Summary of Bioenergy Greenhouse Gas Accounting 

Stakeholder Group Discussions

In January and February 2010, a series of three meetings were held among a diverse group of 

stakeholders to foster a better understanding of the net flux of greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions to the atmosphere from the growth, production and combustion of biomass for heat 

and electricity and transportation fuels. (Throughout this summary, the inclusive term 

“bioenergy” is used to encompass biopower – electrical, thermal or both – and liquid biofuels.) 

The meetings were designed to work towards a common understanding of the underlying 

science that should inform the accounting of GHG emissions related to the growth, production 

and combustion of biomass for bioenergy. This was accomplished by discussing the 

terminology and key concepts and then exploring a set of energy production scenarios in an 

effort to establish a common understanding of the underlying science and accounting issues 

associated with GHG emissions related to bioenergy. 

The organizer of the meetings, the Environment Defense Fund, acknowledged that strategiclevel scenarios - that is, those taking into account changes in real-world biomass inventories 

over time and space, driven by economic drivers as well as other factors such as domestic 

energy security, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and ecosystem health – should also 

ultimately be considered in shaping domestic policy. However, in order to keep the discussion 

manageable, the meetings focused on the bioenergy scenarios and their effects on the carbon 

cycle rather than a full range of strategic, economic and policy considerations. 

A diverse set of stakeholders participated, representing perspectives of forest landowners, 

agricultural producers, biofuel producers, bioenergy trade associations, environmental 

organizations, and scientists from academic institutions (see Attachment A for a list of 

attendees). The meetings were facilitated by Timothy Mealey, Senior Partner of the Meridian 

Institute.

Meeting Objectives 

1. Establish a better understanding of the underlying science and accounting for 

greenhouse gas emissions related to bioenergy by focusing on the impacts from the 

production and combustion of biomass for bioenergy on net greenhouse gas emissions. 

The scenarios were hypothetical and did not include the economic and policy drivers 

that might influence them.
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 2 of 16

2. Identify and discuss key concepts and terms needed to understand the science required 

to define the net impact of the production and use of bioenergy on rates of climate 

change. 

3. Conduct a structured conversation around a representative set of bioenergy production 

pathways in order to accomplish objective number one. 

4. Draw insights from the discussion of the diverse perspectives of each scenario to 

elucidate differences or similarities in the views that exist on bioenergy-related GHG 

accounting.

5. Discuss lessons learned from the exercise and possible next steps for the group.

Overview

The expanding market for bioenergy creates new opportunities for sustainable management of 

private lands as well as potential markets for additional products from these lands, which may 

increase harvesting rates. The unique opportunity provided in the still early stages of the 

bioenergy industry is to understand whether bioenergy creates benefits through the entire 

supply chain, including for land owners, as well as for the environment. 

In recent months an article was published in Science (October, 2009) with EDF staff as coauthors. This article was written with the intention of raising scientific and accounting issues 

associated with biomass for bioenergy. The stakeholder meetings were designed, in part, to 

address issues raised by the article and further explore key scientific aspects of GHG 

accounting associated with bioenergy use. 

The goal of the meetings was not to develop a consensus but rather to create a deeper 

understanding of the scientific and accounting issues surrounding GHG emissions associated 

with bioenergy. Definitive answers were not sought. Participants were urged to look through a 

scientific lens as much as possible in order to begin building a foundation that could later inform a 

policy discussion. The overarching purpose of this effort was to gain a better understanding of 

the underlying science and accounting that could eventually be applied in a policy context.

The first meeting reviewed definitions and scientific terminology associated with the carbon 

cycle and GHG emission accounting issues that are applicable to both fossil and bio-based 

energy. These were not introduced to provide consensus on terminology but to draw as much 

as possible from well-regarded sources, including reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC). The group was asked to identify any terms that raised serious 

questions from a scientific perspective or caused concern or disagreement. In addition, a series 

of questions were posed for discussion during the first meeting to help the group explore key 

aspects of the accounting challenge such as the spatial and temporal scope. 

This general discussion established the basis for the second and third meetings during which 

the group explored a number of hypothetical scenarios related to the use of biomass for energy 

and liquid fuels. The scenario exercises were intended for illustrative purposes only, to help 
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 3 of 16

participants understand the challenges associated with GHG accounting. Thus, both the 

description of the scenarios and the resulting numbers were unit-less, meaning only the 

relative relationships were of interest and not absolute values. They were used solely as a 

means to guide the conversation and explore the underlying rationale for how GHG 

accounting reflects our understanding of the carbon cycle.

Initial Questions and Issues

Early in the dialogue five key scientific questions were posed to help provide the basis for 

more detailed discussion of hypothetical scenarios. The questions included:

1. What overarching metric is most appropriate in evaluating the climate change impacts 

of different forms of bioenergy (e.g. net greenhouse gas emissions for x years after 

combusted; net radiative forcing over the next century)? 

2. What time interval is most appropriate for evaluating the climate change impacts of 

production and combustion of bioenergy feed stocks (e.g. 1 year, 5 years, 100 years)? 

3. What spatial context should be used for the climate change impact of different types of 

biomass for bioenergy (e.g. the field/forest stand where the material is grown, the 

nation, the earth)? 

4. What factors need to be considered when evaluating the climate change effects of the 

production and combustion of biomass for bioenergy/biofuels? Factors may include: 

• Carbon flux from net primary productivity (photosynthesis –respiration) of the 

vegetation; 

• Carbon flux from decomposing vegetation; 

• Carbon emissions from combustion of the bioenergy feedstock and the fossil 

fuels they potentially displace; 

• Storage of carbon in products; 

• Carbon emissions associated with processing/transporting the bioenergy/fossil 

fuel of feedstocks.

5. Are the metrics, timeframe, and factors identified above the same for bioenergy as they 

are for fossil-based energy? For example, are there differences among carbon stocks 

(such as between soils, biomass, or fossil fuels) that impact how the climate change 

impacts of energy produced from these stocks should be compared? Aside from 

economic drivers, does the physical stability of a carbon stock matter when considering 

the climate change implications of storing carbon among different stocks, e.g. between 

carbon stored in wood products and carbon stored in coal?
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 4 of 16

Metrics, Measurement and Accounting

Several interrelated and complex concepts were mentioned during the course of a wide 

ranging discussion of these questions, including:

• Net GHG emissions: total emissions or sequestration of GHGs relative to agreed upon 

temporal, spatial, and/or policy baselines, boundaries or measurement scale as 

appropriate;

• Net radiative forcing: change in radiative balance at the surface of the earth resulting 

from an activity, usually measured as W/m2;

• The convention of measuring GHGs as CO2 Equivalents (CO2e): a methodology that 

accounts for the differential impacts of different GHGs;

• Global Warming Potential (GWP): relies upon the concept of CO2e and sums the global 

warming impacts of all the greenhouse gas fluxes which occur over a specified time 

period (e.g.; fluxes over 50 years or 100 years);

• Fuel Warming Potential (FWP): a framework to aggregate net radiative forcing effects 

that occur over a significant span of time into a global warming intensity metric that 

better represents the climate effects of fuel substitution (from O’Hare, “Proper 

accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels’ greenhouse gas deficit versus 

petroleum”);

• The need for evaluation of biomass production and use taking into account spatial and 

temporal dimensions in accounting;

• The need to account for other factors affecting climate change including, for example, 

volcanic activity, water vapor and changes in Earth surface albedo;

• The need to account for the influence and impact of economic and policy drivers on 

bioenergy related GHG emissions;

• The difference between accounting for flows (of GHGs into the atmosphere) and stocks 

(quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere or in biomass); and

• The appropriate accounting for a potential “pulses” of emissions from changes in land 

use, and how that accounting would change over different time frames and spatial 

dimensions and in different economic and policy scenarios.

Several participants noted that it is not clear what the overarching purpose for a core metric is. 

