Put a Tiger in your Think-Tank - Exxon Mobil's investment in disinformation re Global Warming

[JohnWxy]

Some Like it Hot


THIRTY YEARS AGO, the notion that corporations ought to sponsor think tanks that directly support their own political goals—rather than merely fund disinterested research—was far more controversial. But then, in 1977, an associate of the AEI (which was founded as a business association in 1943) came to industry’s rescue. In an essay published in the Wall Street Journal, the influential neoconservative Irving Kristol memorably counseled that “corporate philanthropy should not be, and cannot be, disinterested,” but should serve as a means “to shape or reshape the climate of public opinion.”

Kristol’s advice was heeded, and today many businesses give to public policy groups that support a laissez-faire, antiregulatory agenda. In its giving report, ExxonMobil says it supports public policy groups that are “dedicated to researching free market solutions to policy problems.” What the company doesn’t say is that beyond merely challenging the Kyoto Protocol or the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act on economic grounds, many of these groups explicitly dispute the science of climate change. Generally eschewing peer-reviewed journals, these groups make their challenges in far less stringent arenas, such as the media and public forums.

Pressed on this point, spokeswoman Lauren Kerr says that “ExxonMobil has been quite transparent and vocal regarding the fact that we, as do multiple organizations and respected institutions and researchers, believe that the scientific evidence on greenhouse gas emissions remains inconclusive and that studies must continue.” She also hastens to point out that ExxonMobil generously supports university research programs—for example, the company plans to donate $100 million to Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project. It even funds the hallowed National Academy of Sciences.

Nevertheless, no company appears to be working harder to support those who debunk global warming. “Many corporations have funded, you know, dribs and drabs here and there, but I would be surprised to learn that there was a bigger one than Exxon,” explains Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which, in 2000 and again in 2003, sued the government to stop the dissemination of a Clinton-era report showing the impact of climate change in the United States. Attorney Christopher Horner—whom you’ll recall from Crichton’s audience—was the lead attorney in both lawsuits and is paid a $60,000 annual consulting fee by the CEI. In 2002, ExxonMobil explicitly earmarked $60,000 for the CEI for “legal activities.”





Put a Tiger in your Think-Tank

Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank

ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview.

[Snarkoleptic]

1. Counter culture ad campaign? Put a polar bear in your Hummer?

[Nihil]

2. Unfortunately ...

... some of the dipshits who drive Hummers would take that as a badge of pride ...

[kristopher]

3. Poor little feller just ain't right in the head....

John it absolutely amazes me how stupid you take people to be.

In your first 2005 article you have a quote that shows Exxon using their "planned" donation to Stanford and the National Academy of Sciences as a counterpoint to their disinformation network consisting exclusively of private think tanks. The entire article is focused on these think tanks and the way EM uses their output as a tool in denying global warming and Stanford is not mentioned anywhere other than as an example of how EM ALSO contributes to legitimate research

However, ignoring the obvious implication in the article that the donations are in a different category than the money spent on disinformation, your use of bold as support for your headline obviously indicates you want the reader to believe that Stanford and the National Academy are corrupt institutions producing a deceitful product for Exxon mobile.

Your next link is to a list by Mother Jones of these private think tanks.

Elsewhere on another thread, you further your smear when you quote a 2007 article from a "cleantech" private investment group that has interests in the agricultural sector (read ethanol). This article uses the Exxon donation to Stanford to level a direct attack on attack Jacobson for his comparative evaluation of ethanol and gasoline with the headline "Big oil undermining biofuel research, warns watchdog".

However, in the text of the article we see that Jacobson's study isn't funded by EM at all. "In an interview with the Cleantech Group, the FTCR consumer group highlighted the fact that ExxonMobil has given $100 million to fund Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Program (GCEP). Though the ethanol study was not funded by that program, Jacobson had a three-year grant from GCEP to study the impact of replacing fossil-fuel motor vehicles and electric power plants with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and power plants, the group said."


So let's recap:
Jacobson produces a study that says ethanol is as bad or worse in terms of pollution than gasoline.
Jacobson produces a large body of work that concludes that electric vehicles powered by wind and solar are the best options for eliminating fossil fuels and achieving energy security for the nation.

You think this is a result of corruption on Jacobson's part because ExxonMobile funds legitimate institutions like Standford and the National Academy of Sciences in addition to their network of private disinformation outlets such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.

Well, I'm not convinced. If Exxon Mobile expected a predetermined outcome from a researcher they didn't fund, not only is that extremely stupid, but judging by Jacobson's body of work they really didn't get the product they didn't spend their money on.

Seriously dude, are you mentally ill? You know, they say long term alcohol abuse can pickle your brain...

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Partial list of Jacobson's textbooks and publications (abstracts (and some papers) available at link:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/

Textbooks:
Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling

Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling, 2d ed.

