Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News
Relatedly: http://www.eenews.net/tv/2015/02/10 Greg From: NORTHCOTT Michael m.northc...@ed.ac.ukmailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk Reply-To: m.northc...@ed.ac.ukmailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk m.northc...@ed.ac.ukmailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:01 AM To: greg RAU gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto: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.ukmailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk ancestraltime.org.ukhttp://ancestraltime.org.uk http://careforthefuture.exeter.ac.uk/blog/ edinburgh.academia.edu/MichaelNorthcotthttp://edinburgh.academia.edu/MichaelNorthcott On 11 Feb 2015, at 01:20, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto: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.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto: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
[geo] Guardian piece on business opportunities and 'climate intervention'
The Guardian asked me to do a piece for their business section related to the recent NRC reports. Perhaps it is a bit silly and incomplete (given the fast rapid-around and short word count), but here it is. I apologize in advance to the biochar, afforestation, etc, advocates. I could only say to much in a few hundred words with a 12-hour turn around and 1 hour of available time.. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/feb/11/climate-engineering-money-opportunity-business Climate engineering: it could be a money-making opportunity for business The longer we take to tackle climate change, the more likely we are to need climate intervention technologies. That may yet be a viable business opportunity, says Ken Caldeira [image: An illustration of a geoengineering] http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/feb/11/climate-engineering-money-opportunity-business#img-1 If carbon prices get high enough and the cost of carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere could be made low enough, there may be potential for profit in the business of removing carbon dioxide. Photograph: T.L.Furrer/Alamy Sponsored by: http://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk%253Fsa%253DL%2526ai%253DB4zJDKJPbVIvwHdSO-gOwjIDYB8f96sIFEAEg75TfITgAWMfv9tGuAWDJnvaGyKOgGbIBE3d3dy50aGVndWFyZGlhbi5jb226AQlnZnBfaW1hZ2XIAQnaAWpodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRoZWd1YXJkaWFuLmNvbS9zdXN0YWluYWJsZS1idXNpbmVzcy8yMDE1L2ZlYi8xMS9jbGltYXRlLWVuZ2luZWVyaW5nLW1vbmV5LW9wcG9ydHVuaXR5LWJ1c2luZXNzqQKh5fJ_RJy5PsACAuACAOoCOS81OTY2NjA0Ny90aGVndWFyZGlhbi5jb20vc3VzdGFpbmFibGUtYnVzaW5lc3MvYXJ0aWNsZS9uZ_gC_tEegAMBkAPwAZgD0AWoAwHgBAGgBh8%2526num%253D0%2526sig%253DAOD64_2iAUYuKXDcHt-qh_YRhW7njNczyw%2526client%253Dca-pub-4830087483992392%2526adurl%253Dhttp://www.bt.com/betterfutureAbout this content http://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk%253Fsa%253DL%2526ai%253DB4zJDKJPbVIvwHdSO-gOwjIDYB8f96sIFEAEg75TfITgAWMfv9tGuAWDJnvaGyKOgGbIBE3d3dy50aGVndWFyZGlhbi5jb226AQlnZnBfaW1hZ2XIAQnaAWpodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRoZWd1YXJkaWFuLmNvbS9zdXN0YWluYWJsZS1idXNpbmVzcy8yMDE1L2ZlYi8xMS9jbGltYXRlLWVuZ2luZWVyaW5nLW1vbmV5LW9wcG9ydHVuaXR5LWJ1c2luZXNzqQKh5fJ_RJy5PsACAuACAOoCOS81OTY2NjA0Ny90aGVndWFyZGlhbi5jb20vc3VzdGFpbmFibGUtYnVzaW5lc3MvYXJ0aWNsZS9uZ_gC_tEegAMBkAPwAZgD0AWoAwHgBAGgBh8%2526num%253D0%2526sig%253DAOD64_2iAUYuKXDcHt-qh_YRhW7njNczyw%2526client%253Dca-pub-4830087483992392%2526adurl%253Dhttp://www.theguardian.com/sponsored-content Ken Caldeira Ken Caldeira is a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford University Wednesday 11 February 2015 10.54 EST - Share on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F45ygj%2Fsfbref=responsive - Share on Twitter https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Climate+engineering%3A+it+could+be+a+money-making+opportunity+for+businessurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F45ygj%2Fstw - Share via Email https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cmfs=1tf=1to=su=Climate%20engineering%3A%20it%20could%20be%20a%20money-making%20opportunity%20for%20businessbody=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F45ygj%2Fsbl - Share on LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=truetitle=Climate+engineering%3A+it+could+be+a+money-making+opportunity+for+businessurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F45ygj - Share on Google+ https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F45ygj%2Fsgpamp;hl=en-GBamp;wwc=1 Shares 51 Comments0 http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/feb/11/climate-engineering-money-opportunity-business#comments T he CIA was one of the funders behind yesterday's National Research Council (NRC) reports on geo-engineering http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/10/geoengineering-should-not-be-used-as-a-climate-fix-yet-says-us-science-academy, or so the rumours have it. If the intelligence community feels it is important to learn more about climate intervention, might not the same be true for the business community? In other words, is there money to be made here? The NRC, the major body in the US providing scientific and technical information to policymakers, released two reports. They show two very different approaches to reducing climate change from greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2) removal and albedo modification. Scientists urge global 'wake-up call' to deal with climate change Read more http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/10/geoengineering-should-not-be-used-as-a-climate-fix-yet-says-us-science-academy Removing carbon dioxide The gases in power plant smokestacks contain typically 10% or more CO2, whereas the atmosphere contains only 0.04% CO2. Why would anyone want to try to capture CO2 from a more dilute gas when more concentrated gases are all too readily available? Small start-up companies, such as Carbon Engineering and Climeworks http://www.virginearth.com/finalists/, are attempting to develop technologies that could remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in centralised facilities. Since the price of CO2 on available carbon markets is
Re: [geo] National Academies reports
Also this: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/hack-the-planet-comprehensive-report-suggests-thinking-carefully-first/ To quote: In the end, the report clearly comes down in favor of research into carbon removal technology. Overall, there is much to be gained and very low risk in pursuing multiple parts of a portfolio of [carbon removal] strategies that demonstrate practical solutions over the short term and develop more cost-effective, regional-scale and larger solutions for the long term, it concludes. In contrast, even the best albedo modification strategies are currently limited by unfamiliar and unquantifiable risks and governance issues rather than direct costs. But beyond the research programs, it's clear that neither of these approaches is ready for deployment, and it's not clear that either of them can ever be made ready, a fact driven home by the cancellation of what would have been the US' largest carbon capture experimenthttp://fortune.com/2015/02/06/as-the-feds-pull-out-dreams-of-clean-coal-fade/. That's in sharp contrast with non-emitting power sources, where technology is already mature and costs are in many cases already competitive with those of fossil fuels. Very unfortunate that CDR is again equated with CCS. The potential approaches and success of the former need not be tied to the ongoing failure of the latter. Greg From: J.L. Reynolds j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl Reply-To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:11 PM To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] National Academies reports Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume report on climate engineering. They are available here http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration One must register to download, but may read online without doing so. The newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the Washington Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and NGO reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US came out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund were supportive of the reports and further research (with varying degrees of caution expressed). http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ The press conference was webcast. Some people “live tweeted” it. See https://twitter.com/elikint https://twitter.com/janieflegal https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc Cheers Jesse - Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD Postdoctoral researcher Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nlmailto:j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto: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.
[geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate
Poster's note : notable as it's a report author. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengineering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.single.html FEB. 10 2015 11:00 AM Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse. By Raymond T. Pierrehumbert Some years ago, in the question-and-answer session after a lecture at the American Geophysical Union, I described certain geoengineering proposals as “barking mad.” The remark went rather viral in the geoengineering community. The climate-hacking proposals I was referring to were schemes that attempt to cancel out some of the effects of human-caused global warming by squirting various substances into the atmosphere that would reflect more sunlight back to space. Schemes that were lovingly called “solar radiation management” by geoengineering boosters. Earlier I had referred to the perilous statesuch schemes would put our Earth into as being analogous to the fate of poor Damocles, cowering under a sword precariously suspended by a single thread. This week, the National Research Council (NRC) is releasing a report on climate engineering that deals with exactly those proposals I found most terrifying. The report even recommends the creation of a research program addressing these proposals. I am a co-author of this report. Does this mean I’ve had a change of heart? No. The nearly two years’ worth of reading and animated discussions that went into this study have convinced me more than ever that the idea of “fixing” the climate by hacking the Earth’s reflection of sunlight is wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad. In fact, though the report is couched in language more nuanced than what I myself would prefer, there is really nothing in it that is inconsistent with my earlier appraisals. Even the terminology used in the report signals a palpable change in the framing of the discussion. The actions discussed for the most part are referred to as “climate intervention,” rather than “climate engineering” (or the common but confusing term geoengineering). Engineering is something you do to a system you understand very well, where you can try out new techniques thoroughly at a small scale before staking peoples’ lives on them. Hacking the climate is different—we have only one planet to live on, and can’t afford any big mistakes. Many of the climate “engineering” proposals are akin to turning the world’s whole population into passengers on a largely untested new fleet of hypersonic airplanes. Most previous literature has referred to schemes to increase the proportion of sunlight reflected back to space as solar radiation management, as if it were something routine and businesslike, along the lines of “inventory management” or “personnel management.” It is far from clear, however, that solar radiation can bemanaged in any meaningful sense of the word. The NRC report instead uses the more neutral term “albedo modification.” Albedo is the scientific term for the proportion of sunlight reflected back to space. If the Earth had 100 percent albedo, it would reflect all sunlight back to space and be a frozen ice ball some tens of degrees above absolute zero, heated only by the trickle of heat leaking out from its interior. Earth’s current albedo is about 30 percent, with much of the reflection caused by clouds and snow cover. I myself prefer the term “albedo hacking,” but “albedo modification” does pretty well. My colleague and report co-author James Fleming has called such schemes “untested and untestable, and dangerous beyond belief.” (A companion report also discusses less problematic, if currently expensive, schemes for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Many of those would be well worth doing if they ever became economical.) The report describes albedo modification frankly as involving large and partly unknown risks. It states outright that albedo modification “should not be deployed” and emphasizes that the main focus in climate protection should continue to be reduction of CO2 emissions. If we continue to let CO2build up in the atmosphere and attempt to offset the effects by increasingly extreme albedo modification, the report states, that situation is one of “profoundly increasing risk.” This is a far cry from the cartoonish portrayal of albedo modification as the cheap and obvious method of choice in Superfreakonomics or by Newt Gingrich. Two albedo modification schemes are singled out for detailed scrutiny. The first of these, called stratospheric aerosol modification, works high up in the atmosphere—in the layer known as the stratosphere—and involves injecting substances such as sulfur dioxide that lead to the creation of tiny particles that scatter sunlight back to space. It’s modeled on what happens in the wake of large volcanic eruptions. The second, called marine cloud brightening, works close to the Earth’s surface and
Re: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate
It's good that people with extreme views like Pierrehumbert are part of the process. It's better than trying to lock them out. Make them engage with others who have more nuanced positions---you can do that in the context of studies and panels, not so much when he's writing an op-ed and gets to present both sides of the conversation. On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 3:32:14 PM Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Doug--Well said. The report (well, at least the presentation of the report yesterday at the National Academy of Sciences) basically does not do a comparative analysis of climate change with and without climate intervention—instead seeming to do an analysis only of the relative merits of climate intervention on its own or not. Well, that is not the context we are in (so actually the analysis, once they get past saying the climate is changing, is to forget about the SUV approaching the crosswalk at all (or at least, the change is not here now in the Arctic or imminent elsewhere, etc.). The really surprising reason given in answer to my question was that they said that uncertainties about climate change without intervention were too large to really do this—well, those uncertainties are clearly small enough to make the decision that we should change over the whole global