Specifically, are we trying to produce a metric that is useful for policy-making purposes or are 

we trying to determine the appropriate metric for assessing the impacts of a specific project or 

product? This question came up repeatedly and eventually led to discussion of the distinction 

between attributional life cycle assessments (LCAs) and consequential LCAs. Attributional LCA 

aims at describing the environmental impacts of a life cycle within system boundaries defined 

by the energy and material flows directly connected to the functional unit being studied. A 
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 5 of 16

consequential LCA generates information on the consequences of actions, even if they occur 

outside the boundaries of the studied systems.1

Several participants suggested that the criteria that should be applied to the selection of an 

overarching metric should include: a) measurability (can the phenomenon be easily measured); 

and b) understandability (is the metric easily understood). 

Temporal Dimension

Several aspects of the time dimension were recognized as being particularly challenging to 

incorporate into an overarching metric. These aspects include the net GHG/ CO2e emissions 

over the short-term and net warming effect of those emissions on the atmosphere over the 

long-term taking into account both emissions and sequestration. It was also pointed out that 

the appropriate length of time for the long-term dimension may differ depending on the source 

of the biomass and the types of GHGs that are emitted. Some participants suggested it was 

important to consider the net flux of GHGs over an extended period of time – preferably 100 

years or more. Over a shorter period of time, such as five years, net CO2 implications for the 

atmosphere may not become apparent. This led to a discussion of the differences between 

simply accounting for the net flux of GHGs to and from the atmosphere and accounting for net 

radiative forcing implications of the residence of those GHGs in the atmosphere. Others 

suggested a timeframe of at least 50 years to account for the half-life of methane (CH4) and the 

transformation of methane into CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ultimately the group emphasized it is important to assess and understand the climate change 

effects of the accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere (which is typically measured 

by net radiative forcing and/or changes in the net radiative balance). However, because of the 

impossibility of directly measuring radiative forcing caused by specific energy processes –

especially in combination with other important physical phenomena that affect the climate 

such as albedo – surrogate measures such as net GHG emissions (expressed as CO2e) or GWP 

are reasonable starting points for an appropriate metric to measure and account for the climate 

impacts from the production and combustion of biomass for bioenergy. However, participants 

also recognized that such metrics can only account for the climate impacts of biomass used for

bioenergy in conjunction with some underlying assumptions about treatment of the time 

dimension. In the case of GWP, the eventual radiative forcing of an atmospheric gas emitted 

into the atmosphere and leaving at a known rate is typically integrated over a standard time 

horizon, commonly 100 years, although other periods can be used. 

There was some discussion around the fundamental problem with simply summing the net 

flux of GHGs to the atmosphere is that a sum of zero (total emissions over some time equal to 

total sequestration over that time) suggests absence of global warming effect, whereas the 

 

1 Ekvall, T., Weidema, B.P., Int. J. of LCA 9(3): 161 (2004)
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 6 of 16

GHGs have been in the atmosphere for some period and had a warming effect. In other words, 

simply summing greenhouse gas flux over some period does not accurately tell us about the 

climate change effect of those gases. This would suggest that frequent assessments, such as 

every 5 years, over an extended time period are necessary for accounting for GHG emissions 

from bioenergy. In addition to knowing how much greenhouse gas went into and out of the 

atmosphere, it's also necessary to consider the effect it had when it was there. The net effect 

will be impacted by the spatial scale at which these emissions are examined.

Others noted that GHG molecules are dispersed in the atmosphere rather than “hovering” over 

the site of the emission and, therefore, bioenergy emissions from a specific location are coupled 

with carbon sequestration from other locations. Thus, they suggested the effect of the GHGs 

removed from the atmosphere should be considered in tandem with the effect of those emitted 

into the atmosphere.

