A recent study from researchers at the University of Wisconsin takes another look at the “carbon debt” models proposed by Searchinger and Fargione in ScienceXpress earlier this year. Searchinger and Fargione argued that biofuel development in the United States and Europe would lead to the destruction of rainforests and grassland in Brazil and other tropical climates, which would of course release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere (See earlier posting).
The new study takes into account some factors that other researchers criticized Fargione and Searchinger for ignoring. Bringing crop yields in the developing world up to the production level in the United States would increase biofuels’ carbon recycling benefits by up to 50 percent, according to the study authors. Further, if biofuels displace future production of oil from tar sands, their climate benefit will increase by another 25 percent. The researchers conclude that “future carbon payback times could be substantially shorter with increases in crop yields, changing petroleum sources and improved biofuel technology.”
Biofuels could have immediate benefits, the study authors conclude, if they are grown on degraded farm land. As another recent study from Stanford University shows, there are nearly 1 billion acres of abandoned farm land around the world. Some of this former agricultural land was once pasture grazed by cattle, and some was cropland that was abandoned for greener fields or because of changing needs. The study’s principle author calculates there is enough land in the United States to supply 9 percent of U.S. transportation energy, using current crop yield data.
Filed under: biofuel, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emission | Tagged: biofuel, carbon debt, Climate Change, Fargione, greenhouse gas emissions, Searchinger, tropical rainforest |
I don’t know how you can read the first study and conclude that it is favorable to biofuels development. Sure, with radical change and advanced technology, things could be better, but the article concludes that we should considered *current* biofuels practices and harms when making immediate policy changes. This is from the conclusion of the article:
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. Much appreciated.
I would not claim that either study discussed here is pro- or anti-biofuel. They are both serious and much-needed attempts to refine the models proposed by Fargione and Searchinger earlier this year and contributions to the growing literature on calculating the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to biofuels, something that is required under the Renewable Fuel Standard. To meet the RFS, biofuels must reduce greenhouse gases by between 20 and 60 percent, and the industry needs a standard model for making that calculation. Whether we can accurately calculate the pressure put on rainforests by biofuel production in the U.S. is still an open question.
The only way I can get on board with Bio Fuels is if we don’t ship them more then a 100 miles. Kinda defeats the purpose other wise. We’ll call it “Macro Fuel”
http://thealternativeenergyinvestor.blogspot.com
[…] Comments How to Measure Land … on Biofuels and Carbon DebtRay The Money Man on It’s Carbon Payback Tim…hungrybritain on Purdue University Weighs In on…Karim Virani on Purdue University Weighs In […]