserves in the past couple of years, from 1,300 trillion cubic feet in 2006 to 1,800 tcf in 2008, mostly in shale, according to a report by the Potential Gas Committee.

The political potential
Lo and behold, many of the gas reserves in shale are in the homes states of uncommitted Democratic senators: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – as well as Republican George Voinovich of Ohio.

When the House version – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – narrowly passed, the majority of reps from Ark. Ohio, La. and Penn. voted against it (as well as Texas. Okla. and Ky.) and the W. Va. delegation was evenly split.

Natural gas vs. coal
Incentives for natural gas would pit the gas industry against the coal business. Natural gas would benefit from the proposed cap on emissions because it will lead to a quicker changeover from coal. And the gas industry favors fewer offsets, which would allow coal-fired utilities to stall in making changes by contributing to forests and other projects.

The coal business, not surprisingly, is worried about losing out to natural gas under climate legislation and opposes incentives that could speed that transition. The American Mining Association is running ads pointing to the volatility of natural gas prices and warning of spiking electricity costs. They’re not going to give up without a fight, so it remains to be seen which is strongest in vying for these senators’ loyalty.

But natural gas from shale, though not clean enough in the long run, just might help us over two humps – the transition to totally renewable, clean energy and the passage of a climate bill by both houses of Congress this year.

(Source: E&E Daily)

Follow us at Twitter.

Undisturbed forests store more carbon than logging plantations to help fight global warming

(Photo of old growth eucalyptus tree from Flickr and photographer Tony from Sidney)

News Update 1: A new Australian study says natural forests, with their taller trees and larger canopies, store 60% more carbon than plantation, or industrial, forests. They also store more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated in its 2007 report. Researchers at Australian National University found that in addition to growing larger, untouched trees grew older and stored carbon longer than trees cut down on a rotating basis. Biomass and soil store about 3 times as much carbon as that in the atmosphere, the report said, and 35% of the CO2 in the atmosphere came from past deforestation, while 18% of annual carbon emissions now are from deforestation. (Source: Reuters)

India’s climate plan includes renewable energy, efficiency, but no emissions target

(Photo of solar energy in rural India from Flickr and and the barefoot photographers of Tilinia)

News Update 3: India, whose economy is growing 8-9% a year, has unveiled its National Action Plan to deal with global warming. It will focus on renewable energy, efficiency and research on green technology. More specifically, the plan covers solar energy, water conservation and energy efficiency, as well as sustainable agriculture, the Himalayan ecosystem and habitat. But it does not set a target for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. India says it has a right to lift its people out of poverty, as industrial nations did while they poured GHG into the atmosphere -- and that it has low per-capita carbon emissions, at 1.2 tons, compared with the United States’ 20.6 tons (2004 data). India’s power is 60% generated by coal, with plans for new plants in the next 5 years that will generate 70,000 more megawatts. Emissions have been growing about 2-3% a year, though the country is responsible for only 4% of the world’s GHG. (Source: Thomson Reuters)

Freight trains slowed by congestion; more investment needed to expand rail system

(Photo of freight train from Flickr and photographer mre770/Bill Wooten)

News Update 3: Getting freight off the highways and onto trains would be good for the environment. But rail industry leaders are saying there already is too much freight congestion on the nation’s 140,000 miles of track and the system is strained, with freight cars sitting for hours because of one-track lines. At a recent Congressional hearing on rail congestion, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said, “The amount of money invested nationally is pathetic.” In Chicago, the country’s rail hub, trains sometimes are sidelined for as long as 36 hours, according to Jason Breslow on Medill Reports. Freight traffic is expected to nearly double in the next 2 decades, and that is without a nationwide effort to make more use of rails to cut carbon emissions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates expansion would cost $148 billion over 3 decades, most of it paid by the rail companies. (Sources: Greenwire, Medill Reports)

Hawaii, West Coast metro areas have lowest per capita residential carbon footprints -- why?

(Photo of Honolulu from Flickr and photographer Christopher Dale.)

