Defining and evaluating the sustainability of biofuels: leading criteria and indicators
Post on 02-Feb-2016
26 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Defining and evaluating the sustainability of biofuels: leading criteria and indicators
Elisabeth GraffyU.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
Indicators Take Many Forms
Textual (‘swimmable’) Numerical (temperature,
MCLs) Visual (air quality colors) Graphical (“Consumer
reports”)
Need for National Indicators “DRIP” widely viewed as increasingly
problematic Existing mechanisms and sources too
fragmented, inconsistent, sporadic, not broadly credible Improvements in production, reporting, and use at
the national level proposed Sustainability a consistent focus
Social, economic, environmental
Major National Indicator Efforts Heinz Center: State of the Nation’s Ecosystems NAS: Key National Indicator Initiative
State of the USA EPA: Report on the Environment Intergovernmental: Sustainable Water, Forest,
Rangeland, Minerals Roundtables National: NEST pilot Federal: IWG on sustainability criteria for biofuels
National Biomass R&D Board Co-chaired by DOE and USDA
NSF, EPA, DOI, DOT, OSTP, OFEE, DOC, DOD, Treasury
Created by E.O. > Biomass R&D Act of 2000 > Energy Policy Act of 2005
Responsibility: coordinate Federal activities to promote biobased industrial products. President’s 20-in-10 plan, biofuels aspects of the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 National Biofuels Action Plan 2008
National Biofuels Action Plan 2008
“The Board aims to provide the interagency leadership to steer biofuels development on a sustainable path through the compilation and evaluation of biofuels
sustainability criteria, benchmarks and indicators.”
Interagency Leadership Charge Establish a Sustainability Interagency
Working Group led by DOE, USDA, EPA Define, by November 2008, a set of science-
based national biofuels criteria and indicators Coordinate with ongoing international
activities, interface with industry and environmental groups, and plan workshops with internal and external stakeholders.
S-IWG Criteria and Indicators Criteria
Directional: prescriptive, imply policy direction that may or may not currently exist; could show U.S. leadership.
Neutral: descriptive, aligned with other U.S. activities underway in international community (e.g. GBEP); provide policy flexibility and consistency with projected future policy development and legislation.
Indicators Intended to empirically capture the direct and indirect
consequences of moving to a biobased energy future. Aim is relevance, availability of science information,
economic feasibility.
S-IWG -- Draft Criteria
1. Greenhouse gases (GHG)
2. Soil quality and land productivity
3. Water use efficiency and quality
4. Air quality
5. Biological diversity
S-IWG -- Draft Criteria (cont.)6. Land use change impacts
7. Resource use and conversion efficiency and productivity
8. Cost competitiveness and returns
9. Economic well-being and rural development
10. Food, feed, and fiber supply
S-IWG -- Draft Criteria (cont.)11. Public health and safety12. Legal and institutional framework
compliance13. Workforce capacity 14. Imported oil displacement and energy supply
diversity15. Net energy balance16. Energy access
Evaluating Indicators Not just a question of whether they are right
or wrong… What are they for? Who are they for? Who should be involved in development? Is science-based sufficient? How will they be used in practice? Is coordination necessary across sectors, scales?
Helpful Analytic Frameworks Policy Cultures of
Information Use Beyond the Pyramid Strategic Coordination
with other Trends
Policy Cultures of Information Use Scientific – improve understanding Ecological – protect ecosystems, resources Managerial – promote efficient use, solve
problems, balance objectives Governance – enhance public access to
information, to policymaking Development -- improve human welfare,
eradicate poverty, disease
Policy Cultures as Diagnostic Tool OECD: “ultimate goal of
improving policy making, democracy and citizens’ wellbeing.”
NEST/US: credible, consistent, comprehensive to support federal and state level decisions
S-IWG on biofuels: “Expanding biofuels usage to 36 BGY over 15 years on a sustainable basis”
Who and What are they for?
Who is or should be involved?
Is science-based enough?
A “Post-Pyramid” View
Policy, Planning, and
Mgmt Indicators
Monitoring Data and Statistics
Legitimize common knowledge base for public
discourse, social learning
Measure Progress or
Accountability to goals
Uses: projected or desired
Public Frames
Key Indicators
Design: what for and for whom?
Synthesized knowledge, symbols, narratives, metaphors with technical,
cultural, economic, spiritual content
Advance scientific understanding
Strategic Coordination with Trends 1 Sustainability indicators for
biofuels under development Global Bioenergy Partnership
(G8) International Roundtable on
Sustainable Biofuels (NG) UK plans mandatory biofuels
sustainability standards by 2011 Crop-specific sustainability
criteria & indicators (palm oil, soy, sugar cane) drafted for use as management
benchmarks and market certification
Strategic Coordination with Trends 2 U.S. National
environmental indicators overlap in many areas Water Land use Soils Biodiversity Atmospheric ….
Strategic Coordination with Trends 3 General sustainability & societal indicators
OECD: “life satisfaction, freedom, trust, the level of education, income, employment, government effectiveness, the quality of democracy, corruption reduction, tolerance, commitment and innovation all are aspects of one phenomenon: societal progress”
How do or should state-level bioenergy indicators fit in?
top related