"Atmospheric Pollution: History, Science, and Regulation"


Some papers organized by topic (please see Curriculum Vita for full list)

1. Energy resources and effects on the atmosphere
1. Exploiting Wind Versus Coal
2. U.S. and Global Windpower Distribution and Statistics
3. Effects of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on air pollution, climate, and stratospheric ozone
4. The effect on photchemical smog of converting the U.S. fleet of gasoline vehicles to modern diesel vehicles
5. Effects of converting to ethanol (E85) vehicles on air pollution and climate
6. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security
7. A path to sustainable energy by 2030
8. Effects of large wind farms on energy in the atmosphere

2. High-resolution aerosol evolution near the point of emission
1. Evolution of nanoparticle size and mixing state near the point of emission
2. Enhanced coagulation due to evaporation and its effect on nanoparticle evolution

3. Regional climate, UV, and ozone effects of aerosols.
1. Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system -- Part III. Aerosol-phase simulations
2. Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system -- Part II. Aerosol-module structure and design
3. Studying the effects of aerosols on vertical photolysis over an urban airshed
4. Isolating nitrated and aeromatic aerosols and nitrated aromatic gases as sources of ultraviolet light absorption
5. Effects of aerosols on California and South Coast climate
6. Wind reduction by aerosol particles

4. Effects of soil moisture, irrigation, and agriculture on regional climate and air pollution
1. Effect of soil moisture on temperatures, winds, and pollutant concentrations in Los Angeles
2. The effects of agriculture on climate and air pollution in California

5. Regional and nested global-urban studies of photochemical smog
1. Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system. Part I: Gas-phase simulations
2. Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system – Part III. Aerosol-phase simulations
3. GATOR-GCMM: 2. A study of day- and nighttime ozone layers aloft, ozone in national parks, and weather during the SARMAP field campaign.
4. The effect on photochemical smog of converting the U.S. fleet of gasoline vehicles to modern diesel vehicles.
5. On the causal link between carbon dioxide and pollution mortality.
6. The enhancement of local air pollution by urban CO2 domes.
7. The global-through-urban 3-D simulation of near-explicit gas photochemistry

6. Global direct radiative forcing of soot and other aerosols and global liquid/solid aerosol composition
1. A physically-based treatment of elemental carbon optics: Implications for global direct forcing of aerosols
2. Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols
3. Global direct radiative forcing due to multicomponent anthropogenic and natural aerosols

7. Multiple size-distribution studies of the mixing state of aerosols and clouds
1. Modeling coagulation among particles of different composition and size
2. Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols
3. Analysis of aerosol interactions with numerical techniques for solving coagulation, nucleation, condensation, dissolution, and reversible chemistry among multiple size distribution
4. Development of mixed-phase clouds from multiple aerosol size distributions and the effect of the clouds on aerosol removal
5. Evolution of nanoparticle size and mixing state near the point of emission
6. Climate response of soot, accounting for feedback to cloud absorption
7. The influence of future anthropogenic emissions on climate, natural emissions, and air quality

8. Effects of aerosol particles and greenhouse gases on global climate
1. Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming
2. The short-term cooling but long-term global warming due to biomass burning
3. Climate response of soot, accounting for feedback to snow and sea ice albedo and emissivity
4. Climate response of soot, accounting for feedback to cloud absorption
5. Short-term effects of controlling fossil-fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, the Arctic, and health

9. Numerical techniques
1. SMVGEAR: A sparse-matrix, vectorized Gear code for atmospheric models
2. Modeling coagulation among particles of different composition and size
3. Simulating condensational growth, evaporation, and coagulation of aerosols using a combined moving and stationary size grid
4. Simulating equilibrium within aerosols and nonequilibrium between gases and aerosols
5. Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system -- Part II. Aerosol-module structure and design
6. Computation of global photochemistry with SMVGEAR II.
7. Numerical techniques to solve condensational and dissolutional growth equations when growth is coupled to reversible reactions
8. Improvement of SMVGEAR II on vector and scalar machines through absolute error tolerance control
9. Studying the effect of calcium and magnesium on size-distributed nitrate and ammonium with EQUISOLV II
10. GATOR-GCMM: A global-through urban scale air pollution and weather forecast model. 1. Model design and treatment of subgrid soil, vegetation, roads, rooftops, water, sea ice, and snow
11. Analysis of aerosol interactions with numerical techniques for solving coagulation, nucleation, condensation, dissolution, and reversible chemistry among multiple size distributions
12. Development of mixed-phase clouds from multiple aerosol size distributions and the effect of the clouds on aerosol removal
13. A refined method of parameterizing absorption coefficients among multiple gases simultaneously from line-by-line data
14. Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry
15. A solution to the problem of non equilibrium acid/base gas-particle transfer at long time step

[MH1]

4. I would have assumed the "planned donation" to Stanford ...

a) would never actually happen (unlike the over $8 million between just 2001 - 2003 to anti-science orgs)

or

b) would be spread over so many years as to be relatively minor

or

c) (most likely given the size, I think, if it happens) is the beginning of a long term campaign to attempt to influence GCEP's findings, or at least change the emphasis of their studies.

[kristopher]

5. I don't think it is an attempt to influence the research.

I see it as being partially aimed at legitimate research needs that affect petroleum - a lot of technology has emerged from our long term love affair with oil - and some greenwashing, which is exactly how it was used in the OP.

There is certainly a discussion to be had about the independence of academic research when grants of this size are part of the picture, but in the case above the output of the researcher clearly shows the absurdity of claims that he is attacking ethanol because he is a tool of "big oil".

I urge everyone to take a close look at John's posts to determine the state of mind and objectives that guide his writings.

[JohnWxy]

6. Credibility of New Stanford University Energy Research Tainted By ExxonMobil Ties

the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) stated that Stanford University's "energy research credibility (is) being undercut by the school's ties to ExxonMobil Corp" .. because of the $100 million grant from Exxon-Mobil to Stanford University.

