Summary: More Biofuels, More Greenhouse Gases
A new study from the University of Illinois estimates that the world has more than 702 million hectares of marginal land suitable for growing biofuels. The researchers assessed land around the world based on its soil quality, slope, and regional climate. They added degraded or low-quality cropland but ruled out any good cropland, pasture, or forests; they also assumed no irrigation. They came up with the surprising total 2.7 million sq. miles of marginal land that could be available for switchgrass or other biofuel crops.
Read more on More Biofuels, More Greenhouse Gases…
A new study from the University of Illinois estimates that the
world has more than 702 million hectares of marginal land suitable
for growing biofuels. The researchers assessed land around the
world based on its soil quality, slope, and regional climate. They
added degraded or lowquality cropland but ruled out any good
cropland, pasture, or forests they also assumed no irrigation. They
came up with the surprising total 2.7 million sq. miles of marginal
land that could be available for switchgrass or other biofuel
crops.But the Illinois team didnt, apparently, factor in a 2010
Stanford University study that found plowing new cropland anywhere
in the world would sharply increase the level of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere. Plowing would release massive amounts of soil
carbon mostly as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times as
powerful as CO2. The Stanford conclusion was that the 6.6 million
square miles of lands not plowed because of the higher yields from
the Green Revolution prevented the release of greenhouse gases
equal to onethird of all the industrial gases emitted worldwide
since 1850!This makes modern farmingwith its nitrogen fertilizer,
pesticides, notill herbicides and high yield seeds the most
fabulous antigreenhousewarming project ever implemented by mankind.
It is, in fact, the only human project that has ever forestalled a
major increase in humanemitted greenhouse gases. Europe, for
example has not reduced its greenhouse emissions at all since 1997
despite the Kyoto Treaty.If we consider both studies valid, we have
a big problem, All this untouched biofuel land would have to be
plowed. The Stanford soil carbon figures tell us this would be the
worst aggravation of greenhouse gases ever. Stanford says in effect
we should plow only as much cropland as we urgently need for human
food, and leave the rest to wildlife.The Illinois paper did note a
class of lowimpact, highdiversity perennial grasses that could be
overseeded on the existing grasses without plowing not included in
the 702 M hectare estimate. Unfortunately, the perennialgrasses
ethanol yields are dismal. Plus, harvesting costs would be very
high. Factoring in the cost of roadbuilding and the highway fuels
needed for transporting the harvest, it is hard to see that there
would be a net gain in fuel, and there would certainly be a net
loss to wildlife.Why all of this focus on biofuels Current U.S. and
EU ethanol mandates have already produced two huge foodprice spikes
in the past three years, causing political unrest around the world.
Japan says it has spent 78 billion on biomass projects in the past
six yearswith no effective impact on its global warming
emissions.Lets remember that the worlds temperatures have
officially increased by a net of only 0.2 degrees over the past 70
years. Even that warming assumes we believe the adjusted
temperatures in the official records kept by James Hansens NASA and
the discredited University of East Anglia.Lets burn our
newlyabundant natural gas instead of the biofuels, put nuclear
higher on the wish list, and let the marginal lands be
wild.SourceXiming Cai, Land Availability for Biofuel Production
Published on Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University
of Illinois a hrefhttpcee.illinois.eduhttpcee.illinois.edua
Date Published: