|
Showing 1 - 14 of
14 matches in All Departments
Wildfires are getting more severe, with more acres and houses
burned and more people at risk. This results from excess biomass in
the forests, due to past logging and grazing and a century of fire
suppression, combined with an expanding wildland-urban
interface-more people and houses in and near the forests-and
climate change, exacerbating drought and insect and disease
problems. Some assert that current efforts to protect houses and to
reduce biomass (through fuel treatments, such as thinning) are
inadequate, and that public objections to some of these activities
on federal lands raise costs and delay action. Others counter that
proposals for federal lands allow timber harvesting with
substantial environmental damage and little fire protection.
Congress is addressing these issues through various legislative
proposals and through funding for protection programs. Wildfires
are inevitable-biomass, dry conditions, and lightning create fires.
Some are surface fires, which burn needles, grasses, and other fine
fuels and leave most trees alive. Others are crown fires, which are
typically driven by high winds and burn biomass at all levels from
the ground through the tree tops. Many wildfires contain areas of
both surface and crown fires. Surface fires are relatively easy to
control, but crown fires are difficult, if not impossible, to stop;
often, crown fires burn until they run out of fuel or the weather
changes. Homes can be ignited by direct contact with fire, by
radiative heating, and by firebrands (burning materials lifted by
the wind or the fire's own convection column). Protection of homes
must address all three. Research has identified the keys to
protecting structures: having a nonflammable roof; clearing
burnable materials that abut the house (e.g., plants, flammable
mulch, woodpiles, wooden decks); and landscaping to create a
defensible space around the structure. Wildland and resource
damages from fire vary widely, depending on the nature of the
ecosystem as well as on site-specific conditions. Surface fire
ecosystems, which burn on 5- to 35-year cycles, can be damaged by
crown fires due to unnatural fuel accumulations and fuel ladders
(small trees and dense undergrowth); fuel treatments probably
prevent some crown fires in such ecosystems. Stand-replacement fire
ecosystems are those where crown fires are natural and the species
are adapted to periodic crown fires; fuel treatments are unlikely
to alter the historic fire regime of such ecosystems. In
mixed-intensity fire ecosystems, where a mix of surface and crown
fires is historically normal, it is unclear whether fuel treatments
would alter wildfire patterns. Prescribed burning (intentional
fires) and mechanical treatments (cutting and removing some trees)
can reduce resource damages caused by wildfires in some ecosystems.
However, prescribed fires are risky, mechanical treatments can
cause other ecological damages, and both are expensive. Proponents
of more treatment advocate expedited processes for environmental
and public review of projects to hasten action and cut costs, but
others caution that inadequate review can allow unintended damages
with few fire protection benefits.
Congress is examining numerous energy sources to determine their
contribution to the nation's energy portfolio and the federal role
in supporting these sources. Hydropower, the use of flowing water
to produce electricity, is one such source. Conventional hydropower
accounted for approximately 6% of total U.S. net electricity
generation in 2010. Hydropower has advantages and disadvantages as
an energy source. Its advantages include its status as a
continuous, or baseload, power source that releases minimal air
pollutants during power generation relative to fossil fuels. Some
of its disadvantages, depending on the type of hydropower plant,
include high initial capital costs, ecosystem disruption, and
reduced generation during low water years and seasons. Hydropower
project ownership can be categorized as federal or nonfederal. The
bulk of federal projects are owned and managed by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Nonfederal
projects are licensed and overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Considered by many to be an established energy
source, hydropower is not always discussed alongside clean or
renewable energy sources in the ongoing energy debate. However,
hydropower proponents argue that hydropower is cleaner than some
conventional energy sources, and point to recent findings that
additional hydropower capacity could help the United States reach
proposed energy, economic, and environmental goals. Others argue
that the expansion of hydropower in the form of numerous small
hydropower projects could have environmental impacts and regulatory
concerns similar to those of existing large projects. Congress
faces several issues as it determines how hydropower fits into a
changing energy and economic landscape. For example, existing large
hydropower infrastructure is aging; many of the nation's hydropower
generators and dams are over 30 years old. Proposed options to
address this concern include increasing federal funding, utilizing
alternative funding, privatizing federally owned dams, and
encouraging additional small-capacity generators, among other
options. Additionally, whether to significantly expand or encourage
expansion of hydropower is likely to require congressional input
due to the uncertainty surrounding the clean and renewable energy
portfolio within power markets. Potential expansion of hydropower
projects could take place by improving efficiency at existing
projects or by building new projects, or both. Congressional
support for this approach is evident in the House passage of the
Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and
Rural Jobs Act of 2012 (H.R. 2842). Senate activity on this matter
includes the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 629), which
proposes to establish a grants program for increased hydropower
production, and to amend the Federal Power Act (FPA) to authorize
FERC to exempt electric power generation facilities on federal
lands from the act's requirements, among other things. Another
issue is the rate at which FERC issues licenses for nonfederal
projects, which is slower than some find ideal. The licensing
process can be delayed significantly as stakeholders and the
approximately dozen federal and state agencies involved give their
input. FERC responded by developing a more streamlined licensing
process in 2003. Still, some object to "mandatory conditions" that
federal agencies can place on new or renewed hydropower facilities.