There was also discussion of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a metric that reflects all the 

global warming effects of fluxes that occur within a time window but does not consider the 

effects of fluxes that occur outside that window. GWP with a 50-year window would sum the 

full warming effect over the next century of emissions in year 49 but no effect of emissions in 

year 51. This was contrasted with Fuel Warming Potential (FWP) that only measures the

global warming effects that occur within the specified time window. Thus, with a 50 year 

window, emissions in year 1 would have 49 years to contribute to warming, while emissions in 

year 49 would only contribute 1 year of warming, and emissions in year 51 would contribute 

zero years of warming during this time window. Some participants noted that this approach 

mitigated the problem with GWP of having a sharp cutoff for quantifying impacts in one 

particular year.

The group explored but did not have time to fully address the possibility of establishing a 

metric that utilized a “rolling average” approach whereby both the short and long-term 

impacts are accounted for updated and recalculated over time based on improved 

understandings of the short and long-term impacts. A participant emphasized that the 

temporal issue must be examined in the context of spatial effects. If over an area the carbon 

fluxes up are equal to the carbon fluxes down, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not 

increasing, regardless of how long a period is required to grow each plot, and regardless of 

how long each molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere.

Spatial Dimension

Just as the temporal scope of analysis or accounting shapes the net emissions of using 

bioenergy, the spatial scope does as well. For example, a spatially limited analysis may 

overlook associated processes that are critical to understanding the actual impacts of activities 

on atmospheric CO2. 
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 7 of 16

Several participants suggested that the Forest Inventory and Assessment (FIA) periodically 

conducted and updated by the U.S. Forest Service was a reasonably effective scale and 

approach to measuring changes in forest biomass in the U.S. The FIA covers both public and 

private lands and captures land use changes in forest cover and type at the national scale. It 

was noted that the net capture of CO2 from forests is substantial for the United States as carbon 

stocks have been stable or increasing over time. However, a comment was made that just 

because a sink is positive or increasing does not mean we should not be concerned if policies 

reduce the rate of sequestration or cause it to increase at a slower rate. The counter point was 

also presented, with respect to the feedstock source and whether or not it is itself a net source 

or sink. It was suggested that if the feedstock source is a net sink, the energy it produces does 

not increase net atmospheric GHGs. It was also suggested that the issue of whether forests 

overall are a net carbon sink is a separate question. Some argued that at the global scale it is 

quite evident that net emission of GHGs from forests is increasing due to rapid forest 

degradation and deforestation in some developing countries. Others noted that based on the 

IPCC reports, the amount of emissions that go into the atmosphere and into the ocean means 

that the net flux going into the land is positive – meaning the land serves as a net “sink” of 

carbon rather than a net source of carbon. How should we account for the so-called missing 

carbon sink? Do we discount it because it is not fully understood? 

Many participants noted that market-mediated or market-induced changes in land use are also 

important and should be considered in an accounting system, in order for a more complete 

understanding of the impacts to be gained. Other participants responded that the inclusion of 

indirect land use change raises significant questions of causation. There are numerous factors 

that determine land-use change, and it is difficult or impossible to definitively isolate any one 

factor from another factor. Some participants expressed that the notion of attributing land-use 

changes that occur in one part of the globe (in the U.S., for example) as a result of increases in 

the use of biomass for bioenergy or biofuel to land use changes that occur in far distant parts 

of the globe is both unfair and impossible to verify.

Purpose of the Accounting System

The group discussed the distinction between attributional and consequential life cycle 

assessments (referred to earlier) and to the question of what is the appropriate spatial scale for 

evaluating climate impacts of bioenergy. This question caused the discussion to return to the 

broad question of what is the overarching purpose of the accounting system. Several 

participants said that product level accounting is necessary and important but cautioned that it 

is also important to ensure that the accounting is accurate in order to avoid unfair impacts to 

certain groups or sectors.

