Return to Op-eds Index

What would Theodore do?

by REP Policy Director Jim DiPeso
published December 2003 in the BCO Newsletter, by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute

America faces a web of interrelated security, economic, and environmental problems tied to energy.

For Republicans for Environmental Protection, the first step to begin solving any public policy problem is to ask, "What would Theodore do?"

Theodore Roosevelt, that is. The nation's 26th president is remembered for his sweeping conservation achievements. Roosevelt 's record was based on a powerful insight that is still relevant a century after his presidency -- careful stewardship of America 's natural resources is essential for keeping the nation strong, prosperous, and secure.

Bring TR forward 100 years and Roosevelt would see that producing transportation and electricity fuels from farms and working forests would appeal to his multi-dimensional thinking about national defense, economic prosperity, and environmental quality.

A muscular nationalist and naval historian with a strategic mind, Roosevelt would develop bio-energy as one of several measures to plug a glaring hole in America 's security – growing dependence on oil and the concomitant risk exposure to political and economic forces outside the nation's control.

A scientist and outdoorsman with a deep affinity for nature, TR would promote bio-energy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollutants.

A gentleman farmer with a strong interest in strengthening agriculture, TR would see bio-energy as an economic opportunity for rural America .

Bio-energy has enormous potential. Between 2010 and 2020, 500-600 million dry tons of biomass residues will be generated each year, which translates into enough ethanol to meet 30 percent of current gasoline demand, or enough electricity to supply 160,000 households, according to U.S. Department of Energy estimates.

Ethanol's utility as a clean fuel has been recognized for decades, but it has been out-muscled in the market by the petroleum-based competition. However, Henry Ford's 1925 prediction that ethanol is "the fuel of the future" may yet come to pass.

Ethanol has clear environmental benefits when blended with gasoline. E10 (a blend of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline) dilutes highly toxic compounds in gasoline, such as benzene and toluene. A life-cycle analysis conducted in 1999 by the Argonne National Laboratory estimated that each gallon of gasoline blended 10 percent with ethanol cuts greenhouse gas emissions by up to 19 percent. Higher blends can deliver greater benefits.

Demand for ethanol is growing. America produced an estimated 2.7 billion gallons in 2003, up 21 percent from the previous year. Nearly all ethanol is produced from corn starch, providing farmers in Minnesota , Illinois , and other Corn Belt states with a growing market for their product.

Two drawbacks to starch-based ethanol are that, absent tax incentives, costs are not competitive with gasoline and the feedstock base is too narrow. The key to solving both problems is producing cellulosic ethanol from cheap, abundant feedstocks such as rice straw, corn stover, wood waste, and grasses. Perfecting chemical techniques to produce cellulosic ethanol is critical to expanding the feedstock base and cutting costs.

Cheap, abundant ethanol produced anywhere that farm and forestry residues are available would free America 's economy and security from the oil dependence treadmill and its dangerous risks.

According to a 1999 Foreign Affairs article by Senator Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, and former CIA Director James Woolsey, using half the mown grasses planted on idled cropland could produce enough cellulosic ethanol to meet 25 percent of current gasoline demand, more than enough to replace all imports from Saudi Arabia.

Like ethanol, biodiesel can deliver motive power with fewer environmental impacts. According to an EPA analysis, pure biodiesel's particulate emissions are just over half those of petroleum-based diesel. Like ethanol, biodiesel can boost the farm economy. A U.S. Department of Agriculture analysis estimated that boosting annual biodiesel consumption from today's 20 million gallons to 100 million gallons would mean an extra $112 million in income for soybean farmers.

Biogas is one of many ways that plant and animal products can serve as power plant fuel. Through anaerobic digestion of cattle manure, dairy farmers, for example, can earn supplementary income generating power and comply with increasingly stringent dairy waste management requirements.

There is no shortage of feedstock -- one dairy cow can excrete 100 or more pounds of manure per day. An engine-driven generator with a heat rate of 14,000 Btu per kilowatt-hour could produce nearly 2.6 megawatt-hours of electricity per day from the output of 1,000 cows, according to a California Energy Commission estimate.

Impressive figures, but realizing biomass' potential will require overcoming institutional, technical, and cost barriers.

First, Congress and the administration must do a better job of crafting energy legislation that sets long-term strategies for lowering energy costs, improving efficiency, diversifying energy resources, and reducing harmful emissions. Bio-energy will never break out if national energy policy follows a business-as-usual path of ever-greater dependence on fossil fuels.

Second, strong federal support for applied research is essential. High priority must be given to cracking the biochemistry nut that will lead to production of cheap, abundant cellulosic ethanol.

Third, federal incentives and standards are necessary to level the playing field between renewable and conventional energy sources. Congress should extend the production tax credit for dedicated energy crops and expand the credit to open-loop biomass - residues from non-dedicated farm and forestry production. (To avoid giving unwise incentives for cutting fire-resistant old trees, no credit should be offered for generating energy from old-growth forest biomass.)

The 5 billion-gallon renewable fuels standard and the penny-per-point tax incentive for biodiesel are two of the useful features in the otherwise flawed energy bill currently before Congress. Both measures should be enacted. Farm energy programs authorized by the 2002 farm bill should be fully funded. And a national portfolio standard should be adopted to jump-start the market for biomass and other renewable energy resources.

A national energy strategy that expands the market for bio-energy and other clean, home-grown resources should be appealing to Republicans and Democrats alike. America will be more secure, the environment will be cleaner, the nation will be doing its part to reduce climate risks, and the agricultural economy will be stronger.

As Theodore Roosevelt would say, a forward-looking energy strategy would be a square deal for every American.