RE: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News
It doesn’t need to be one-time, if you add fine olivine grains to the soil. Helps to give poor acid soils a healthy pH, and provides magnesium at the same time (most important metal in chlorophyll), Olaf Schuiling From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David desJardins Sent: donderdag 12 februari 2015 17:25 To: Fred Zimmerman; ain...@llnl.govmailto:ain...@llnl.gov Cc: jha...@berkeley.edumailto:jha...@berkeley.edu; soco...@princeton.edumailto:soco...@princeton.edu; andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News Certainly there's no question that we could have a big one-time (but large even though it's one-time) removal of carbon from the atmosphere if we convert large land areas from agriculture to be optimized carbon sinks. But if you want to use currently-agricultural land to remove carbon from the atmosphere, then it's probably even better to grow trees and cut those trees down and bury them and do that over and over again every 10-20 years, than to convert the land to a carbon-dense biome? That gives you ongoing carbon removal, not just a one-time effect. On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 8:16:40 AM Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.commailto:geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: A couple of weeks ago Greg Rau shared a Jan. 30 article from Science that discussed the difficulty of accurately characterizing biomes (land use/land cover maps are not perfect) and the pitfalls in targeting particular biomes for interventions. [Image removed by sender.]ᐧ On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Aines, Roger D. ain...@llnl.govmailto:ain...@llnl.gov wrote: That seems like the important argument, John. Are there any simple metrics we can use to think about the best way to optimize soil carbon in a particular biome? And, are there realistic totals that we could say those optimized situations represent in the US, or even the world? -- Roger D. Aines Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader E Programs, Global Security Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mail Stop L-090 Livermore, CA 94551 925 423-7184tel:925%20423-7184 925 998-2915tel:925%20998-2915 cell Administrative Contact Michelle Herawi hera...@llnl.govmailto:hera...@llnl.gov 925 423-4964tel:925%20423-4964 On 2/12/15 7:49 AM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edumailto:jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Remember: forests = trees + soil + microbes +Š Much of the carbon is in the soil and converting meadow/grasslands/prairie to some kinds of forest or woody shrubland can result in net carbon loss even as the woody plants grow. World wide 4 or 5 times as much carbon in soil as in all living biomass. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edumailto:jha...@berkeley.edu On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edumailto:soco...@princeton.edu wrote: Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I think that's the argument being made. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.orgmailto:da...@desjardins.org wrote: 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 -- 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%2bunsubscr...@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.commailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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.commailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News
Soils are the biggest on land carbon store. Forests store carbon on an ongoing basis in soil. Leaves and twigs drop, taking carbon out of the air into organic matter that eventually becomes soil. And in some circumstances - eg compression by water - over millions of years this turns into sedimentary rock including of course what we now dig up as fossil fuels. (James Hutton developed his deep time theory on the basis of observing this on farmland, and in sedimentary rocks, in Scotland). Forests are endlessly taking carbon via photosynthesis out of the air and putting it in soils: secondary forests do this faster. But cutting old growth forests releases ghgs from soils and subsoils so cutting and replacing with new forests does not lock up more carbon. Some countries (Malaysia) call oil palm plantations forests but they have very few of the ecosystem functions of tropical trees. Exposed soils of the kind found under and between oil palms and on agricultural land between crops release carbon. UK soils presently release more carbon annually than they absorb through biomass growth and photosynthesis. Professor Michael Northcott New College University of Edinburgh Mound Place Edinburgh EH1 2LX UK 0 (44) 131 650 7994 m.northc...@ed.ac.uk ancestraltime.org.uk http://careforthefuture.exeter.ac.uk/blog/ edinburgh.academia.edu/MichaelNorthcott On 12 Feb 2015, at 14:38, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote: Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I think that's the argument being made. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: 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 -- 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. -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- 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
For an example of what John is talking about, see http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/japanese-agricultural-heritage-systems-recognized. Japanese traditional agricultural practices are based on maintaining coherent local biomes as opposed to razing them and creating monocultures. ᐧ On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:27 PM, John HARTE jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Ken, best not to look at it as an either or problem. There are ways to increase agricultural sustainability and at the same time store carbon and promote biodiversity. Sent from my iPhone John Harte On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: My view is that we should be managing land in ways that place extremely high emphasis on protecting biodiversity and natural ecosystems while meeting human needs, which probably means focusing on agricultural intensification and not worrying so much about carbon storage.. For solving the climate problem, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it's the energy system, stupid. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://kencaldeira.com https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira My assistant is Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu, with access to incoming emails. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:24 AM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: Certainly there's no question that we could have a big one-time (but large even though it's one-time) removal of carbon from the atmosphere if we convert large land areas from agriculture to be optimized carbon sinks. But if you want to use currently-agricultural land to remove carbon from the atmosphere, then it's probably even better to grow trees and cut those trees down and bury them and do that over and over again every 10-20 years, than to convert the land to a carbon-dense biome? That gives you ongoing carbon removal, not just a one-time effect. On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 8:16:40 AM Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: A couple of weeks ago Greg Rau shared a Jan. 30 article from Science that discussed the difficulty of accurately characterizing biomes (land use/land cover maps are not perfect) and the pitfalls in targeting particular biomes for interventions. ᐧ On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Aines, Roger D. ain...@llnl.gov wrote: That seems like the important argument, John. Are there any simple metrics we can use to think about the best way to optimize soil carbon in a particular biome? And, are there realistic totals that we could say those optimized situations represent in the US, or even the world? -- Roger D. Aines Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader E Programs, Global Security Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mail Stop L-090 Livermore, CA 94551 925 423-7184 925 998-2915 cell Administrative Contact Michelle Herawi hera...@llnl.gov 925 423-4964 On 2/12/15 7:49 AM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Remember: forests = trees + soil + microbes +Š Much of the carbon is in the soil and converting meadow/grasslands/prairie to some kinds of forest or woody shrubland can result in net carbon loss even as the woody plants grow. World wide 4 or 5 times as much carbon in soil as in all living biomass. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote: Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I think that's the argument being made. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: 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 -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To
Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News
Well, if you cut down a forest and burn the trees for electricity or home heating, it may take 100 years to fully recover the lost carbon. So if you're making a calculation over a shorter time horizon, that's a concern. Personally, I think the metric for carbon footprint should be the impact on radiative forcing at the time of peak forcing (which is itself an aspirational and fuzzy target). So, how much of the co2 emitted by burning the wood will have been reabsorbed by ~2080? But others might want to tune policy to minimize the rate of co2 accumulation over the next two decades- a pretty long horizon for politics, after all! Dan Kirk-Davidoff Sent from my iPad On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: 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.
Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News
Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I think that's the argument being made. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: 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 -- 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
Certainly there's no question that we could have a big one-time (but large even though it's one-time) removal of carbon from the atmosphere if we convert large land areas from agriculture to be optimized carbon sinks. But if you want to use currently-agricultural land to remove carbon from the atmosphere, then it's probably even better to grow trees and cut those trees down and bury them and do that over and over again every 10-20 years, than to convert the land to a carbon-dense biome? That gives you ongoing carbon removal, not just a one-time effect. On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 8:16:40 AM Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: A couple of weeks ago Greg Rau shared a Jan. 30 article from Science that discussed the difficulty of accurately characterizing biomes (land use/land cover maps are not perfect) and the pitfalls in targeting particular biomes for interventions. ᐧ On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Aines, Roger D. ain...@llnl.gov wrote: That seems like the important argument, John. Are there any simple metrics we can use to think about the best way to optimize soil carbon in a particular biome? And, are there realistic totals that we could say those optimized situations represent in the US, or even the world? -- Roger D. Aines Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader E Programs, Global Security Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mail Stop L-090 Livermore, CA 94551 925 423-7184 925 998-2915 cell Administrative Contact Michelle Herawi hera...@llnl.gov 925 423-4964 On 2/12/15 7:49 AM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Remember: forests = trees + soil + microbes +Š Much of the carbon is in the soil and converting meadow/grasslands/prairie to some kinds of forest or woody shrubland can result in net carbon loss even as the woody plants grow. World wide 4 or 5 times as much carbon in soil as in all living biomass. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote: Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I think that's the argument being made. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: 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 -- 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. -- 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
On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 3:47:05 AM Daniel Kirk-Davidoff dkirkdavid...@gmail.com wrote: Well, if you cut down a forest and burn the trees for electricity or home heating, it may take 100 years to fully recover the lost carbon. I think trees harvested for biomass are generally fast-growing species grown and used for this purpose (or paper, etc.) and harvested on cycles much more like 10-20 years than 100. So if you harvest the lumber every 20 years, it doesn't take longer than that to return to the steady state. Of course, if you stopped harvesting these trees altogether, you might increase the total carbon reservoir over time. But you could say the same about turning wheat and corn fields back into forests. -- 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