Others questioned whether the accounting approach suggested by the list of factors relied 

upon a flow accounting framework rather than a stock accounting framework. Some 

expressed a preference for stock accounting as it would take into account change in the pools 

of carbon over time and help determine what might happen over a 100 year period. Others
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 8 of 16

noted a “flux was just a change in stocks” and emphasized the need to identify the right pools 

and suggested the group might want to consider the rebound effect as well (i.e., adding more 

biofuel into the national fuel mix, affects the price of fuel, thereby affecting supply and

consumption of fuels in general). Others indicated that stock and flow accounting both 

provide useful insights. Flow accounting makes it clear where in the life cycle the uptake and 

emissions occur. Stock accounting makes it clear where in the life cycle activities occur that 

account for any net sequestration of carbon. It was suggested that both should be encouraged 

in assessments where net sequestration is of interest.

Accounting Factors

Participants expressed concern that the list of possible accounting factors seemed to be static 

rather than dynamic. They asserted that an accounting system should be capable of measuring 

a dynamic situation where bioenergy production increases over time. Static numbers will be 

difficult to extrapolate into the policy arena at a later date. Others remarked that a static 

approach missed market-mediated impacts of the use of biomass and said that changes in land 

use have significant climate effects. It was also pointed out that dynamic assessments often 

require assumptions about future conditions and interactions between various factors. These 

assumptions may not be widely accepted and can significantly impact the results.

Caution was expressed against creating an imbalanced approach where some emissions to the 

atmosphere are counted and others are not, and asked that the scenarios exercise be as 

inclusive and explicit as possible (i.e., include all impacts). From this perspective, it is 

important to take into account the large, spatial picture (whether national or global) to account 

for the full impacts. Others indicated that it is also important to stay flexible and find a way to 

be product and project focused as well as national and globally focused to get the best results. 

Scenarios Exercise

The group discussed a series of hypothetical scenarios to better understanding the net flux of 

GHG emissions to the atmosphere from the production and combustion of biomass for 

bioenergy. The assessments did not include the economic or policy drivers behind the 

scenarios and hence did not assess their likelihood of occurring. These scenarios included:

• Forestry related scenarios:

 Feedstocks from slash generated in a stem-only clearcut

 Feedstocks from short rotation dedicated woody biomass (e.g. willow 

coppice) planted on land that was formerly managed industrial forest

 Feedstocks from a whole-tree harvest of a mature forest (Note: this was 

considered implausible by many in the group).

• Agriculture related scenarios:

 Feedstocks from switchgrass grown on degraded former pasture
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 9 of 16

 Transportation liquid fuel produced from corn grain (plant is natural gas 

dry mill that uses corn stover for some power generation)

 Transportation liquid fuel produced from corn stover

For each of the scenarios, participants were asked to identify the potential sources and relative 

magnitude of the net flux in GHG emissions, based on the assumptions given in the scenario, 

using the template in Appendix B. For each bioenergy scenario, the participants were also 

asked to fill out a comparison fossil fuel scenario considering production of the same amount 

of energy and the alternative use of the same units of land in the absence of their use for 

bioenergy. 

Challenges Identified

There was much discussion over assumptions that had been provided for each scenario, the 

most important factors that needed to be considered, and the basis for different outcomes 

when individuals completed the scenarios exercise. For example, the starting state of the forest 

(e.g. mature and not managed for timber harvest or managed for timber harvest on a 

sustainable basis, the management regime, and whether other product lines are served by the 

harvest) made a difference in terms of the amount carbon would be released/sequestered. 

There was agreement that the appropriate treatment of time was critical. The extent to which 

emissions from extracting and producing incremental (“marginal”) units of fossil energy are 

likely to increase in the future was also identified as an important factor determining emissions 

from fossil energy. 