I merely reported FTCR's statement, as have others (see mongabay's article at link below) have. A $100 million grant can affect research conducted by a university without there having to be a check being directly handed to a researcher. Note the statement from FTCR is talking about Stanford's "energy research credibility" and is not limiting the scope of the influence to one specific study. Anyone who thinks that a grant of this size wouldn't have any affect (without there having to be a direct documentary link) is either an idiot or a child.

$100 million buys a lot of influence and it does not require somebody sitting down with an Exxon Mobil rep and asking "well, what do do you want me to do and how much will you pay for it." .. for the influence to produce the desired effect. It also does not mean that any and all research supported by the grant or produced by Stanford is necessarily invalid. It just puts a very real cloud of doubt over any research done on energy matters at Stanford. This is what the FTCR is saying. I'm just noting what they have said.


http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/916192/credibility_of_new_stanford_university_energy_research_tainted_by_exxonmobil/index.html

A widely reported study sounding an alarm against using ethanol to replace gasoline is the most recent example of Stanford University's energy research credibility being undercut by the school's ties to ExxonMobil Corp., the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said today.

http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/04/credibility-of-stanford-university.html

[JohnWxy]

7. Jacobson's second "study" used ethanol "conclusions" from widely panned Searchinger "study".

First of all the Jacobson "study" was more appropriately described as a survey article entitled "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security"

....as far as the assumptions re ethanol are concerned these are basically from the widely panned comical "study" by the lawyer, tim searchinger. The Searchinger "study" as I said has been universally panned and criticized as not meeting the minimum standards required of a scientific inquiry.

He made assumptions that bore no relationship to reality and most damaging of all the Searchinger authors did not even make the data and models used adequately available for others to test their results. No sensible person would claim this was an example of scientific inquiry.

But rather than attempt a clumsy summary of the multitude of criticisms of this "study" I refer the reader to the criticisms and some excerpts I have pasted below:

New Report Challenges Searchinger et al, ILUC Study (re biofuels) - mathews, Tan]

"Indeed if you wished to put US ethanol production in the worst possible light, assuming the worst possible set of production conditions guaranteed to give the worst possible ILUC effects, then the assumptions chosen would not be far from those actually presented (without argument or discussion of alternatives) in the Searchinger et al. paper. This, together with the fact that the paper is not replicable, since the models and parameters used are not accessible, places a question mark over the refereeing procedures used for this paper by the journal Science. A paper that seeks to place a procedure in the worst possible light, and refrains from allowing others to check its results, is perhaps better described as ideology than as science."

http://www.biofuelreview.com/content/view/1977/">Searchinger "indirect land use" report called into question - Matthews, Tan

The science in the controversial report on indirect land use by Tim Searchinger et al "fell far short of acceptable
scientific standards" according to the findings of an analysis of the material by Professor John Mathews and Dr. Hao Tan, Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.
~~
~~

"These six shortcomings, together with the fact that the paper is not replicable, since the models and parameters
used are not accessible, places a question mark over the refereeing procedures used for this paper by the journal
Science," added John Mathews. "A paper that seeks to place a procedure in the worst possible light, and refrains
from allowing others to check its results, is perhaps better described as ideology than as science."

http://www.renewablefuelsagency.org/_db/_documents/ADAS_Seachinger_critique.pdf#page=6">The Gallagher Biofuels Review

Renewable Fuels Agency
Department for Transport

Critique of Searchinger (2008) & related papers
assessing indirect effects of biofuels on land-use
change

By ADAS UK Ltd
Prof Roger Sylvester-Bradley

page 6
10. A fundamental problem raised by several respondents arises from Searchinger’s
inaccurate assumption (see 6 above) of ‘pound for pound’ displacement of corn.
Allowing for the higher protein of DDGS, and also for land to replace the oil
foregone (we assumed oil palm); we calculate that Searchinger’s assumption about
doubles the land required to substitute for US corn-ethanol. Ensus (ES15)
conclude the assumption trebles the result, but they do not account for the ‘lost’ oil
from the displaced soya.

It should be clarified what has been assumed in Searchinger’s approach about the
inter-changeability of maize, rice, wheat & barley etc. It is puzzling that there is 23
Mha of unused arable land in Eastern Europe & the former Soviet Union (Riddle
2008), yet the predicted response in these parts is for cropping to decrease!

(page 7)

GHG emissions

12. Searchinger sets savings of direct GHG emissions from bioethanol production
relative to fossil fuels at an unrealistically small level (i.e. ~20%) compared to GHG
efficiencies of grain conversion estimated for the EU (i.e. 40-70%). A greater
saving would significantly shorten his estimated payback periods (Wang & Haq;ES15).

(page 5)

Feedstock conversion and displacement

6. There have been no criticisms of ethanol conversion rates assumed by
Searchinger, however, Searchinger’s ‘pound for pound’ substitution of feed corn for
corn diverted to bioethanol appears to be an overestimate (ES15, Wang & Haq,
ECCM). It should be recognised that the co-product, dried distillers grains
(DDGS), has ~30% protein and ~5% fibre. If heat damage is avoided, maximum
inclusion in diets can be ~400 g/kg for cattle, 200 g/kg for sheep, and 100-250 g/kg
for non-ruminants (Cottrill et al. 2007). Thus the displacement value of DDGS is at
least 23% higher than that assumed by Searchinger et al. (Klopfenstein et al.
2008).