News Update 1: If you want to reduce your personal carbon footprint, it might be a good idea to move to the West Coast, or possibly Hawaii. In a study of the 100 largest metro areas in the U.S., measuring highway driving and residential energy use, Honolulu came in first. California, Oregon and Washington all did well – in part because of the mild climate and use of hydropower, but also because of aggressive policies on energy pricing, efficiency, and availability of mass transit. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana was second, Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton third and New York City-Long Island-Northern New Jersey 4th. In California, 8 of the 10 largest metro areas were in the top 25. Washington, D.C. ranked last and had a per capita footprint 10 times that of Seattle, which was sixth. Also low on the list were Lexington, Ky., Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Toledo. Among the study’s recommendations for the federal government:
• Set a price on carbon emissions
• Pass a renewable electricity standard
• Invest more in research and development
• Help states reform electricity regulations to reward efficiency
• Give more support to mass transit
For more on the carbon footprint of the 100 metro areas see the Brookings site. (Sources: ClimateWire, New York Times)

Gas tax holiday? It’s politics versus curbing global warming and guess who will win?

(Gas pump photo from Flickr and photographer Frank Shapiro)

Washington Report 1: High gasoline prices are good for the environment, right? People drive less and buy more fuel-efficient cars. Hybrid purchases were up 38% last year while overall new auto sales slumped 3%. So high gas prices do have some impact on curbing carbon omissions. Then why are so many of those who champion cutting greenhouse gases favoring a price cut, not a tax hike, on gasoline? Ask John McCain, GOP presumptive nominee for president, who has offered a bill creating a gas-tax holiday – removal of the 18.4% federal tax during the summer. And who’s co-sponsoring his idea? None other than Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who follows McCain around like a puppy, and his partner on the global warming bill in the Senate, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). This is a case where short-term political gain clearly outweighs long-term planetary goals. Some of the key environment-championing Dems are getting in on the act too – like Senate Environment Chair Barbara Boxer (Caif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (Mass.), who also want to bring down gas prices. The Dem proposals are different, though. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would like to resurrect legislation passed by the House but not the Senate, to penalize gasoline price-gouging and repeal oil subsidies. Some other Dem ideas floating around are temporarily stopping oil transfers to the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (Boxer and Markey), and blocking arms sales to OPEC countries until they increase the oil supply. These measures aim to calm the speculation frenzy in the oil market and thus reduce prices. Different approaches but with the same goal: to cut prices so Americans can be free to use more gas. When will we learn? (Source: E&E News PM)

North Atlantic absorbing only half the CO2 it did in the ‘90s, spurring global warming fears

(Photo of Atlantic Ocean from Flickr and Desi Zavatta Musolino)

News Update: The North Atlantic Ocean, one of the world’s major carbon sinks, is absorbing less carbon dioxide, a project funded by the European Union revealed last week. Three years of research show the ocean is sopping up only half as much CO2 as it did in the last decade. The amount fluctuates, however, so it’s hard to be sure to what extent the trend will continue. Oceans normally soak up about one-quarter of the carbon emissions released into the air, so a sharp decline would accelerate GHG in the atmosphere and global warming. Scientists speculate whether the cause is carbon over-saturation or shifting weather patterns. Whatever the cause, they said we can solve the problem by reducing GHG emissions 75%. “We must act now,” said project leader Christoph Heinze. (Source: PlanetArk.)

Coal demand from abroad sparks U.S. and UK exports, despite impact on global warming

(Photo of coal loader in West Virginia from Flickr and photographer OZinOH)

News Update: Growing demand from the Third World, and the subsequent rise in prices, has turned coal into a major export for the U.S. for the first time in years and has sparked a revival in Britain, where shuttered mines are reopening. (Carbon emissions be damned. There’s money to be made!) The export boom here is helping the coal business grow at a time when environmentally wary communities have delayed or stopped more than 50 new coal-fired plants in the U.S. Environmentalists criticize both countries. “Any rise in coal use around the world is bad news for the environment,” said Alice McKeown of the Sierra Club. Both countries insist that “clean coal” must be part of the mix to meet the energy demand of the future, but so far no system is operating on a commercial scale that can clean up or capture and store the carbon emissions that cause global warming. (For more, see the New York Times. and PlanetArk)

Will Lieberman-Warner global warming bill pass the Senate? Should it pass the Senate?

