Not exact matches
One of the reform proposals most hotly
debated in the Senate, but ultimately defeated, was the Lugar - Lautenberg Amendment, which would have shifted subsidies to fruit and vegetable growers and cut overall spending
on subsidies in order to shift money to conservation,
biofuel and nutrition programs.
For a great overview of both sides of the argument (framed around the
biofuels industry), I recommend you look at two Green Inc. posts framing the
debate, one today
on the industry point of view that intensified agriculture can cut land use, and one from last week
on the opposing view.
The report calls for greater
debate about
biofuels before ploughing headlong into a completely
biofuel - powered society, although it focuses mainly
on first generation fuels, unlike the Science papers.
The
debate over
biofuels and economics has tended to focus
on mandates and subsidies rather than carbon taxes — unsurprisingly, given the absence of carbon - taxing in the U.S. and the prevalence of large
biofuel subsidies, primarily via the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Thankfully the
biofuel debate doesn't need to just focus
on land based
biofuels.
But large uncertainties and postulations underlie the
debate about the indirect land - use effects of
biofuels on tropical deforestation, the critical implication being that use of U.S. farmland for energy crops necessarily causes new land - clearing elsewhere.
Debates about
biofuels tend to focus separately
on estimates of adverse effects
on food security, poverty, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions driven by land - use change (LUC)(1 — 4).
With the
debate over the viability of ethanol and other
biofuels raging
on (and
on), some are betting — not
on solar, not
on wind power — but
on geothermal power as the next best possible source of renewable energy (more information
on geothermal here,