Perhaps the most significant challenge the group identified is whether it is possible to create a 

carbon accounting system without having a specific policy or economic context in mind. EDF 

indicated that scenario exercise was intended to assess the greenhouse gas flows into and out 

of the atmosphere (as opposed to an assessment of net stocking levels and trends) from a 

purely scientific perspective. However, several participants stressed that, among other things,

the question of who is responsible for doing carbon accounting, as well as what approach they 

should utilize, are policy specific. They emphasized the importance of considering geographic 

location, the varying capacity of the land, the management regime used, and other product 

lines served by biomass. In some scenarios they argued it is more efficient to produce biomass 

for electricity than it is to produce biomass for biofuels. The nature of the land use that may 

occur in order to produce different types of biomass is an important factor in understanding 

the effect of various types of policy incentives. Others mentioned the desire to spend more time 

on the carbon cycle prior to discussing policy, as they did not think the group had a clear 

enough understanding of where in the carbon cycle emissions and/or sequestration was 

occurring. They felt it is important to find agreement on what is happening at different stages 

of the carbon cycle before attempting to further pursue different approaches to accounting 

depending on the policy context.

Participants remarked that the scenarios exercise made it evident that there are many moving 

parts and that several factors are relevant and interconnected in ways that are not evident at 
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 10 of 16

first glance or adequately captured by the framework used to evaluate the scenarios. The time 

and spatial elements were considered critical, especially in the forestry context. One 

participant noted that it is important to ask what is the value of reducing CO2 today vs. 100 

years in the future? EDF responded that the Science article (October, 2009) emphasized this 

very point: that by only looking at the net carbon implications for a limited part of the carbon 

cycle there may be unintended consequences. Others responded that the outcomes were 

highly variable depending on the spatial and temporal scale used and where a flow or stock 

accounting method was applied.

Several participants expressed an interest in spending additional time on carbon cycle metrics, 

and a closer look at both flow and stock accounting approaches to gain a better understanding 

of the information generated by each. Some said that they welcomed further discussion on the 

implications of increasing agricultural yields and how an increase in yields would increase 

biomass and fuel production, while others questioned the relevance for evaluating bioenergy 

of agricultural efficiency improvements that would occur anyway – regardless of bioenergy 

practices. Others emphasized the importance of delineating specific pathways for future 

bioenergy development in order to identify varying assumptions and improve the analytics. 

They mentioned that it is important to understand the carbon cycle before answering questions 

on proper accounting. 

The issue of gaining a better understanding of cost effectiveness of carbon reduction strategies 

was raised as part of the lessons learned, as some types of bioenergy are more cost effective 

from an economic perspective for a specified use than others. Participants stressed the need to 

use science to inform the accounting system, but it did not make sense to lump all biomass, or 

bioenergy, or biofuels together.

Next Steps

Most participants stated that they saw value in continuing the discussion, taking into account 

the lessons learned from the first set of meetings, keeping a mix of sectors and structuring next 

steps to explore specific policies issues framed from real world experiences and circumstances. 

It was agreed that before deciding to go further it is important to establish a clear objective, 

and a set of “first principles” or common goals that participants could support and agree upon 

as the basis for going forward. Participants agreed that biomass can play a positive role in the 

future and that, if developed properly, it should have net positive impact on the climate. There 

was also a strong desire to avoid unintended negative consequences from bioenergy 

development. Others requested that the group not start from scratch but rather build on the 

conversations of the last three meetings.

Tim Mealey thanked everyone for their candid input and indicated that Meridian will work 

with both EDF and all of the participants to determine whether it will be possible to agree 
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 11 of 16

upon a clear objective and the first principles that should guide the next phase of the dialogue 

– should the participants decide it is warranted. He suggested formation of a Steering 

Committee might be appropriate to help share in the planning and securing of financial 

support for the effort, should participants wish to continue. He asked that the group to think 

about what stakeholder mix they would like to include if they decide to continue.
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13, 2010 Page 12 of 16