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/obp_science_response_web.pdf">Dept. of Energy criticisms of Searchinger "study"

The Searchinger study contains some unrealistic assumptions and obsolete data. The
key issues are as follows:

• The study assumes a corn ethanol production scenario of 30 billion gallons per
year by 2015, which is double the amount established by EISA (see Figure 1).
To meet the new RFS, after 15 billion gallons, biofuels must come from
feedstocks other than grain, and primarily be produced from cellulosic
feedstocks, such as agricultural wastes and forest residues.

• The study relies on a worst-case scenario by assuming that land use and
deforestation in 2015 will mirror that which occurred in the 1990s. Better land
management practices and avoided deforestation credits, if adopted, could
reduce deforestation rates. In fact, deforestation rates have slowed down over
the past decade.

• The assumption that corn exports will decline by 62 percent is contradicted by
historical trends. As Figure 2 shows, U.S. corn exports have remained fairly
constant at around 2 billion bushels per year throughout the entire growth phase
of the ethanol industry. Specifically, the 2007 exports represent a 14% increase
compared to 2006 level, while US corn ethanol production has reached close to
six billion gallons that same year.

• The premise that dramatic land use will result from U.S. corn ethanol use
production is flawed. US corn production for food and feed has increased by 1
percent per year for the past two decades. Moreover, Figure 3 shows the
increase in protein-rich U.S. Distiller Dry Grains (DDGS) exports, which are
growing significantly as U.S. corn ethanol production expands. DDGS export
growth will be a growing contributor to the global food supply.2

• One scenario analyzed in the study incorrectly assumes the conversion of US
corn cropland to switchgrass. No farmer would convert corn acreage to
switchgrass as the value of corn will most likely exceed that of a non-food crop.
Furthermore, a DOE/Oak Ridge National Laboratory study found that more than
1 billion tons of biomass resources are available in this country (Figure 4) without
displacing corn cropland.
(more)

http://www.issues.org/25.3/kline.html">critique of Searchinger "study", Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Kline, Dale, Lee, Leiby

~~
~~

In another line of critique, some argue that the potential benefits of biofuel might be offset by indirect effects.

But large uncertainties and postulations underlie the debate about the indirect land-use effects of biofuels on

tropical deforestation, the critical implication being that use of U.S. farmland for energy crops necessarily

causes new land-clearing elsewhere. Concerns are particularly strong about the loss of tropical forests and natural

grasslands. The basic argument is that biofuel production in the United States sets in motion a necessary scenario

of deforestation.


According to this argument, if U.S. farm production is used for fuel instead of food, food prices rise and

farmers in developing countries respond by growing more food. This response requires clearing new land and burning

native vegetation and, hence, releasing carbon. This “induced deforestation” hypothesis is based on questionable

data and modeling assumptions about available land and yields, rather than on empirical evidence. The argument

assumes that the supply of previously cleared land is inelastic (that is, agricultural land for expansion is

unavailable without new deforestation). It also assumes that agricultural commodity prices are a major driving

force behind deforestation and that yields decline with expansion. The calculations for carbon emissions assume

that land in a stable, natural state is suddenly converted to agriculture as a result of biofuels. Finally, the

assertions assume that it is possible to measure with some precision the areas that will be cleared in response to

these price signals.


A review of the issues reveals, however, that these assumptions about the availability of land, the role of

biofuels in causing deforestation, and the ability to relate crop prices to areas of land clearance are unsound.


Among our findings:

First, sufficient suitably productive land is available for multiple uses, including the production of biofuels.

Assertions that U.S. biofuel production will cause large indirect land-use changes rely on limited data sets and

unverified assumptions about global land cover and land use. Calculations of land-use change begin by assuming that

global land falls into discrete classes suitable for agriculture—cropland, pastures and grasslands, and forests—and

results depend on estimates of the extent, use, and productivity of these lands, as well as presumed future

interactions among land-use classes. But several major organizations, including the Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO), a primary data clearinghouse, have documented significant inconsistencies surrounding global

land-cover estimates.
~~
~~

Concerns over induced deforestation are based on a theory of land displacement that is not supported by data. U.S.

ethanol production shot up by more than 3 billion gallons (150%) between 2001 and 2006, and corn production

increased 11%, while total U.S. harvested cropland fell by about 2% in the same period. Indeed, the harvested area

for “coarse grains” fell by 4% as corn, with an average yield of 150 bushels per acre, replaced other feed grains

such as sorghum (averaging 60 bushels per acre). Such statistics defy modeling projections by demonstrating an

ability to supply feedstock to a burgeoning ethanol industry while simultaneously maintaining exports and using

substantially less land. So although models may assume that increased use of U.S. land for biofuels will lead to

more land being cleared for agriculture in other parts of the world, evidence is lacking to support those claims.

Second, there is little evidence that biofuels cause deforestation, and much evidence for alternative causes.

Recent scientific papers that blame biofuels for deforestation are based on models that presume that new land

conversion can be simulated as a predominantly market-driven choice. The models assume that land is a privately

owned asset managed in response to global price signals within a stable rule-based economy—perhaps a reasonable

assumption for developed nations.