energy system and how unacceptable those consequences would be. And, given that the various intervention approaches are not unlike phenomena in the world today and intervention would keep the climate where it is now (only with a bit different amount of energy change as compared to the seasonal changes in forcing that are already treated in simulating the global weather changes over the seasons), it is really hard to see how a modest program of climate intervention research would not lead to uncertainties less than those involved in projections of climate change without intervention. Fine to say that there are social, equity, political, and governance issues, but on the issue of uncertainties in the physical science calculations, not readily understandable. Mike MacCracken On 2/11/15, 6:05 PM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: On reflection, I think my most basic problem with his “argument” is it that it fails to distinguish between the people choosing to emit CO2, the people who might be harmed by CO2, and the people who might eventually choose geoengineering; his arguments are only coherent to the extent that those are all the same people. It’s a bit like standing in a cross-walk watching an approaching SUV that isn’t slowing down and insisting that you have the right-of-way and the “right answer” is for the SUV-driver to stop rather than for you to take whatever action you can. doug *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [ mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Doug MacMartin *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:59 PM *To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering' *Subject:* RE: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Perhaps the only thing more barking mad than considering solar geoengineering would be the path we’re currently on… in that sense I agree with him, but insofar as we do appear to be on that path, he doesn’t actually present any cogent argument against pursuing research, despite all of his argumentative rhetoric. There’s so much BS in here to respond to, but two thoughts: As the lead author on a recent paper describing temporary deployment only to limit the rate of change (which was cited several times in the report, and I presume is the basis for his comment), I can unequivocally state that his assertion: I myself think the temporary deployment scenarios are highly implausible, and are mainly shopped by albedo-modification boosters as a less threatening way to get the camel’s nose in the tent Is absolutely false; if he was interested in whether that was true, he could have actually asked. (I also object to the word “boosters”, as my own perspective is simply one of wanting decisions to be made based on knowledge). And second, if we both ever need surgery for cancer, I’ll take the painkillers that he apparently doesn’t want. *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [ mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:18 PM *To:* geoengineering *Subject:* [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Poster's note : notable as it's a report author. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengineering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.single.html FEB. 10 2015 11:00 AM Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse. By Raymond T.
RE: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate
Perhaps the only thing more barking mad than considering solar geoengineering would be the path we’re currently on… in that sense I agree with him, but insofar as we do appear to be on that path, he doesn’t actually present any cogent argument against pursuing research, despite all of his argumentative rhetoric. There’s so much BS in here to respond to, but two thoughts: As the lead author on a recent paper describing temporary deployment only to limit the rate of change (which was cited several times in the report, and I presume is the basis for his comment), I can unequivocally state that his assertion: I myself think the temporary deployment scenarios are highly implausible, and are mainly shopped by albedo-modification boosters as a less threatening way to get the camel’s nose in the tent Is absolutely false; if he was interested in whether that was true, he could have actually asked. (I also object to the word “boosters”, as my own perspective is simply one of wanting decisions to be made based on knowledge). And second, if we both ever need surgery for cancer, I’ll take the painkillers that he apparently doesn’t want. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:18 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Poster's note : notable as it's a report author. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengineering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.single.html FEB. 10 2015 11:00 AM Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse. By Raymond T. Pierrehumbert Some years ago, in the question-and-answer session after a lecture at the American Geophysical Union, I described certain geoengineering proposals as “barking mad.” The remark went rather viral in the geoengineering community. The climate-hacking proposals I was referring to were schemes that attempt to cancel out some of the effects of human-caused global warming by squirting various substances into the atmosphere that would reflect more sunlight back to space. Schemes that were lovingly called “solar radiation management” by geoengineering boosters. Earlier I had referred to the perilous statesuch schemes would put our Earth into as being analogous to the fate of poor Damocles, cowering under a sword precariously suspended by a single thread. This week, the National Research Council (NRC) is releasing a report on climate engineering that deals with exactly those proposals I found most terrifying. The report even recommends the creation of a research program addressing these proposals. I am a co-author of this report. Does this mean I’ve had a change of heart? No. The nearly two years’ worth of reading and animated discussions that went into this study have convinced me more than ever that the idea of “fixing” the climate by hacking the Earth’s reflection of sunlight is wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad. In fact, though the report is couched in language more nuanced than what I myself would prefer, there is really nothing in it that is inconsistent with my earlier appraisals. Even the terminology used in the report signals a palpable change in the framing of the discussion. The actions discussed for the most part are referred to as “climate intervention,” rather than “climate engineering” (or the common but confusing term geoengineering). Engineering is something you do to a system you understand very well, where you can try out new techniques thoroughly at a small scale before staking peoples’ lives on them. Hacking the climate is different—we have only one planet to live on, and can’t afford any big mistakes. Many of the climate “engineering” proposals are akin to turning the world’s whole population into passengers on a largely untested new fleet of hypersonic airplanes. Most previous literature has referred to schemes to increase the proportion of sunlight reflected back to space as solar radiation management, as if it were something routine and businesslike, along the lines of “inventory management” or “personnel management.” It is far from clear, however, that solar radiation can bemanaged in any meaningful sense of the word. The NRC report instead uses the more neutral term “albedo modification.” Albedo is the scientific term for the proportion of sunlight reflected back to space. If the Earth had 100 percent albedo, it would reflect all sunlight back to space and be a frozen ice ball some tens of degrees above absolute zero, heated only by the trickle of heat leaking out from its interior. Earth’s current albedo is about 30 percent, with much of the reflection caused by clouds and snow cover. I myself prefer the term “albedo hacking,” but “albedo
RE: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate
On reflection, I think my most basic problem with his “argument” is it that it fails to distinguish between the people choosing to emit CO2, the people who might be harmed by CO2, and the people who might eventually choose geoengineering; his arguments are only coherent to the extent that those are all the same people. It’s a bit like standing in a cross-walk watching an approaching SUV that isn’t slowing down and insisting that you have the right-of-way and the “right answer” is for the SUV-driver to stop rather than for you to take whatever action you can. doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug MacMartin Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:59 PM To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering' Subject: RE: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Perhaps the only thing more barking mad than considering solar geoengineering would be the path we’re currently on… in that sense I agree with him, but insofar as we do appear to be on that path, he doesn’t actually present any cogent argument against pursuing research, despite all of his argumentative rhetoric. There’s so much BS in here to respond to, but two thoughts: As the lead author on a recent paper describing temporary deployment only to limit the rate of change (which was cited several times in the report, and I presume is the basis for his comment), I can unequivocally state that his assertion: I myself think the temporary deployment scenarios are highly implausible, and are mainly shopped by albedo-modification boosters as a less threatening way to get the camel’s nose in the tent Is absolutely false; if he was interested in whether that was true, he could have actually asked. (I also object to the word “boosters”, as my own perspective is simply one of wanting decisions to be made based on knowledge). And second, if we both ever need surgery for cancer, I’ll take the painkillers that he apparently doesn’t want. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:18 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Poster's note : notable as it's a report author. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengineering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.single.html FEB. 10 2015 11:00 AM Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse. By Raymond T. Pierrehumbert Some years ago, in the question-and-answer session after a lecture at the American Geophysical Union, I described certain geoengineering proposals as “barking mad.” The remark went rather viral in the geoengineering community. The climate-hacking proposals I was referring to were schemes that attempt to cancel out some of the effects of human-caused global warming by squirting various substances into the atmosphere that would reflect more sunlight back to space. Schemes that were lovingly called “solar radiation management” by geoengineering boosters. Earlier I had referred to the perilous statesuch schemes would put our Earth into as being analogous to the fate of poor Damocles, cowering under a sword precariously suspended by a single thread. This week, the National Research Council (NRC) is releasing a report on climate engineering that deals with exactly those proposals I found most terrifying. The report even recommends the creation of a research program addressing these proposals. I am a co-author of this report. Does this mean I’ve had a change of heart? No. The nearly two years’ worth of reading and animated discussions that went into this study have convinced me more than ever that the idea of “fixing” the climate by hacking the Earth’s reflection of sunlight is wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad. In fact, though the report is couched in language more nuanced than what I myself would prefer, there is really nothing in it that is inconsistent with my earlier appraisals. Even the terminology used in the report signals a palpable change in the framing of the discussion. The actions discussed for the most part are referred to as “climate intervention,” rather than “climate engineering” (or the common but confusing term geoengineering). Engineering is something you do to a system you understand very well, where you can try out new techniques thoroughly at a small scale before staking peoples’ lives on them. Hacking the climate is different—we have only one planet to live on, and can’t afford any big mistakes. Many of the climate “engineering” proposals are akin to turning the world’s whole population into passengers on a largely untested new fleet of hypersonic airplanes.
