Replies

"The Science study argues that this is a false economy, because it doesn't consider changes in land use. If mature forests are cleared to make room for biofuel-growing farms, then the carbon that would otherwise accumulate in those forests ought to be counted on ethanol's balance sheet as well."

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the premise of the Science "study" is so much bullshit. NO "mature forests" have been cleared to produce ethanol in the US. This "might" be a legitimate criticism in Brazil, but not here. Another problem is that "mature forests" don't fix much carbon---it is "new growth" forests that are the "big fixers" in the CO2 world.

So if Malaysians burn down a rain forest to grow palm oil that ends up in German biodiesel, Malaysia doesn't count the land-use emissions and Germany doesn't count the tail-pipe emissions.

There are a couple of points in this article which may be overplayed and we should refer to the original in Science. At the Suntrade Institute we are not strong advocates for an ethanol future for a number of reasons, certainly not for the anthropogenic CO₂ fear, which is totally unproven.

But the carbon neutrality argument for ethanol, pro or con, is somewhat more involved than this article repeats, and Mr Searchinger of Princeton better have some very good numbers to validate the "accounting" error. That is:

(1) He is absolutely right in incorporating land use across the planet into the argument. Not to do so is the ignorant agenda-ridden leftist bigotry we are seeing across all governments (much of that because politicians are those who flunked math and science).

(2) However much of the forest across the planet, particularly those in the tropics, Amazon, SE Asia, etc. are not quite the carbon reservoirs that are implied here, at least in the dynamic storage sense. Indeed there is very little carbon at all in tropical soils, it is all quickly oxidized and returned to the atmosphere. That is why tropical soils are so poor.

(3) Thus once the "Malaysian rain forest" has been burned, and that of course is a torrent of CO₂ into the atmosphere, the subsequent land use of ethanol production is about the same carbon neutrality of the rain-forest proceeding it. That is to say, after the initial combustive loss of the rain-forest, the dynamic carbon balance of rain-forest versus ethanol forb, occupying the same plot of land, is approximately a wash. It's just that one (ethanol production) happens in a more rapid cycle than the other (rain-forest).

(4) That being the case, the question becomes really how much, in real quantitative numbers, of the forest across the planet will indeed be sacrificed to ethanol production, and thus the land use question. Having flown over all continents repeatedly we suspect not as much conversion as would make severe "accounting errors." Why? Because most of the world's arable land mass is already intensively cultivated (whether ethanol production or otherwise), and that which is not, you better believe, is husbanded adamantly by the environmental faction perpetually, i.e. rain-forests, protected reserves, etc. (which we support incidentally for this very reason).

The perspective which is lost here, perhaps even by the scientific "experts" publishing or editing in Science, is that the arable world is already highly, intensively, exploitively, developed. And if one wants to argue with that then one better incorporate some hard numbers on land use, planet wide.

And thus we have the ignorance of politics, backed by the uncertainty of science.

Johnny Suntrade

The Suntrade Institute