However, this scenario is far from the reality in the smoke-filled frontier zones of deforestation in less-

developed countries, where the models assume biofuel-induced land conversion takes place. The regions of the world

that are experiencing first-time land conversion are characterized by market isolation, lawlessness, insecurity,

instability, and lack of land tenure. And nearly all of the forests are publicly owned. Indeed, land-clearing is a

key step in a long process of trying to stake a claim for eventual tenure. A cycle involving incremental

degradation, repeated and extensive fires, and shifting small plots for subsistence tends to occur long before any

consideration of crop choices influenced by global market prices.


The causes of deforestation have been extensively studied, and it is clear from the empirical evidence that forces

other than biofuel use are responsible for the trends of increasing forest loss in the tropics. Numerous case

studies document that the factors driving deforestation are a complex expression of cultural, technological,

biophysical, political, economic, and demographic interactions. Solutions and measures to slow deforestation have

also been analyzed and tested, and the results show that it is critical to improve governance, land tenure,

incomes, and security to slow the pace of new land conversion in these frontier regions.
~~
~~
(more)

So, these criticisms all apply to the widely lampooned Searchinger "study", which did not make models or data adequately and fully available so the results could be tested by other (actual) scientists and researchers. These data and conclusions were used in the Jacobson survey article for it's "conclusions" re ethanol. These "conclusions" of the Searchinger "study" and used in the Jacobson paper are unsupported nonsense and would not be used by anyone wanting to be considered seriously as a scientist.



I will address the other fuel/ transportation technologies considered in the Jacobson paper in another comment.

[JohnWxy]

8. Jacobson projects CO2 reductions for PHEVs (100% of fleet) = 31% - 33% with Clean Electricity

for charging the PHEVs. That is zero emissions electric power. I haven't found any projections for when 100% replacement of ICE vehicles with PHEVs is supposed to be possible.



Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security - Jacobson

below are Jacobson's projections for CO2 emissions reductions if "all
(small and large) onroad vehicles" were replaced with BEVs.

(Note: BEVs connotes Battery Electric Vehicles)


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, (page 158)





"Running 100% of vehicles on electricity
provided by wind, on the other hand, could reduce US carbon by
32.5–32.7% since wind turbines are 99.2–99.8% carbon free over
a 30 yr lifetime and the maximum reduction possible from the
vehicle sector is 32.73%...Running BEVs on electricity provided by
solar-PV can reduce carbon by 31–32.3%."


for BEVs charged with CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) electric power,
the estimated reduction of CO2 emissions with 100% replacement of vehicles: 17.7% to 26.4%
(see Figure 2. page 158)


Do you think he looked at the Electric Power Research Institutes projecions?

Note that Jacobson states (on pg 155) that:

"The lifecycle emissions of a coal power plant,
excluding direct emissions but including coal mining, transport,
and plant construction/decommissioning, range from 175–290 g
CO2e kWh1.49 Without CCS, the direct emissions from coalfired
power plants worldwide are around 790–1020 g CO2e
kWh1. The CO2 direct emission reduction efficiency due to CCS
is 85–90%.32 This results in a net lifecycle plus direct emission rate
for coal-CCS of about 255–440 g CO2e kWh1,"




So if my in-my-head calculations are right this means that for CCS electric
power Jacobson assumes it is about one third as polluting as todays coal fired electricity.

[kristopher]

9. Your presentation is ambiguous and has significant omissions.

It is worth noting that the percentage numbers he used are based on the fact that the personal transportation SECTOR produces about 32% of TOTAL US carbon emissions. Eliminating all carbon emissions from that sector will therefore reduce the *TOTAL* of US emissions by that same amount. All of the percentages given are part of total emissions, not sector emissions.

The full quote provides relevant data on ethanol you omitted. There may be some slight variation since this is from a prepublication version of the paper:

Converting to corn-E85 could cause either no change in or increase CO2 emissions by up to 9.1% with 30% E85 penetration (Appendix, I37).

Converting to cellulosic-E85 could change CO2 emissions by +4.9 to -4.9% relative to gasoline with 30% penetration (Appendix, J16).

Running 100% of vehicles on electricity provided by wind, on the other hand, could reduce U.S. carbon by 32.5-32.7% since wind turbines are 99.2-99.8% carbon free over a 30-year lifetime and the maximum reduction possible from the vehicle sector is 32.73%.

Using HFCVs, where the hydrogen is produced by wind electrolysis, could reduce U.S. CO2 by about 31.9-32.6%, slightly less than using wind-BEVs since more energy is required to manufacture the additional turbines needed for wind-HFCVs.

Running BEVs on electricity provided by solar-PV can reduce carbon by 31-32.3%.

Nuclear-BEVs could reduce U.S. carbon by 28.0-31.4%.

Of the electric power sources, coal-CCS producing vehicles results in the least emission reduction due to the lifecycle, leakage, and opportunity-cost emissions of coal-CCS.

[JohnWxy]

12. Quoting Jacobson rehash of Searchinger - no connection to reality

Mathews & Tan

Indeed if you wished to put US ethanol production in the worst possible light, assuming the worst possible set of production conditions guaranteed to give the worst possible ILUC effects, then the assumptions chosen would not be far from those actually presented (without argument or discussion of alternatives) in the Searchinger et al. paper. This, together with the fact that the paper is not replicable, since the models and parameters used are not accessible, places a question mark over the refereeing procedures used for this paper by the journal Science. A paper that seeks to place a procedure in the worst possible light, and refrains from allowing others to check its results, is perhaps better described as ideology than as science."

