I have several doubts.
Chief among them is this: it is important to understand that even if a
biofuel plan is sustainable, it is not necessarily a sustainable
carbon sink. In general, deforestation is a one-time source and
afforestation a one-time-sink. Is there something different here?
Secondly, if we expend the capital to irrigate, say, Australia, is
biofuel the best use of that massive endeavor? Fuels, for all their
importance are cheap. Indeed, they are mostly important because they
are cheap.
Thirdly, I'm not sure that the coupling between land surface and
rainfall is one of the more robust model results, so I don't think we
ought to bet the farm on it.
I'm all for instrumental solutions if they actually work.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
