Michael Foster sez: > Just for the record, now that they are all running for > cover and ducking the tough questions, those so-called > enviromentalists and global warming twinkies who > initially promoted biofuels need to be held > accountable. They won't, of course, since they'll be > responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands, > if not millions of the world's most vulnerable people > and of course, the usual excuse will be offered... > "They did it in a good cause."
... Not all are "ducking" Certain potential Ethanol sympathizers have countered with their own accusations. The recent TIME magazine Front Page article titled "The Clean Energy Myth" (April 7, 2008) did have two interesting letters in defense to certain biofuel practices. I've transcribed their letters below, followed by my own comments: * * * * "THE CLEAN ENERY MYTH" misses the mark [April 7]. The one-sided and scientifically uninformed piece ignores the large potential of second- and third-generation biofuels to reduce greenhouse gasses and the ability of modern agriculture to responsibly manage land use. The Science magazine article (by Searchinger et al) on which Time relies has been thoroughly rebutted by leading scientist at the Department of Energy Argonne National laboratory. TIME owes its readers the totality of facts to avoid misinformation. For many decades, the U.S. has worked with farmers and the scientific community to increase crop yields, reduce the intensity fo pesticide and fertilizer use, improve water productivity and promote conservation tillage that reduces erosion and sequesters carbon. Substantial progress continues in all these areas and was not sufficiently addressed. Last year alone our agencies invested more than $1 billion in research, development and demonstration of next-generation-biofuels production from nonfood feedstocks, which remains the core U.S. strategy. Our government is committed to advancing technological solutions to promote and increase the use of clean, secure, abundant, affordable and domestic alternative solutions. Ed Schafer, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary, and Samuel W. Bodman, U. S. Department of Energy Secretary Washington * * * * It is wrong to attribute a significant part of the increase in Amazon deforestation to biofuels, as Mr. Gunwald does. First, suggestions that Brazil is a major culprit in global warming are not supported by scientific facts or reliable statistics. Second, the growth rate of Brazilian emissions has been on the decline primarily because of decreasing rates of Amazon rain-forest deforestation, which is the main source of carbon emissions in Brazil, and increasing use of ethanol fuel. Furthermore, from 1970 to 2005 the use of ethanol in our energy mix has averted the emission of 644 million tons of CO2, the equivalent of Canada's annual emissions. When compared with the unsustainable energy paterns used in major developed countries, the Brazilian experience can be considered a model. Contrary to what the article claims, ethanol has been a central part of the solutions. Antonio de Aguiar Patriota Ambassador of Brazil to the U.S. WASHINGTON * * * * Personal comments: DOA Secretary, Shafer, and DOE Secretary, Bodman, complain that Grunwal's article ignores the large potential of second- and third-generation biofuels to reduce greenhouse gasses and the ability of modern agriculture to responsibly manage land use, (as analyzed by Searchinger et al). That is incorrect. Grunwald's TIME article specifically states: The lesson behind the math is that on a warming planet, land is an incredibly precious commodity, and every acre used to generate fuel is an acre that can't be used to generate the food needed to feed us or the carbon storage needed to save us. Searchinger acknowledges that biofuels can be a godsend if they don't use arable land. Possible feedstocks include municipal trash, agriculture waste, ALGAE [My caps!] and even carbon dioxide, although none of the technologies are yet economical on a large scale. Tilman even holds out hope for fuel crops - he's been experimenting with Midwestern prairie grasses – as long as they're grown on "degraded lands" that can no longer support food crops or cattle. Ambassador Patriota's comments that Brazilian emissions has been on the decline primarily because of decreasing rates of Amazon rain-forest deforestation would seem to contradict Grunwald's claims. For example, Grunwald's TIME article states at one point that a Rhode Island-size chunk of the Amazon was deforested in the second half of 2007 and even more was degraded by fire. I could see how it might be possible that Patriota's claims are accurate - due to the possibility that in 2008, there is now less and less of the Brazilian forest left to deforest and burn. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