[kristopher]

13. And ethanol at 30% E85 penetration yields 0-9% INCREASE in US carbon emission

It is amazing how often you play "shoot the messenger". There is a huge body of work by a wide array of independent researchers waying ethanol is a bad choice, but according to you ALL of them are either incompetent or corrupt.

I'd say Occams razor tells us it is much more probable that you are intent on trying to ensure the continued flow of public funds for the likes of Archer Daniels Midland.

Converting to corn-E85 could cause either no change in or increase CO2 emissions by up to 9.1% with 30% E85 penetration (Appendix, I37).

Converting to cellulosic-E85 could change CO2 emissions by +4.9 to -4.9% relative to gasoline with 30% penetration (Appendix, J16).



Running 100% of vehicles on electricity provided by wind, on the other hand, could reduce U.S. carbon by 32.5-32.7% since wind turbines are 99.2-99.8% carbon free over a 30-year lifetime and the maximum reduction possible from the vehicle sector is 32.73%.



Using HFCVs, where the hydrogen is produced by wind electrolysis, could reduce U.S. CO2 by about 31.9-32.6%, slightly less than using wind-BEVs since more energy is required to manufacture the additional turbines needed for wind-HFCVs.

Running BEVs on electricity provided by solar-PV can reduce carbon by 31-32.3%.

Nuclear-BEVs could reduce U.S. carbon by 28.0-31.4%.

Of the electric power sources, coal-CCS producing vehicles results in the least emission reduction due to the lifecycle, leakage, and opportunity-cost emissions of coal-CCS.

His article is fine.

[JohnWxy]

16. Jacobson's calculations are of course nonsense and are based on the ridiculed hypothesis of

Searchinger re ILUC. A hypothesis Searchinger threw out there without any empirical support for it. Goof-balls like to refer to this stuff but nobody who wants to be taken seriously mentions it except to get a laugh. .....LOL


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x220696#221352

[kristopher]

18. Tell that to the 486 peer reviewed articles that cite Searchinger

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=11841986969389597847&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=epEhS8bvAaSltgeGnM3fBw&sa=X&oi=science_links&resnum=1&ct=sl-citedby&ved=0CAwQzgIwAA

They seem to find that Searchinger's work in Science passes muster.

The response you cite appears here and has zero people citing it as a source.

Perhaps it was just too difficult to find, eh? It really seems to be a favorite of the ethanol industry blogs, but I'm not sure how many legitimate researchers use those to find rebuttals for articles in Science.

Biofuels and indirect land use change effects: the debate continues
John A. Mathews *, Hao Tan
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122327352/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

If anyone wishes to read the real follow up peer critiques and Searchinger etal's responses in Science, they can find them here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=searchinger+response&x=48&y=7

So far, the only one I've found was by your friend Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures in California. Quote: "Khosla Ventures is an investor in various biofuels startups; a full list can be seen at www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/Flower_Chart.ppt ."

In short, despite your attempts to SMEAR yet another researcher whose findings are damaging to the ethanol INDUSTRY; the scientific community seems to accept Searchinger etal's work as valid. Why do you suppose that Matthews and Tan's response was not accepted by Science since it is, according to you, such a devastating critique of Searchinger. I mean, they had it out one week after Science published Searchinger's analysis, right?

It is on point and "corrects" the horribly false conclusions that underpin work like Jacobson's, right? So why didn't it even get published as a letter to Science?

I know; the Journal Science is part of the conspiracy against the agribussiness and ethanol industries, right?

**********************************************

I include the exchange between Khosla and Searchinger:

By Khosla

Biofuels: Clarifying Assumptions
The Report by T. Searchinger et al. ("Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change," 29 February, p. 1238) provides one scenario for the conversion from a fossil-based energy economy to a bio-based, renewable-energy economy. However, Searchinger et al. failed to include several important considerations.

It is inaccurate and misleading to allocate the cutting down of Brazilian rainforest, which is done often for timber production, to biofuels use. The economic signals driving biofuels or agricultural land-use changes are different from the timber-driven economic signals driving land-use change patterns. The deforestation estimates of Searchinger et al. are appropriate for biodiesel production in the Far East. A cheaper and more likely use of land for increased biofuels production is the 6 billion acres of underutilized or unused rainfed agriculture land available, according to a Food and Agriculture Organization report (1).

Searchinger et al. analyze switchgrass as an energy crop when miscanthus and sorghum have much higher yields and would dramatically reduce the demand for land. Furthermore, because these crops have not been optimized for biomass, they are likely to produce substantial further yield increases per acre. Given the theoretical maximum yield of 40 to 50 tons per acre in a region with an average of 40 inches of rain, practical yields of 50 to 60% of this maximum are likely. It has even been suggested that maximum theoretical yield values will be reached and possibly surpassed (3).

Searchinger et al. assume that crops grown in developing countries will have lower yields. The yields are lower because of low prices and lack of farmer income. In these conditions, farmers cannot afford the best seed crops and other inputs such as fertilizer (1). It is likely that if farmer incomes improve, yields will also increase.

Searchinger et al. state that "igher prices triggered by biofuels will accelerate forest and grassland conversion there even if surplus croplands exist elsewhere." Energy costs influence the food Consumer Price Index (CPI) three times as much as does the basic price of corn (4, 5). Implying that these price increases are principally caused by biofuels production is inaccurate.

