Comments for Advanced Biofuels and Climate Change Information Center

Comment on Record soy exports expose critical flaw in land use theory by Russ

Russ — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:12:46 +0000

“..land use change proponents are using bad data to make their projections.”

Land use change proponents = anyone who acknowledges that carbon sink destruction is occuring to make way for agriculture, pasture, palm oil plantations, soy, etc.

Not all predictions are equal . The prediction that I will one day die is a solid one, although, timing is the detail we are most interested in. As with land displaced by biofuels, plenty of people will argue that nobody dies, they just go to heaven or hell (more proof of how rational thought can easily be overridden when there is an incentive to do so).

The prediction that a tree will store carbon as it grows is also a solid one. The EPA could choose to assume it will take 30 years of biofuel use to replace the carbon sent into the atmosphere by a carbon sink cleared to make way for new crops. They could also choose a hundred years because it can take that long for a forest to fully regenerate and for the trees to fully mature.

How long it will take for a carbon sink to regenerate and how much carbon was in it when it was destroyed depends on what kind of ecosystem it was.

And this is the nub of your argument but it is not a very robust argument. The models being developed to account for what was displaced are moving up a learning curve. You want decisions to be put off until you decide the models are more developed. The problem of course, is that vested interests will never think they are good enough.

The models used for global warming started out at the bottom of a learning curve as well.

There is no doubt that greenhouse gas concentrations increase every year, and there is no doubt that carbon sinks are being displaced by agriculture.

You have “chosen” to believe that American and European biofuel crops do not displace food crops to other places, not because it makes sense and not because research suggests as much, but for other reasons you don’t consciously realize, which is the essence of subconscious rationalization bias and the reason the scientific method was developed–to keep researchers from fooling themselves, and why nobody pays much attention to research done by or for vested interest groups.

Your bad data argument is also being used by the global warming skeptics, particularly those with vested interests, the coal and oil lobbies.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/coal-for-kids/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/ethanol-in-the.php

Comment on Record soy exports expose critical flaw in land use theory by nathanschock

nathanschock — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:21:46 +0000

“First, USDA predictions have an abysmal track record, as do most predictions. You honestly believe they can predict anything that is 40 years away?”

Biodiversivist, finally something we agree on! What do you think the theory of indirect land use change is based on? It’s using 30 and 100 year predictions of the impact that U.S. crops will have on land use change around the world. It then uses those wild guesses to assess a present-day carbon penalty to biofuels.

And as I pointed out in my original post here, indirect land use change proponents are using bad data to make their projections.

Comment on Road Music: From Bluegrass to Switchgrass by Weekly Industrial and Environmental Bio Blog Roundup | Synergy Blog

Weekly Industrial and Environmental Bio Blog Roundup | Synergy Blog — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:03:16 +0000

[...] week we start off with a little Road Music, From Bluegrass to Switchgrass, from our colleagues at the Biofuels Center of North Carolina. They’ve put together a nice set of [...]

Comment on Record soy exports expose critical flaw in land use theory by Russ

Russ — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:04:22 +0000

While I’m here I’ll also address your contention that rationalization bias in the biofuel debate is the same on both sides. My original debate partner’s website:

http://www.poet.com/about/showDivision.asp?id=5

and your website:

http://www.bio.org/news/contacts/

The Upton Sinclair quote above could not be more appropriate here.

Comment on Record soy exports expose critical flaw in land use theory by Russ

Russ — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:45:32 +0000

Strawaman arguments have historically been a powerful tool in verbal debate on a stage where the audience can’t recollect who said what. But on the internet they backfire because there is a record of what has been said just a few scroll wheel turns away. I never said that research results are “inescapable truths.”

Here is a link to a debate between Searchinger and Sheehan:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/sheehan-searchi.html

Sheenan: “That’s common sense.”

Searchinger: “I appreciate his agreement and that the error is common sense.”

God must be on my side ; )

Comment on Wrong Question: Can Biofuels Be Carbon Friendly? by Russ

Russ — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:32:03 +0000

Searchinger’s debate partner agreed that we need this “fix:”

“I can state without qualification that I agree with the premise of Tim’s recent article that there is a major flaw in current and proposed accounting systems for carbon.”