On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 9:14:07 AM Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: My view is that we should be managing land in ways that place extremely high emphasis on protecting biodiversity and natural ecosystems while meeting human needs, which probably means focusing on agricultural intensification and not worrying so much about carbon storage.. That makes good sense. Using available agricultural land to generate more agricultural output so that we can reduce deforestation and destruction of natural ecosystems should be near the top of any list of priorities. Although there is an economic challenge, not just a technical one, because if existing agricultural land produces more output that doesn't necessarily mean the benefits of that will be automatically shared (at low cost) with those who are considering deforestation or ecological destruction to meet their own individual and societal needs. One way or another, we have to essentially pay people not to destroy the remaining ecosystems. -- 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
My view is that we should be managing land in ways that place extremely high emphasis on protecting biodiversity and natural ecosystems while meeting human needs, which probably means focusing on agricultural intensification and not worrying so much about carbon storage.. For solving the climate problem, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it's the energy system, stupid. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://kencaldeira.com https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira My assistant is Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu, with access to incoming emails. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:24 AM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: Certainly there's no question that we could have a big one-time (but large even though it's one-time) removal of carbon from the atmosphere if we convert large land areas from agriculture to be optimized carbon sinks. But if you want to use currently-agricultural land to remove carbon from the atmosphere, then it's probably even better to grow trees and cut those trees down and bury them and do that over and over again every 10-20 years, than to convert the land to a carbon-dense biome? That gives you ongoing carbon removal, not just a one-time effect. On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 8:16:40 AM Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: A couple of weeks ago Greg Rau shared a Jan. 30 article from Science that discussed the difficulty of accurately characterizing biomes (land use/land cover maps are not perfect) and the pitfalls in targeting particular biomes for interventions. ᐧ On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Aines, Roger D. ain...@llnl.gov wrote: That seems like the important argument, John. Are there any simple metrics we can use to think about the best way to optimize soil carbon in a particular biome? And, are there realistic totals that we could say those optimized situations represent in the US, or even the world? -- Roger D. Aines Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader E Programs, Global Security Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mail Stop L-090 Livermore, CA 94551 925 423-7184 925 998-2915 cell Administrative Contact Michelle Herawi hera...@llnl.gov 925 423-4964 On 2/12/15 7:49 AM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Remember: forests = trees + soil + microbes +Š Much of the carbon is in the soil and converting meadow/grasslands/prairie to some kinds of forest or woody shrubland can result in net carbon loss even as the woody plants grow. World wide 4 or 5 times as much carbon in soil as in all living biomass. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote: Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I think that's the argument being made. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: 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 -- 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. -- 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
Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News
That seems like the important argument, John. Are there any simple metrics we can use to think about the best way to optimize soil carbon in a particular biome? And, are there realistic totals that we could say those optimized situations represent in the US, or even the world? -- Roger D. Aines Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader E Programs, Global Security Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mail Stop L-090 Livermore, CA 94551 925 423-7184 925 998-2915 cell Administrative Contact Michelle Herawi hera...@llnl.gov 925 423-4964 On 2/12/15 7:49 AM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Remember: forests = trees + soil + microbes +Š Much of the carbon is in the soil and converting meadow/grasslands/prairie to some kinds of forest or woody shrubland can result in net carbon loss even as the woody plants grow. World wide 4 or 5 times as much carbon in soil as in all living biomass. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote: Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I think that's the argument being made. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: 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 -- 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. -- 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
Remember: forests = trees + soil + microbes +… Much of the carbon is in the soil and converting meadow/grasslands/prairie to some kinds of forest or woody shrubland can result in net carbon loss even as the woody plants grow. World wide 4 or 5 times as much carbon in soil as in all living biomass. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote: Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I think that's the argument being made. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: 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 -- 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