Cellulosic ethanol will probably be so much cheaper to produce (even at $50 per dry ton feedstock costs) that it will displace all corn ethanol based on price alone, thus freeing up much of the more than 20 million acres of land used in 2007 for corn produced for ethanol.

The potential for biomass from other sources is grossly underestimated. If biomass-oriented winter crops were planted on annual crop lands, it would improve land ecology and produce substantial biomass for cellulosic biofuels. A yield of 3 tons per acre on 50 to 70% of our annual crop lands (320 million acres) would yield 480 to 672 million tons of biomass; a yield of 5 tons per acre by 2030 (assuming crop optimization for biomass by then) could yield 800 to 1120 million tons of biomass or sufficient biomass for more than 100 to 145 billion gallons with no additional land use. If corn stover and crop waste are included, even larger quantities of biomass can be made available without land use. Sustainable removal of stover from corn crops is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.0 additional tons per acre.

The potential-for-waste outline in the U.S. Department of Energy biomass study (6) is completely ignored. The study concludes that up to 1.3 billion tons of sustainable biomass can be available "without a significant change in agricultural practices." Additional cellulosic and waste production will result from organic municipal waste, sewage, and other waste sources.

The authors assume that more marginal lands will be used for food cultivation, when in fact "land recovery" can happen with proper crop rotation practices on marginal and degraded agriculture lands and especially with perennial, polycultured energy crops, which are likely to dominate the energy crop field (7, 8).

In allocating land displacement, Searchinger et al. fail to account for the most attractive regions in the world, namely, parts of Africa where biomass income is sorely needed.

Furthermore, the baseline for carbon emission costs of biofuels should be incremental alternative sources of new oil like tar sands and oil shales, not an average value of emissions for oil.

Vinod Khosla
Khosla Ventures
Menlo Park, CA 94028, USA
E-mail: vk{at}khoslaventures.com

References

1. FAO, World Agriculture Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Perspective (FAO, Rome, 2003).
2. S. P. Long et al., Global Change Biol. 14, 2000 (2008).
3. S. P. Long et al., Plant Cell Environ. 29, 315 (2006).
4. J. Urbanchuk, "The relative impact of corn and energy prices in the grocery aisle" (LECG Report, 2007); www.ncga.com/news/notd/pdfs/061407_EthanolAndFoodPrices.pdf.
5. P. A. Sanchez, Science 295, 2019 (2002).
6. R. D. Perlack et al., Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply (U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 2005); http://woodycrops.org/reports/Billion%20Ton%20Supply.pdf.
7. D. Tilman et al., Science 294, 843 (2001).
8. D. Tilman, J. Hill, C. Lehman, Science 314, 1598 (2006).
9. Khosla Ventures is an investor in various biofuels startups; a full list can be seen at www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/Flower_Chart.ppt .

Response by Searchinger etal:

On balance, Khosla's letter promotes hope for biofuels that use agricultural and forest residues, cover crops, and municipal waste, and that therefore do not divert the capacity of productive land. Our Report also encouraged such biofuels. We similarly encouraged a focus on lands that would otherwise provide little food or carbon storage but that might produce ample biofuels. We even cited the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) "billion-ton study," precisely because most of the potential biomass it estimates is waste. Yet DOE's full 1.3 billion tons also relied on diverting millions of hectares of cropland to grow biofuel crops. All cellulosic biofuels are not the same, and policies should support only those that do not use productive land.

Unfortunately, the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO's) estimate of roughly 6 billion acres of potential new rain-fed cropland referenced by Khosla in fact consists primarily of the world's wetter forests and grasslands, not "underutilized or unused" agricultural land (1). Studies predicting future cropland expansion point heavily to carbon-rich areas in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, which contain most of the best potential cropland (1, 2). The U.S. Department of Agriculture now predicts that future food growth will rely more heavily on cropland expansion and less on yield growth than on past growth because cereal yield growth has fallen below 1% per year (3), well below the rate of population growth. Khosla correctly notes the capacity to boost yields in many developing countries, but the world must already unleash that capacity to feed a larger, selectively richer, world population while also reducing deforestation. Biofuels should not exacerbate this already imposing challenge.

The plight of the Amazon is a matter of both forestry and agriculture. Typical logging removes a few trees per hectare, causes collateral damage, and facilitates conversion through road-building, but forests regrow carbon if the land is not subsequently converted to agriculture (4). Biofuels that use good cropland anywhere in the world raise crop and meat prices and help spur the actual conversion to pasture or cropland by increasing their net economic return.

For cellulosic ethanol grown on corn land, our study found increased greenhouse gas emissions, even with dramatically higher yields (18 tons per hectare) and conversion rates (362 liters per hectare) than now broadly obtainable. As Khosla indicates, researchers using Illinois cropland to grow the hybrid miscanthus giganteus have obtained higher yields, but planting this hybrid requires digging up the roots to sever and then replant the rhizomes, which implies an expensive, slow process of expansion (5). Efforts to use seed-producing varieties continue to face obstacles (5). Yet even with major breakthroughs that double our assumed biomass yields, cellulosic ethanol grown on corn land would only reduce emissions compared with gasoline by 37% counting land-use change. By avoiding land use change, biofuels from wastes and residues could achieve far greater reductions.