Electric cars are a case of which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Should we wait for low carbon electricity before building electric cars, and will electric cars create a demand for low carbon electricity? It is a moot point because, from a global warming perspective, if we don’t get rid of coal, it won’t matter what you drive.

“…whether his models can show…”

They are not all his models. Attempts to single out and make an example out of one researcher by publicly denigrating him is starting to backfire. This isn’t a one man show, not by any stretch of the imagination:

“..Roughly a dozen major scientific assessments have now noted that because any use of productive land to produce biofuels has a high risk of creating large emissions through land-use change, we shouldn’t be pursuing that route. Among these studies are those by our National Academy of Sciences, SCOPE, a special U.K. government review of biofuels called the Gallagher Report, Dutch reviews, and studies by the Joint Research Centre of the European Union.”

Comment on Record soy exports expose critical flaw in land use theory by pwintersatbiodotorg

pwintersatbiodotorg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:52:32 +0000

Biodiversivist, I doubt either side in the debate is more heavily influenced by rationalization bias than the other. You claim to be the side that is using rational thought, yet you continue to appeal to “common sense” and rather ad hominem claims — both fallacies of logic.

The peer-reviewed modeling and the authors published in Science and Nature have been diligent and properly cautious in noting that they are making projections that depend on multiple data inputs as well as a few assumptions. In only a few cases have these authors been so incautious as to claim (primarily to the media) that their projections are inescapable truths and so-called common sense.

Comment on Record soy exports expose critical flaw in land use theory by Russ

Russ — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:08:18 +0000

Where’s my data to support a common sense contention?

It’s in the above posts and links to sources combined with a smidgen of rational thought. Look up the definition of rationalization bias. One side in this debate is using rational thought, the other is using rationalization to protect income streams. It’s normal, common, and to be expected. Debate isn’t to convince your debate partner. That’s not possible. Debate is for the audience.

“..The USDA projects that cropland in the U.S. will remain steady through 2050 in response to biofuel demand. In the absence of biofuel demand, U.S acreage would therefore be predicted to fall…”

First, USDA predictions have an abysmal track record, as do most predictions. You honestly believe they can predict anything that is 40 years away? They USDA is also under marching orders to promote making fuel from food.

It’s moot in any case. The politicians know they will get kicked out of office it they let lobbyists put all of our food into gas. Ever wonder why a limit was set on corn if it has no downsides as claimed by corn ethanol proponents?

If all of our cropland grew corn, you could easily double corn ethanol production without creating anymore farmland …in the United States. Farmers in Brazil would be scrambling to make cropland to grow what was displaced by corn.

Is this concept really that hard to understand? No it isn’t, but

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” –Upton Sinclair

The term “common sense” does not have a precise definition, but you always know it when you see it. And it certainly isn’t fool proof. It helps to formulate a hypothesis to test using the scientific method. My argument rests on peer reviewed science and numbers, common sense is just the icing on the cake.

Comment on Wrong Question: Can Biofuels Be Carbon Friendly? by Tweets that mention Wrong Question: Can Biofuels Be Carbon Friendly? « Advanced Biofuels and Climate Change Information Center -- Topsy.com

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:55:06 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Scott McCullough. Scott McCullough said: Wrong Question: Can Biofuels Be Carbon Friendly?: The Science Insider blog last week hosted an interesting deba.. http://bit.ly/4tmPZc [...]

Comment on Record soy exports expose critical flaw in land use theory by pwintersatbiodotorg

pwintersatbiodotorg — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:36:25 +0000

Just have to jump in here, particularly on:
“Common sense would strongly suggest that deforestation rates would have slowed even further without biofuel mandates creating a demand for cropland.”

Where’s your data to support that?

The USDA projects that cropland in the U.S. will remain steady through 2050 in response to biofuel demand. In the absence of biofuel demand, U.S acreage would therefore be predicted to fall.

But of course, markets for crops are also influenced by the price of oil (which affects production costs) and the relative value of currency. It has often been observed that agricultural production is a rent seeking enterprise, meaning it will grow wherever production costs are lowest.

The relationship is far too complex for these overly simplistic appeals to “common sense.”