Relatedly: http://www.eenews.net/tv/2015/02/10
Greg From: NORTHCOTT Michael <m.northc...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk>> Reply-To: "m.northc...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk>" <m.northc...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk>> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:01 AM To: greg RAU <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> Cc: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>, geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Subject: Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News The EU Biofuels directive pushed up the world price of biodiesel. This in turn pushed up the value of Palm oil. Hence the directive underwrites ongoing tropical forest clearance and replacement with oil palm plantations in Sumatra, Kalimantan, Central Africa. Biofuels produced on such land have a carbon footprint greater than shale oil or gasified coal since the subsoil emits significant quantities of stored carbon after forest clearance. These areas are also prone to subterranean peat fires which can burn for years putting significant black soot into the atmosphere which is implicated in increased ice melt in Himalayas, Arctic. Soya from the Amazon also displaces tropical forest and even on cleared land if soya is not replanted secondary forest naturally returns which sequesters far more carbon (as new growth absorbs more) while also helping to sequester water in the soil and subsoil with benefits to biodiversity and humans. I am not a scientist but citations can be found for all the above claims. Unfortunately EU bureaucrats, and the USDA bureaucrats who came up with the crazy ethanol from corn policy in the US, don't appear to read scientific papers. In my non-scientific judgment, the least cost and lowest tech 'geoengineering' intervention is to permit the natural regrowth of boreal and tropical forests by removing grazing animals in former Boreal forest areas (such as Scottish and English upland), and removing perverse incentives for forest clearance (eg biofuels) and restraining criminality and political corruption (cf Straumann, Money Logging, Geneva 2014) in tropical forests. In semi arid areas, such as North Africa, intercropping with native scrub plants (Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration) also significantly improves soil and water retention and carbon sequestration while also considerably benefiting subsistence farmers through raised crop productivity. Professor Michael Northcott New College University of Edinburgh Mound Place Edinburgh EH1 2LX UK 0 (44) 131 650 7994 m.northc...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk> ancestraltime.org.uk<http://ancestraltime.org.uk> http://careforthefuture.exeter.ac.uk/blog/ edinburgh.academia.edu/MichaelNorthcott<http://edinburgh.academia.edu/MichaelNorthcott> On 11 Feb 2015, at 01:20, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote: Quoting the article: "The main problem with existing studies is that they fail to correctly account for the carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere when corn, soybeans and sugarcane are grown to make biofuels, said John DeCicco, a research professor at U-M's Energy Institute. "Almost all of the fields used to produce biofuels were already being used to produce crops for food, so there is no significant increase in the amount of carbon dioxide being removed from the atmosphere. "" No one said there would be net uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere using biofuels, but there will presumably be a reduction in CO2 emissions by substituting bio for fossil fuel (minus, of course, the fossil CO2 penalty for producing the biofuels). Biofuels (or electricity) can be C negative in the case of BECCS or BEAWL, fermentation + CCS or + AWL, etc? What am I missing? Greg ________________________________ From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:59 PM Subject: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News Poster's note : Whoops. This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22668-a-closer-look-at-the-flawed-studies-behind-policies-used-to-promote-low-carbon-biofuels A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels Feb 05, 2015 Nearly all of the studies used to promote biofuels as climate-friendly alternatives to petroleum fuels are flawed and need to be redone, according to a University of Michigan researcher who reviewed more than 100 papers published over more than two decades. Once the erroneous methodology is corrected, the results will likely show that policies used to promote biofuels—such as the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard and California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard—actually make matters worse when it comes to limiting net emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide gas. The main problem with existing studies is that they fail to correctly account for the carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere when corn, soybeans and sugarcane are grown to make biofuels, said John DeCicco, a research professor at U-M's Energy Institute. "Almost all of the fields used to produce biofuels were already being used to produce crops for food, so there is no significant increase in the amount of carbon dioxide being removed from the atmosphere. Therefore, there's no climate benefit," said DeCicco, the author of an advanced review of the topic in the current issue of Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment. "The real challenge is to develop ways of removing carbon dioxide at faster rates and larger scales than is accomplished by established agricultural and forestry activities. By focusing more on increasing net carbon dioxide uptake, we can shape more effective climate policies that counterbalance emissions from the combustion of gasoline and other liquid fuels." In his article, DeCicco examines the four main approaches that have been used to evaluate the carbon dioxide impacts of liquid transportation fuels, both petroleum-based fuels and plant-based biofuels. His prime focus is "carbon footprinting," a type of lifecycle analysis proposed in the late 1980s as a way to evaluate the total emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases associated with the production and use of transportation fuels. Numerous fuel-related carbon footprinting analyses have been published since that time and have led to widespread disagreement over the results. Even so, these methods were advocated by environmental groups and were subsequently mandated by Congress as part of the 2007 federal energy bill's provisions to promote biofuels through the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard. Shortly thereafter, parallel efforts in California led to that state's adoption of its Low-Carbon Fuel Standard based on the carbon footprinting model. In his analysis, DeCicco shows that these carbon footprint comparisons fail to properly reflect the dynamics of the terrestrial carbon cycle, miscounting carbon dioxide uptake during plant growth. That process occurs on all productive lands, whether or not the land is harvested for biofuel, he said. "These modeling errors help explain why the results of such studies have remained in dispute for so long," DeCicco said. "The disagreements have been especially sharp when comparing biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, to conventional fuels such as gasoline and diesel derived from petroleum." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