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Eamonn O'Brien-Strain)

Weekly Angst: A “compromise” global warming bill (S. 2191) will head to the Senate floor for debate the first week in June. It has a fine line to tred between those who want to make it weaker and those who think it must be stronger.

Sponsors Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) are working hard to get more converts, so it can pass the 60-vote test to avoid a filibuster. Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is working with them, even though she proposed a stronger bill herself. But Boxer vows to pull the bill from the floor if it is weakened further.

Lieberman said last week he has 45 firm votes and 15 leaning heavily toward approval. That means he needs every single one of those votes, and he suggested there would need to be changes to win them. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lieberman’s Republican buddy whom he’s supporting for president, is a “leaning” vote because he wants more money for nuclear energy in the bill.

Cap-and-trade system
Lieberman-Warner (America’s Climate Security Act) is a cap-and-trade bill. That means a cap will be placed on overall greenhouse gas emissions and will steadily be lowered each year. Companies that do not cut emissions that much must buy credits from those that exceed their goal.

The bill calls for:
*A 4% reduction of GHG emissions in 2012, steadily increasing to 70% (from 2005 levels) by 2050. (Boxer would like to see that amended to 80%)
*An auction for 26.5% of the credits in 2012, rising to 79.5% by 2031. The rest of the credits would be given away free. (Boxer wants more credits paid for.)
*Distribution of auction income for jobs, deploying advanced technology, helping low- and middle-income people with increased energy costs, and mitigating negative impacts of climate change abroad.

The bill covers electric utilities, transportation, most manufacturing and natural gas, the sources of 87% of GHG. That means the actual total reduction will be 66% by 2050.


Efforts to weaken the bill
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who famously called global warming a “hoax,” says he will propose 40 amendments and lead a filibuster against the bill if he can. Inhofe has support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth.

The National Mining Association wants more money to research carbon capture and storage.

Some want the bill to pre-empt action by the states that want to do more. Boxer, from a state that is already doing more, said she will pull the bill before she lets that happen.

Others are asking for a “safety valve” if carbon prices get too high, or for more money for nuclear energy.

A coalition of energy companies and other businesses are on a 17-state blitz to undermine the bill, citing loss of jobs and higher energy prices.

Environmental groups
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace oppose the bill as not going far enough. The National Wildlife Federation supports it. The Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and World Wildlife Fund appeared with Boxer at a news conference last week, but some of them are saying the bill must be strengthened.

The dilemma for many environmentalists (in and out of Congress) is whether it’s better for the Senate to pass something, even if it’s just a first step.

The bill, of course, has two more hurdles. Passage of a similar bill in the House, which Energy Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.) says needs more deliberation and likely won’t get through the House until the end of 2008. Then there’s a likely veto from George Bush, who never has bought into the cap-and-trade idea.

An optimistic Lieberman gives his bill a 50-50 chance of becoming law, but says a new president in 2009 will increase those chances to 90%.

So some are saying why not just wait, and get a stronger bill. Others say let’s take the first step.

Frankly, I’m torn. I'd like to see 80% by 2050 and 100% auctioned credits, but we’re so far overdue in taking action I hate to put it off another year. And doing so could affect international negotiations for a climate treaty. We have been the largest cause of global warming up to now, so most of the stuff up there is ours. Maybe passing a bill, even if it doesn’t do it all, is a show of good faith and something to build on.

What do you think?

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire, Boston.com, E&E PM, and America’s Climate Security Act. )
For a one-page description of the act go to Lieberman’s Web site.