Ken, best not to look at it as an either or problem. There are ways to increase agricultural sustainability and at the same time store carbon and promote biodiversity. Sent from my iPhone John Harte On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: My view is that we should be managing land in ways that place extremely high emphasis on protecting biodiversity and natural ecosystems while meeting human needs, which probably means focusing on agricultural intensification and not worrying so much about carbon storage.. For solving the climate problem, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it's the energy system, stupid. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://kencaldeira.com https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira My assistant is Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu, with access to incoming emails. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:24 AM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: Certainly there's no question that we could have a big one-time (but large even though it's one-time) removal of carbon from the atmosphere if we convert large land areas from agriculture to be optimized carbon sinks. But if you want to use currently-agricultural land to remove carbon from the atmosphere, then it's probably even better to grow trees and cut those trees down and bury them and do that over and over again every 10-20 years, than to convert the land to a carbon-dense biome? That gives you ongoing carbon removal, not just a one-time effect. On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 8:16:40 AM Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: A couple of weeks ago Greg Rau shared a Jan. 30 article from Science that discussed the difficulty of accurately characterizing biomes (land use/land cover maps are not perfect) and the pitfalls in targeting particular biomes for interventions. ᐧ On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Aines, Roger D. ain...@llnl.gov wrote: That seems like the important argument, John. Are there any simple metrics we can use to think about the best way to optimize soil carbon in a particular biome? And, are there realistic totals that we could say those optimized situations represent in the US, or even the world? -- Roger D. Aines Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader E Programs, Global Security Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mail Stop L-090 Livermore, CA 94551 925 423-7184 925 998-2915 cell Administrative Contact Michelle Herawi hera...@llnl.gov 925 423-4964 On 2/12/15 7:49 AM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Remember: forests = trees + soil + microbes +Š Much of the carbon is in the soil and converting meadow/grasslands/prairie to some kinds of forest or woody shrubland can result in net carbon loss even as the woody plants grow. World wide 4 or 5 times as much carbon in soil as in all living biomass. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote: Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I think that's the argument being made. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins da...@desjardins.org wrote: 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 -- 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. -- 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
Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News
On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 9:32:23 AM Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: For an example of what John is talking about, see http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/japanese-agricultural-heritage-systems-recognized. Japanese traditional agricultural practices are based on maintaining coherent local biomes as opposed to razing them and creating monocultures. How many calories/acre does this produce, compared to modern industrial agriculture? I'm skeptical that this is more efficient/effective than making high-output use of the farms and fields we have, while preserving remaining land in a natural state. Especially since we've already got a lot of land that is either in industrial agriculture now, or in non-intensive agriculture that has still eliminated essentially all of the native species. -- 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
I see the issue as a mixture of these comments – poor agricultural practice depletes carbon, dumping it into the atmosphere. Good practices could reverse at least some of this. I have seen numbers of 50 GT for US soil recovery, and I challenge any of us energy wonks to come up with numbers like that. Sorry I don't have a citation for that. I'm really thinking toward the post 2050 negative carbon regime, but it seems that encouraging all of the above is a good idea. R Roger D. Aines Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader E Programs, Global Security Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mail Stop L-090 Livermore, CA 94551 925 423-7184 925 998-2915 cell Administrative Contact Michelle Herawi hera...@llnl.govmailto:hera...@llnl.gov 925 423-4964 From: David desJardins da...@desjardins.orgmailto:da...@desjardins.org Date: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:40 AM To: Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.commailto:geoengineerin...@gmail.com, John HARTE jha...@berkeley.edumailto:jha...@berkeley.edu Cc: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu, Aines, Roger D. ain...@llnl.govmailto:ain...@llnl.gov, Robert Socolow soco...@princeton.edumailto:soco...@princeton.edu, 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 On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 9:32:23 AM Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.commailto:geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: For an example of what John is talking about, see http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/japanese-agricultural-heritage-systems-recognized. Japanese traditional agricultural practices are based on maintaining coherent local biomes as opposed to razing them and creating monocultures. How many calories/acre does this produce, compared to modern industrial agriculture? I'm skeptical that this is more efficient/effective than making high-output use of the farms and fields we have, while preserving remaining land in a natural state. Especially since we've already got a lot of land that is either in industrial agriculture now, or in non-intensive agriculture that has still eliminated essentially all of the native species. -- 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
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
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] 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
Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News
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 To: geoengineering 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. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
[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. 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.
