I don't know if you've been paying attention to the legislation proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but if you haven't you should. The bill basically sets up a carbon cap-and-trade system and is intending to cut greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent when compared with 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050.

The bill is more than 600 pages long and I obviously don't have time to read it all. But, as luck would have it the definition of biomass was right up in the beginning. According to the bill, "The term ‘biomass' means each of the following: crops, crop byproducts, or crop residues harvested from actively managed or fallow agricultural land that was cleared prior to the date of enactment of this section and is nonforested; planted trees, brush, slash, and all residues from an actively managed tree plantation located on land that was cleared prior to the date of enactment of this section and is not Federal land; pre-commercial-sized thinnings, slash, brush, and residue from milled trees, from forested land that is not-old-growth or mature forest; identified under a State Natural Heritage Program as rare, imperiled, or critically imperiled; or Federal land; algae; nonhazardous plant matter derived from waste such as separated yard waste, landscape right-of-way trimmings, or food waste (but not municipal solid waste, recyclable waste paper, painted, treated or pressurized wood, or wood contaminated with plastic or metals); animal waste or animal byproducts, including products of animal waste digesters; vegetative matter removed from within 200 yards of any manmade structure or campground.

First off, I would argue that biomass is biomass whether it's found on private or federal land. I'm not the only one that opposes this part of the biomass definition. The House Agriculture Committee, according to an article in the New York Times, wants the definition to include national forests and they want to ease the limits on materials from private lands. The ag committee, of course, objects to the use of indirect land-use change and they want certain sustainable agricultural practices to count toward offsets. I think it's safe to heed what the ag committee is saying about the legislation because much of our biomass may be coming from farmers in the form of corn stover and cobs, straw and hay and energy crops.

This bill will no doubt change in many ways before it becomes the law, especially as every senator and representative will want to make adjustments to satisfy their constituents so they can get re-elected. There are already some lawmakers who want to change the word "renewable" changed to "clean" when referring to energy so that clean coal and nuclear power don't get left out.

If you have the time, you may want to peruse the bill, which can be seen at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090331/acesa_discussiondraft.pdf. But if you are like me you are just going to have to closely watch the developments in the news and on the Internet.