Low Carbon Diet book can help individuals join in fight against global warming

Weekly Angst: You know how hard it is to lose 5 or 10 pounds. How would you like to lose 2 1/2 tons? That’s the minimum amount we American energy hogs can lose in 30 days, with help from the Low Carbon Diet Book, to start doing our part to stop global warming.

The average American household is responsible for releasing 55,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Germans emit only half that amount (27000 lbs.) and Swedes just half that amount (13,000 lbs.), according to the book, written by David Gershon and published by the Empowerment Institute. In many U.S. communities, 85% of carbon emissions come from residences, so together we really can make a difference.

In fact, it’s going to be essential for Americans to cut their personal energy use, so why not start now? It can be contagious.

Support group
This diet offers support, like Weight Watchers, where 6-8 or more dieters can lose together and be accountable to one another.

It’s pretty easy. The workbook tells you how many pounds of CO2 you can lose for each of many actions. Then you can choose and check off what you’ve lost.

One ton (2,000 lbs.) can be lost, for example, by:
* replacing 4 light bulbs with CFLs (condensed fluorescents) – 600 lbs.
* washing your clothes in warm or cold water instead of hot – 600 lbs.
* reducing use of your dishwasher by 1 time a week by loading it up more – 175 lbs.
* turning your thermostat down 2 degrees in winter and up 2 degrees in summer – 500 lbs.
* installing one low-flow shower head – 250 lbs.

Of course if you are reading this blog you may already be doing all these things. The book has many other actions you can take, like timing your showers to keep them under 5 minutes, unplugging electronics when they’re not in use, and eating one less meal of meat a week .

Giant steps
And if you’ve already been really good about taking all the easy steps, you can try some of these larger ones:
• Call your electric company and say you want to buy only green power. Many of them can accommodate you.
• Get an energy audit from your utility company to see where you can save and set up a 3-year plan to invest in energy-efficient appliances, new windows and improved insulation. (If your refrigerator is 10 years old, you can save 500 lbs. a year by getting a new one.)

Spread the word
Or you can get your workplace, your community or club or organization to join the cause. The Empowerment Institute says it has helped more than 250,000 people reduce their carbon footprint by 25%.

The Institute trains Low Carbon Diet leaders to facilitate small groups, or eco-teams, which meet in “cafes” 4 times over 4-6 weeks. You can sign up for the next free online training session on May 1, at 9 p.m. EST, and then start leading your own groups.

In Chicago, the Nuclear Energy Information Service is training leaders to run small groups, with a goal of 250,000 households by Dec. 31. The next training meeting they’ve scheduled is this Tuesday, April 8, at 3411 W. Diversey, #19, from 6:30-9 p.m. RSVP to neis@neis.org. I know leaders who are planning cafes in the Hyde Park and Rogers Park neighborhoods, and there are probably others in Chicago, as elsewhere around the country.

To buy the book and learn more about how you can participate, go to the Empowerment Institute Web site. Wherever you are, you can be part of the solution.


One household tip from The Daily Green is to avoid buying plastic shower curtains or liners – for a number of environmental and health reasons.

Dying to end your carbon footprint?

(Photo of St. Mary's Cemetery in DeKalb, Ill., from Flickr and photographer James Jordan.)

Worried about your carbon footprint? Think it will go away when you die? Think again. A cemetery in Australia has calculated the carbon emissions of cremation versus burial. Cremation releases more CO2 immediately – about 353 lbs. – while burial is only 86. But perpetual care of the grave site adds up over the years and can turn out to emit 10% more. So what’s a body to do? (excuse the pun) Well, the Centennial Park cemetery in Adelaide figures you can offset the whole thing by planting one tree. (Reuters)

California bill seeks carbon labeling to show life-cycle GHG emissions of products

(Photo of Simon enjoying his yogurt from Flickr and photographer rikhei)