APPENDIX A: Bioenergy GHG Accounting Stakeholder Group

Participant List

Forestry Sector

Edie Sonne Hall

Manager, Sustainable Forests and Products

Weyerhaeuser

PO Box 9777

Federal Way, WA 98063

phone: 253-924-3292

e-mail: edie.sonnehall@weyerhaeuser.com

Greg Johnson

Director, Forest Research

Weyerhaeuser

PO Box 9777 

Federal Way, WA 98063

phone: 253-924-6933

e-mail: greg.johnson8@weyerhaeuser.com

Andrew Jones

Senior Engineering Fellow

Manufacturing Technology Center

International Paper

6285 Tri-Ridge Boulevard

Loveland, OH 45140

phone: 513-248-6412 

e-mail: andrew.jones@ipaper.com

Chris Keuleman 

International Paper

1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20004

phone: 202-628-7251 

e-mail: chris.keuleman@ipaper.com

Rita Neznek

Vice President, Public Affairs

American Forest Foundation

1111 19th Street NW, Suite 780

Washington, DC 20036

phone: 202-463-2594

e-mail: rneznek@forestfoundation.org

Cassie Phillips

Vice President, Sustainable Forests and 

Products

Weyerhaeuser

PO Box 9777 

Federal Way, WA 98063

phone: 253 924-4166

e-mail: cassie.phillips@weyerhaeuser.com

David Tenny

President and Chief Executive Officer

National Alliance of Forest Owners

2025 M Street NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036

phone: 202-367-1251

e-mail: dtenny@nafoalliance.org

Agriculture Sector

Jessica Bennett

Director of Public Policy

National Corn Growers Association

122 C Street NW, Suite 510

Washington, DC, 20001

phone: 202-628-7001

e-mail: bennett@dc.ncga.com

Paul Bertels 

Director of Agricultural Economic Analysis 

and Environmental Impacts 

National Corn Growers Association

632 Cepi Drive 

Chesterfield MO 63005

phone: 636-733-9004

e-mail: bertels@ncga.com
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting April 30, 2010 Page 13 of 16

Jimmy Daukas

Managing Director, Agriculture and the 

Environment

American Farmland Trust 

1200 18th Street NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036

phone: 202-331-7300

e-mail: jdaukas@farmland.org

Mark Gaede

Director of Government Affairs 

for Environmental Policy

National Association of Wheat Growers

415 Second Street NE, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20002

phone: 202-547-7800

e-mail: mgaede@wheatworld.org

Brittany Jablonsky

Government Relations Representative

National Farmers Union

400 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 790

Washington, DC 20001

phone: 202-554-1600

e-mail: bjablonsky@nfudc.org

Jeremy Peters

Government Relations Representative

National Farmers Union

400 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 790

Washington, DC 20001

phone: 202-554-1600

e-mail: jpeters@nfudc.org

Bioenergy Sector

Kevin Adams

Technical Operations Manager

Abengoa Bioenergy

16150 Main Circle Drive

Chesterfield, MO 63017

phone: 636-728-0508

e-mail: kevin.adams@

bioenergy.abengoa.com

Doug Berven

Director of Corporate Affairs 

POET 

4615 North Lewis Avenue

Sioux Falls, SD 57104 

phone: 605-965-3560

e-mail: doug.berven@poet.com

Robert Cleaves

President

Biomass Power Association

PO Box 9729

Portland, ME 04104

phone: 202-228-7376

e-mail: rcleaves@stratexenergy.com

John Howe

Vice President, Public Affairs

Verenium

55 Cambridge Parkway

Cambridge, MA 02142

phone: 617-674-5318

email: john.howe@verenium.com

Greg Krissek

Director of Governmental Affairs

ICM

PO Box 397

Colwich, KS 67030

phone: 316-977-6549

e-mail: gregory.krissek@icminc.com

Gregg Morris

Director

Green Power Institute

Pacific Institute

2039 Shattuck Avenue Suite 402 

Berkeley, California 94704 

phone: 510-644-2700

e-mail: gmorris@emf.net
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting April 30, 2010 Page 14 of 16

