Biomassive

Hey, all:

Two studies out this week conclude that the benefits of agro/biofuels do not compensate for the losses. Here is the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?ex=1360126800&en=93ca489d8380138f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Here are the beginning few paragraphs:

"Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”

These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example."

I am trying to find the sources for the original publication of these studies, but one aspect left appears to be the loss of habitat and the destruction of species to raise agrofuel crops, so humans can drive Carbon-based cars, transport goods around the world, entertain ourselves, etc.

I am sorry to be so contrary, but agrofuels are a bad idea, for the reasons revealed by these studies, and the one I have referred to above, and have harped on since agrofuels were proposed as alternatives to fossil fuels.

WE still have to cease considering our species as the only one that matters. WE still need to disabuse ourselves of the self-imposed notion that our species is blessed, and realize we are only the most recent winners of the natural selection lottery.

David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!.