Nutritional labeling of foods has helped people eat healthier – well, some people. Now get ready for carbon labeling on your yogurt and soft drinks. Carbon labeling, showing how much greenhouse gas was emitted by producing the product, not only will let consumers buy ‘greener’ but will make manufacturers more aware of cutting carbon emissions. The UK is already doing this. Now comes a bill in the California legislature that calls for voluntary CO2 labeling as a first step toward what we may all see on most products in the next decade. In Britain, there are labels on everything from yogurt to soft drinks to fast-food snacks to diapers. Cadbury Schweppes and Coca Cola have acknowledged it makes them think more about their carbon footprint. An organization called Carbon Label California is pushing the concept. (ClimateWire 3/13)

A week of news on ethanol and hunger

(Photo of cornfield from Flickr and photographer vampire_bear)

Weekly Angst: Not long ago some touted ethanol as an answer to fossil fuels. The Bush administration said it could save us from our “dependence on foreign oil.” In the U.S., for now, ethanol means corn – that’s what’s being produced and it’s popular in farm states like Iowa and Illinois. But scientists have pointed out life-cycle carbon emissions from corn ethanol are about as bad as from gasoline – and its potential supply is limited. Even Bush recognizes we need to move quickly to non-food, cellulosic products and the new Energy Bill calls for that to happen. But, recently an even greater concern has arisen. Corn prices have skyrocketed, farmers are switching from other crops, like wheat and soybeans, and now they are soaring in price too. Hunger on the rise as food costs grow and supply can’t meet demand. A series of news items over the past week tell us where we are right now with this dilemma.

News item: Midwest drought could spike food, gas prices
Increased dependence on corn and other grains for feed, food and fuel leaves the country vulnerable to a weather catastrophe that could cut supply and push prices up even more. The price of corn is already up 20% this year. Corn could reach $8/bushel (from $5.40 now) if a drought or heat wave hits the Midwest, experts say. A problem could occur as early as this summer, as global warming and La Niña increase the likelihood of drought. (LA Times, 3/2)

News item: Tough times for ethanol force shakeout
High corn prices are squeezing profits at small ethanol distillers. Production capacity nearly doubled in the past year to 8 billion gallons a year, but the high price of corn, and of natural gas to run the distilleries, is leading to consolidation and some bankruptcies. There are also problems getting the product to customers. While farmers benefit, profits for ethanol companies hit a low in November, surged briefly when Congress passed the Energy Bill, and now are dropping again. (Reuters PlanetArk 3/3)

News item: UN warns of ‘new hunger’ as food prices surge
A perfect storm of high food and oil prices, low food supplies, climate change, demand from China and India, and diverting crops to biofuel are causing a food crisis, the executive director of the UN World Food Programme said. The “newly hungry” have money but will be priced out of the food market, adding to the 25,000 worldwide who die each day from hunger now. Record food prices are likely to continue for several years and will cause social unrest and anarchy in the streets, she warned. Afghanistan is one of the most vulnerable nations. One solution is to use more land for food, less for biofuel, she said. (PlanetArk, 3/3)

News item: U.S. won’t meet its ethanol mandate, EIA says
It’s unlikely we’ll meet the Energy Bill ethanol mandate of 36 billion gallons/year by 2022 because of the lack of “advanced” cellulosic ethanol, the Energy Information Administration told a Senate committee. Instead EIA foresees 32.5 billions gallons/year. Most U.S. ethanol is now made from corn, with only small production from switchgrass, wood chips and other agricultural and forest waste, boding ill for the future. The projection assumes the end of tariffs on ethanol imports and significant supply coming from abroad. (PlanetArk, 3/5)

News item: California company begins cellulosic refinery
Ethanol company BlueFire will soon build a cellulosic refinery next to a landfill in Lancaster, Calif., to make ethanol from grass clippings, tree trimmings, and other biomass. The goal is to produce 3.5 million gallons by the end of the year, and eventually 17 million gallons a year. By 2011, the company hopes to be building 5 refineries a year, with a capacity of 55 million gallons each. The federal government is providing up to $385 million to BlueFire and 5 other companies for capital costs to build cellulosic refineries. (Greenwire, 3/3)