Nathan Schock

Public Relations Director

POET 

4615 North Lewis Avenue

Sioux Falls, SD 57104 

phone: 605-965-6428

e-mail: nathan.schock@poet.com

Mark Stowers

Vice President, Research and Development

POET 

4615 North Lewis Avenue

Sioux Falls, SD 57104 

phone: 605-965-6438

e-mail: mark.stowers@poet.com

Environmental Organizations

Peter Ashcroft

Transportation Policy Analyst

Environmental Defense Fund

1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20009

phone: 202-572-3355

e-mail: pashcroft@edf.org

Joe Fargione

Lead Scientist

North America Region

The Nature Conservancy

1101 West River Parkway, Suite 200

Minneapolis, MN 55415

phone: 612-331-0745

e-mail: jfargione@tnc.org

Nathanael Greene

Director of Renewable Energy Policy

Natural Resource Defense Council

40 West 20th Street

New York, NY 10011

phone: 212-727-2700 x 482

e-mail: ngreene@nrdc.org

Steve Hamburg

Chief Scientist

Environmental Defense Fund

1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20009

phone: 202-387-3500

e-mail: shamburg@edf.org

Sara Hopper

Agricultural Policy Director

Environmental Defense Fund

1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20009

phone: 202-572-3379

e-mail: shopper@edf.org

Dan Lashof

Director, Climate Center

Natural Resources Defense Council

1200 New York Avenue NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

phone: 202-289-2399

e-mail: dlashof@nrdc.org

Ruben Lubowski

Senior Economist

Environmental Defense Fund

1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20009

phone: 202-572-3341

e-mail: rlubowski@edf.org

Britt Lundgren

Agriculture Policy Specialist

Environmental Defense Fund

1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20009

phone: 202-572-3394

e-mail: blundgren@edf.org
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting April 30, 2010 Page 15 of 16

Julie Sibbing

Director, Global Warming, Agriculture

and Wildlife

National Wildlife Federation

901 E Street NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20004

phone: 202-797-6832 

e-mail: sibbing@nwf.org

Jimmie Powell

Energy Team Lead

The Nature Conservancy

4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100

Arlington, VA 22203

phone: 703-841-7416

e-mail: jpowell@tnc.org

Scientists/Economists

Sarah Davis

Bioenergy Analyst

Energy Biosciences Institute

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

1206 West Gregory Drive

Urbana, IL 61801

phone: 217-244-5952

e-mail: davissc@illinois.edu

Evan Delucia

Professor, Department of Plant Biology

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

505 South Goodwin Avenue

265 Morrill Hall

Urbana, IL 61801

phone: 217-333-6177

e-mail: delucia@life.uiuc.edu

Jeffrey Frost

AgRefresh Executive Director

25 x ‘25

29 Church Street

PO Box 843

Burlington, VT 05402

phone: 802-859-0099

e-mail: jfrost@25x25.org

Reid Miner

Vice President, Sustainable Manufacturing 

National Council of Air and Stream 

Improvement 

PO Box 13318 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

phone: 919-941-6407 

e-mail: rminer@ncasi.org

Rich Plevin

Energy and Resources Group

University of California, Berkeley

310 Barrows Hall

Berkeley, CA 94720

phone: 510-868-5288 

e-mail: plevin@berkeley.edu

Roger Sedjo

Senior Fellow

Resources for the Future

1616 P Street NW

Washington, DC

phone: 202-328-5065

e-mail: sedjo@rff.org

Facilitation

Tim Mealey

Senior Partner

1920 L Street NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036

phone: 202-354-6454

e-mail: tmealey@merid.org

Kerri Wright Platais

Mediator

1920 L Street NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036

phone: 202-354-6456

e-mail: kwplatais@merid.org
Summary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting April 30, 2010 Page 16 of 16

Time 

Period

APPENDIX B. Potential sources of greenhouse gas flux under HYPOTHETICAL energy scenarios

(units C/year)

(C/year 

times total 

years)

Combustion 

of energy 

feedstock

(+)

Net primary 

productivity

(sequestration) of 

vegetation

(-)

Decompos

-ing 

vegetation

(+)

Soil 

carbon

(+/-)

Carbon 

storage 

in 

products

(+)

Processin

g/

Transport

(+)

Any other 

source

(+/-)

Emissions 

leakage

(+)

Net total/ 

year

(sum over 

row) 

Net 

cumulative 

total 

Year 1 

Year 5 

Year 50 

Year X