In Louisiana, natural gas—a planet-heating fossil fuel—is now, by law, considered “green energy” that can compete with solar and wind projects for clean energy funding. The law, signed by Republican Governor Jeff Landry last month, comes on the heels of similar bills passed in Ohio, Tennessee, and Indiana. What the bills have in common—besides an “updated definition” of a fossil fuel as a clean energy source—is language seemingly plucked straight from a right-wing think tank backed by oil and gas billionaire and activist Charles Koch.
Louisiana’s law was based on a template created by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative organization that brings legislators and corporate lobbyists together to draft bills “dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism.” The law maintains that Louisiana, in order to minimize its reliance on “foreign adversary nations” for energy, must ensure that natural gas and nuclear power are eligible for “all state programs that fund ‘green energy’ or ‘clean energy’ initiatives.”
Louisiana state Rep. Jacob Landry first introduced a near-identical bill to the model posted on ALEC’s website and to the other bills that have passed in Ohio, Tennessee, and Indiana. (The Washington Post reported in 2023 that ALEC was involved in Ohio’s bill; ALEC denies involvement.) Landry, who represents a small district in the southern part of the state, is the recipient of significant fossil fuel-industry funding—and he co-owns two oil and gas consulting firms himself. During his campaign for the state Legislature, Landry received donations from at least 15 fossil-fuel-affiliated companies and PACs, including ExxonMobil (which has also funded ALEC) and Phillips 66. Those donations alone totaled over $20,000.
It’s at least true that biofuels made from fast-growing crops like soy or sugar cane are carbon neutral (if you assume the farm equipment also runs on biofuel and no other petroleum-derived inputs are used) because they’re part of the short-term carbon cycle, right?
If so — if the cut-off for “renewable” is definitely longer than a year, definitely shorter than millions of years, and apparently also shorter than hundreds of years — then I’d like to know where scientists (not industry shills) have decided it actually lies. Would the forest industry’s position be valid in the context of e.g. a slash pine tree farm?
Honestly, I’m inclined to see a very strong distinction between burning wood and burning fossil methane, as long as you’re not talking about chopping down an old-growth forest or something like that. (And as long as the methane you’re comparing to isn’t from a short-term cycle source like landfill gas, for that matter.)
We can grow and burn the soy or the sugar cane or the trees faster than they can sequester it back into the ground.
That doesn’t make any sense. Where’s the carbon the next year’s crop needs to grow coming from, if not from re-absorbing that released from burning the previous year’s crop?
I’m not talking about trying to make it carbon-negative, just carbon-neutral. Plant->sky->plant-sky->plant->sky etc.
The soil.
They don’t get all their carbon from the air.