Re: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate
Hi Doug--Well said. The report (well, at least the presentation of the report yesterday at the National Academy of Sciences) basically does not do a comparative analysis of climate change with and without climate intervention‹instead seeming to do an analysis only of the relative merits of climate intervention on its own or not. Well, that is not the context we are in (so actually the analysis, once they get past saying the climate is changing, is to forget about the SUV approaching the crosswalk at all (or at least, the change is not here now in the Arctic or imminent elsewhere, etc.). The really surprising reason given in answer to my question was that they said that uncertainties about climate change without intervention were too large to really do this‹well, those uncertainties are clearly small enough to make the decision that we should change over the whole global energy system and how unacceptable those consequences would be. And, given that the various intervention approaches are not unlike phenomena in the world today and intervention would keep the climate where it is now (only with a bit different amount of energy change as compared to the seasonal changes in forcing that are already treated in simulating the global weather changes over the seasons), it is really hard to see how a modest program of climate intervention research would not lead to uncertainties less than those involved in projections of climate change without intervention. Fine to say that there are social, equity, political, and governance issues, but on the issue of uncertainties in the physical science calculations, not readily understandable. Mike MacCracken On 2/11/15, 6:05 PM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: On reflection, I think my most basic problem with his ³argument² is it that it fails to distinguish between the people choosing to emit CO2, the people who might be harmed by CO2, and the people who might eventually choose geoengineering; his arguments are only coherent to the extent that those are all the same people. It¹s a bit like standing in a cross-walk watching an approaching SUV that isn¹t slowing down and insisting that you have the right-of-way and the ³right answer² is for the SUV-driver to stop rather than for you to take whatever action you can. doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug MacMartin Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:59 PM To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering' Subject: RE: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Perhaps the only thing more barking mad than considering solar geoengineering would be the path we¹re currently onŠ in that sense I agree with him, but insofar as we do appear to be on that path, he doesn¹t actually present any cogent argument against pursuing research, despite all of his argumentative rhetoric. There¹s so much BS in here to respond to, but two thoughts: As the lead author on a recent paper describing temporary deployment only to limit the rate of change (which was cited several times in the report, and I presume is the basis for his comment), I can unequivocally state that his assertion: I myself think the temporary deployment scenarios are highly implausible, and are mainly shopped by albedo-modification boosters as a less threatening way to get the camel¹s nose in the tent Is absolutely false; if he was interested in whether that was true, he could have actually asked. (I also object to the word ³boosters², as my own perspective is simply one of wanting decisions to be made based on knowledge). And second, if we both ever need surgery for cancer, I¹ll take the painkillers that he apparently doesn¹t want. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:18 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Poster's note : notable as it's a report author. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengine ering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.single.html FEB. 10 2015 11:00 AM Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad You can¹t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse. By Raymond T. Pierrehumbert Some years ago, in the question-and-answer session after a lecture at the American Geophysical Union, I described certain geoengineering proposals as ³barking mad.² The remark went rather viral in the geoengineering community. The climate-hacking proposals I was referring to were schemes that attempt to cancel out some of the effects of human-caused global warming by squirting various substances into the atmosphere that would reflect more sunlight back to space. Schemes that were
Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News
I don't understand how some authors claim that forests remove carbon from the atmosphere and so if you use the same land to produce and burn biofuels then that zero-carbon cycle is somehow worse for the environment than the natural cycle. Isn't it obvious that in the long run a forest has to be carbon-balanced, it isn't removing net carbon from the atmosphere but essentially all of the carbon taken up by plants eventually gets returned to the atmosphere when those plants die, decompose, etc.? If there were a net removal of carbon from the atmosphere then over long time periods each forest would be sitting on a huge pile of carbon. Of course, there is some fossil fuel production and thus carbon storage over a period of millions of years, but that seems insignificant on the time scales we're discussing. Can someone who's read these papers explain how they address this? On Tue Feb 10 2015 at 3:59:40 PM Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: 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. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To
Re: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate
Worth noting perhaps that the NAS has done careful studies of climate impacts http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12877 so one response to the limitations of the climate intervention study is to suggest that the climate stabilization/impacts report be read together with the climate intervention study. This is a familiar lawyerly technique (where there is doubt, construe all parts of a contract together so as to achieve a reasonable rather than an absurd reading) which may help in dealing with policy types. ᐧ On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Doug--Well said. The report (well, at least the presentation of the report yesterday at the National Academy of Sciences) basically does not do a comparative analysis of climate change with and without climate intervention—instead seeming to do an analysis only of the relative merits of climate intervention on its own or not. Well, that is not the context we are in (so actually the analysis, once they get past saying the climate is changing, is to forget about the SUV approaching the crosswalk at all (or at least, the change is not here now in the Arctic or imminent elsewhere, etc.). The really surprising reason given in answer to my question was that they said that uncertainties about climate change without intervention were too large to really do this—well, those uncertainties are clearly small enough to make the decision that we should change over the whole global energy system and how unacceptable those consequences would be. And, given that the various intervention approaches are not unlike phenomena in the world today and intervention would keep the climate where it is now (only with a bit different amount of energy change as compared to the seasonal changes in forcing that are already treated in simulating the global weather changes over the seasons), it is really hard to see how a modest program of climate intervention research would not lead to uncertainties less than those involved in projections of climate change without intervention. Fine to say that there are social, equity, political, and governance issues, but on the issue of uncertainties in the physical science calculations, not readily understandable. Mike MacCracken On 2/11/15, 6:05 PM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: On reflection, I think my most basic problem with his “argument” is it that it fails to distinguish between the people choosing to emit CO2, the people who might be harmed by CO2, and the people who might eventually choose geoengineering; his arguments are only coherent to the extent that those are all the same people. It’s a bit like standing in a cross-walk watching an approaching SUV that isn’t slowing down and insisting that you have the right-of-way and the “right answer” is for the SUV-driver to stop rather than for you to take whatever action you can. doug *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [ mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Doug MacMartin *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:59 PM *To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering' *Subject:* RE: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Perhaps the only thing more barking mad than considering solar geoengineering would be the path we’re currently on… in that sense I agree with him, but insofar as we do appear to be on that path, he doesn’t actually present any cogent argument against pursuing research, despite all of his argumentative rhetoric. There’s so much BS in here to respond to, but two thoughts: As the lead author on a recent paper describing temporary deployment only to limit the rate of change (which was cited several times in the report, and I presume is the basis for his comment), I can unequivocally state that his assertion: I myself think the temporary deployment scenarios are highly implausible, and are mainly shopped by albedo-modification boosters as a less threatening way to get the camel’s nose in the tent Is absolutely false; if he was interested in whether that was true, he could have actually asked. (I also object to the word “boosters”, as my own perspective is simply one of wanting decisions to be made based on knowledge). And second, if we both ever need surgery for cancer, I’ll take the painkillers that he apparently doesn’t want. *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [ mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:18 PM *To:* geoengineering *Subject:* [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Poster's note : notable as it's a report author.
Re: [geo] National Academies reports
Still more reporting: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/science/panel-urges-more-research-on-geoengineering-as-a-tool-against-climate-change.html?_r=0 “The committee felt that the need for information at this point outweighs the need for shoving this topic under the rug,” Marcia K. McNutt, chairwoman of the panel and the editor in chief of the journal Science, said at a news conference in Washington. How refreshing. Is shoving topics under the rug ever an option for an NAS committee, or science in general? Or was the committee referring to the habits of brethren policy- and decision-makers? Greg From: J.L. Reynolds j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:11 PM Subject: [geo] National Academies reports Yesterday , a committee of the National research Council released a two volume report on climate engineering. They are available here http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration One must register to download, but may read online without doing so. The newly renamed Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (formerly the Washington Geoengineering Consortium) has handy roundups of media coverage and NGO reactions. I found the latter interesting, in that Friends of the Earth US came out fully against climate engineering while the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund were supportive of the reports and further research (with varying degrees of caution expressed). http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/media-coverage-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/10/civil-society-statements-on-the-release-of-nas-climate-intervention-reports/ The press conference was webcast. Some people “live tweeted” it. See https://twitter.com/elikint https://twitter.com/janieflegal https://twitter.com/TheCarbonSink https://twitter.com/mclaren_erc Cheers Jesse - Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD Postdoctoral researcher Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ -- 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. -- 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.
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.ukmailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk ancestraltime.org.ukhttp://ancestraltime.org.uk http://careforthefuture.exeter.ac.uk/blog/ edinburgh.academia.edu/MichaelNorthcotthttp://edinburgh.academia.edu/MichaelNorthcott On 11 Feb 2015, at 01:20, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.netmailto: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.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto: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