The 112th Congress has introduced roughly 25 bills regarding
hydropower, a quarter of which are state- or site-specific
legislation.
Climate change policies at both the national and international
levels have traditionally focused on measures to mitigate
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to adapt to the actual or
anticipated impacts of changes in the climate. As a participant in
several international agreements on climate change, the United
States has joined with other nations to express concern about
climate change. However, in the absence of a national climate
change policy, some recent technological advances and hypotheses,
generally referred to as "geoengineering" technologies, have
created alternatives to these traditional approaches. If deployed,
these new technologies could modify the Earth's climate on a large
scale. Moreover, these new technologies may become available to
foreign governments and entities in the private sector to use
unilaterally-without authorization from the United States
government or an international treaty-as was done in the summer of
2012 when an American citizen conducted an ocean fertilization
experiment off the coast of Canada. The term "geoengineering"
describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale
and deliberate modifications of the Earth's energy balance, to
reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change.
Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research
stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has
yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published
that document the cost, environmental effects, sociopolitical
impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If
geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected
to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.
In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management
(SRM) method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse
gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR
methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and
sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the
reflectivity of the Earth's atmosphere or surface. Aerosol
injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods.
SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but
can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling
results compared to CDR methods. To date, there is limited federal
involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering. However, some
states as well as some federal agencies, notably the Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture,
and the Department of Defense, have taken actions related to
geoengineering research or projects. At the international level,
there is no international agreement or organization governing the
full spectrum of possible geoengineering activities. Nevertheless,
provisions of many international agreements, including those
relating to climate change, maritime pollution, and air pollution,
would likely inform the types of geoengineering activities that
state parties to these agreements might choose to pursue. In 2010,
the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted provisions calling
for member parties to abstain from geoengineering unless the
parties have fully considered the risks and impacts of those
activities on biodiversity. With the possibility that
geoengineering technologies may be developed and that climate
change will remain an issue of global concern, policymakers may
determine whether geoengineering warrants attention at either the
federal or international level. If so, policymakers will also need
to consider whether geoengineering can be effectively addressed by
amendments to existing laws and international agreements or,
alternatively, whether new laws and international treaties would
need to be developed.
Research on climate change has identified a wide array of sources
that emit greenhouse gases (GHGs). Among the six gases that have
generally been the primary focus of concern, methane is the
second-most abundant, accounting for approximately 8% of total U.S.
GHG emissions in 2008. Methane is emitted from a number of sources.
The most significant are agriculture (both animal digestive systems
and manure management); landfills; oil and gas production,
refining, and distribution; and coal mining.
The use of biomass as an energy feedstock is emerging as a
potentially viable alternative to address U.S. energy security
concerns, foreign oil dependence, rural economic development, and
diminishing sources of conventional energy. Biomass (organic matter
that can be converted into energy) may include food crops, crops
for energy (e.g., switchgrass or prairie perennials), crop
residues, wood waste and byproducts, and animal manure. Most
legislation involving biomass has focused on encouraging the
production of liquid fuels from corn. Efforts to promote the use of
biomass for power generation have focused on wood, wood residues,
and milling waste. Comparatively less emphasis has been placed on
the use of non-corn-based biomass feedstocks-other food crops,
non-food crops, crop residues, animal manure, and more-as renewable
energy sources for liquid fuel use or for power generation. This is
partly due to the variety, lack of availability, and dispersed
location of non-corn-based biomass feedstock. The technology
development status and costs to convert non-corn-based biomass into
energy are also viewed by some as an obstacle to rapid technology
deployment. For over 30 years, the term biomass has been a part of
legislation enacted by Congress for various programs, indicating
some interest by the general public and policymakers in expanding
its use. To aid understanding of why U.S. consumers, utility
groups, refinery managers, and others have not fully adopted
biomass as an energy resource, this report investigates the
characterization of biomass in legislation. The definition of
biomass has evolved over time, most notably since 2004. The report
lists biomass definitions enacted by Congress in legislation and
the tax code since 2004 and definitions contained in legislation
from the 111th Congress (the American Clean Energy and Security Act
of 2009, H.R. 2454; the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of
2009, S. 1462; the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, S.
1733; and the discussion draft of the American Power Act). Comments
on the similarities and differences among the definitions are
provided. One point of contention regarding the definition is the
inclusion of biomass from federal lands. Some argue that removal of
biomass from these lands may lead to ecological harm. Others
contend that biomass from federal lands can aid the production of
renewable energy to meet certain mandates (e.g., the Renewable Fuel
Standard) and that removal of biomass can enhance forest protection
from wildfires. Factors that may prevent a private landowner from
rapidly entering the biomass feedstock market are also included in
the report. Bills were introduced in the 112th Congress that would
modify the biomass definition (e.g., S. 781, H.R. 1861). However,
debates about the definition have not been as extensive in the
112th Congress as they were in previous Congresses. Forthcoming
discussions about energy, particularly legislation involving the
Renewable Fuel Standard or energy tax incentives, may prompt
further discussion about the definition of biomass.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Morbius
Jared Leto, Matt Smith, …
DVD
R179
Discovery Miles 1 790
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|