The letter as written:
The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Secretary, U.S.
Department of Energy
The Honorable Leon Panetta
Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense
The
Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Honorable Ray LaHood
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
Dear
Secretary Vilsack, Secretary Chu, Secretary Panetta, Administrator Jackson, and
Secretary LaHood,
As
scientists in the fields of ecology, wildlife biology, forestry, and natural
resources, we are writing to bring your attention to the importance of working
proactively to prevent potential ecological and economic damages associated
with the potential spread of invasive bioenergy feedstocks. While we appreciate
the steps that federal agencies have made to identify and promote renewable
energy sources and to invest in second and third generation sources of
bioenergy, we strongly encourage you to consider the invasive potential of all
novel feedstock species, cultivars, and hybrids before providing incentives
leading to their cultivation.
Studies have shown that some of the plants
considered most promising in terms of bioenergy capacity may actually be highly
invasive and potentially harmful to native species and ecosystems.[i],[ii],[iii],[iv]
In fact, many of the characteristics that make a plant appealing as an ideal
source of biomass such as ease of establishment, rapid growth, resistance to
pests and diseases, and low input requirements, are the same characteristics
that make a plant more likely to become invasive.[v],[vi] According
to the National Invasive Species Council, “Absent strategic mitigation efforts,
there is substantial risk that some biofuels crops will escape cultivation and
cause socio-economic and/or ecological harm.”[vii]
Many of today’s most problematic invasive plants –
from kudzu to purple loosestrife – were intentionally imported and released
into the environment for horticultural, agricultural, conservation, and
forestry purposes. These invasive species already cost
billions of dollars a year in the United States[viii]
and are one of the primary threats to North America’s native species and
ecosystems. It is imperative that we learn from our
past mistakes by preventing intentional introduction of energy crops that may
create the next invasive species catastrophe – particularly when introductions
are funded by taxpayer dollars.Under Executive Order 13112, a federal agency cannot “authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.”
A thoughtful, consistent, proactive approach
to sustainable bioenergy production that avoids potentially invasive feedstocks,
while encouraging the development and implementation of new energy crops to
meet U.S. renewable energy goals, would demonstrate wise stewardship of federal
funds and serve to benefit the agencies in the long run. By assessing and
reducing risks up front, we can minimize the potential for bioenergy crops that
are promoted with taxpayer dollars to become invasive and cause harm to natural
ecosystems. It is much cheaper and easier to take the steps to prevent an
invasive escape than it is to deal with it after it has occurred.
Signed,
Scientists
CC: Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy
and Climate Change
Lori Williams, Executive Director of the National Invasive
Species Council
Jeffrey Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and
Budget
[i]
Raghu, S., R.C. Anderson, C.C. Doehler, A.S. Davis, R.N. Wiedenmann, D.
Simberloff, and R.N. Mack. 2006. Adding biofuels to the invasive species fire? Science 313: 1742.
[ii]
DiTomaso, J.M., J.M. Barney, and A.M. Fox. 2007. Biofuel feedstocks: the risk
of future invasions. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Commentary, QTA 2007-1. http://www.fs.fed.us/ficmnew/documents/notices/Biofuels2007.pdf
(accessed March 12, 2012).
[iii]
Barney, J.N. and J.M. DiTomaso. 2008 Nonnative species and bioenergy: Are we
cultivating the next invader? BioScience
58: 64-70.
[iv]
Low, T., C. Booth, and A. Sheppard. 2011. Weedy biofuels: What can be done? Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability 3: 55-59.
[v]
Witt, A. 2011. Biofuels as Invasive Species. CABI Expert White Paper Series on Biofuels.
[vi]
Raghu, et al. 2006.
[vii]
National Invasive Species Council (NISC). 2009. Biofuels: Cultivating Energy, not Invasive Species.
[viii] Pimentel, D.,
L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs
associated with non-indigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50: 53-65.
[ix]
Koop, AL, L Fowler, LP Newton, and BP Caton. 2011. Development and validation
of a weed screening tool for the United States. Biol. Invasions 14: 273-294.