" If - as it seems - ethanol is a hoax, shouldn't we speak up, also for the sake of the remaining prairies that might be at stake?" -- Maiken
Maiken, I agree that ecologists need to speak up. The dramatic transformation of the global landscape is already happening, especially in the neotropics (see http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/forest-sector-ngos-warn-unchec ked-biofuels-growth/article-161154). As a prairie ecologist, I am very concerned by statements such as those of biotech company Ceres, "You could turn Oklahoma into an OPEC member by converting all its farmland to [transgenic] switch grass". The high-tech 'solution' is likely to be the only one heard by policy makers: (Baltimore, C. 2007. US ethanol industry makes big bets on technology. Reuters, Jan. 24). However, high-diversity hay meadows of strong conservation value all over the world (not just in the US) are disappearing due to abandonment and development. And there are many areas of abandoned farmland that could be restored into prairie for LIHD systems (see Tilman, D., J. Hill and C. Lehman (2006). "Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass." Science 314(5805): 1598-1600.). I disagree strongly with the idea that prairies should not be considered for biofuels - indeed, a biomass-based energy sector may end up saving the prairie, if things are done correctly. I try to outline a strong case for the use of seminatural grasslands for biofuels in http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/biofuels.htm. I am eager to hear what other ecologists think of my argument. I am also curious if any major scientific organizations such as ESA are considering policy statements on biofuels. ---Mike Palmer