Although Khosla correctly points out that rising crop prices only modestly increase food prices in U.S. grocery stores, the poor around the world eat basic cereals and vegetable oil. Their prices worldwide rose 300 and 400%, respectively, between 2000 and spring 2008 (6). Nearly all analyses assign a major role to biofuels (6, 7): Biofuels consumed the vast bulk of the world's growth in cereals and vegetable oil between 2005 and 2007, requiring the world to deplete stocks to meet growing food demand (8).

Khosla's high confidence in a quick transition to better biofuels, however welcome, also seems excessive. Even the latest hopeful DOE research plan in 2005 envisions 15 years of research and development before cellulosic production can start to scale up (9). Optimistic scenarios predict modestly lower costs after many years (10), but some studies conclude that cellulose will indefinitely remain more expensive than corn ethanol (11). It will be a great achievement if cellulosic biofuels can supply the 21 billion gallons (79 billion liters) of noncorn biofuel now required by U.S. law in 2022, let alone the additional 15 billion gallons mandated (57 billion liters) that corn ethanol may supply. Yet, because some corn ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at reasonably high oil prices, corn ethanol from existing plants will probably remain with us, regardless of the supply of cellulosic biofuels (7, 11).

Contrary to Khosla's claim, our analysis actually did predict a modest expansion of cropland in Africa in response to U.S. biofuels. More expansion there would not change our result because it generates greenhouse gases comparable to the world average (12). Sub-Saharan Africa already imports much of its food and has roughly 400 million hungry people who together suffer 85% of the world's calorie gap (13). Climate change could decrease yields by 50% in the region (14). Although small-scale bioenergy production might justifiably help local people fill unmet needs or switch from inefficient use of fuel wood, as a whole, sub-Saharan Africa needs to use its good arable land for food even more than other regions.

Finally, our result would change little even if all alternative gasoline to biofuels originated in tar sands (and only some will) (15).

Timothy D. Searchinger
Woodrow Wilson School
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544, USA

R. A. Houghton
Woods Hole Research Center
Woods Hole, MA 02540, USA

References

1. J. Bruinsma, Ed., World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Perspective (FAO, Rome, 2003).
2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios, Findings of the Scenarios Working Group (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005).
3. USDA Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee, USDA Agricultural Projections to 2017 (OCE-1008-1, Washington, DC, 2008).
4. A. Verissimo, P. Barreto, M. Mattos, R. Tarifa, C. Uhl, For. Ecol. Manag. 55, 169 (1992).
5. D. G. Christian, N. E. Yates, A. B. Roche, Industrial Crops Prod. 21, 109 (2005).
6. D. Mitchell, A Note on Rising Food Prices (Policy Research Working Paper 4682, World Bank Development Prospects Group, Washington, DC, 2008).
7. P. C. Abbott, C. Hurt, W. E. Tyner, What's Driving Food Prices (Farm Foundation, Oak Brook, IL, 2008).
8. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017 Highlights (OECD-FAO, Paris, 2008), tables 2.3 and 2.5, pp. 41 and 43.
9. U.S. Department of Energy, Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol: A Joint Research Agenda (DOE/SC-0095 2006).
10. International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050 (IEA, Paris, 2008).
11. M. L. Baker, D. J. Hayes, B. A. Babcock, Crop-Based Biofuel Production Under Acreage Constraints and Uncertainty (Working Paper 08-WP 460, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2008).
12. As shown in table E-1 in the supporting online material of our Report, the average hectare converted to cropland in the 1990s in sub-Saharan Africa caused carbon emissions comparable to the world average, yet African cropland also has lower yields and therefore requires more land for the same crops.
13. S. Meade, S. Rosen, S. Shapouri, Food Security Assessment, 2006 (GFA-18 Economic Research Service, USDA , Washington, DC, 2007).
14. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (2007).
15. H. K. Gibbs et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 034001 (2008).

[JohnWxy]

22. any "study" that doesn't provide all data and models so results can be tested is not science -

the most basic rule of science is to provide all data and models used to others can test your results. any 'study' that doesn't do this is obviously not an example of scientific inquiry.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=220696&mesg_id=221795

[kristopher]

17. Tell that to the 486 peer reviewed articles that cite Searchinger

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=11841986969389597847&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=epEhS8bvAaSltgeGnM3fBw&sa=X&oi=science_links&resnum=1&ct=sl-citedby&ved=0CAwQzgIwAA

They seem to find that Searchinger's work in Science passes muster.

The response you cite appears here and has zero people citing it as a source.

Perhaps it was just too difficult to find, eh? It really seems to be a favorite of the ethanol industry blogs, but I'm not sure how many legitimate researchers use those to find rebuttals for articles in Science.

Biofuels and indirect land use change effects: the debate continues
John A. Mathews *, Hao Tan
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122327352/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

If anyone wishes to read the real follow up peer critiques and Searchinger etal's responses in Science, they can find them here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=searchinger+response&x=48&y=7

So far, the only one I've found was by your friend Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures in California. Quote: "Khosla Ventures is an investor in various biofuels startups; a full list can be seen at www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/Flower_Chart.ppt ."

In short, despite your attempts to SMEAR yet another researcher whose findings are damaging to the ethanol INDUSTRY; the scientific community seems to accept Searchinger etal's work as valid. Why do you suppose that Matthews and Tan's response was not accepted by Science since it is, according to you, such a devastating critique of Searchinger. I mean, they had it out one week after Science published Searchinger's analysis, right?

It is on point and "corrects" the horribly false conclusions that underpin work like Jacobson's, right? So why didn't it even get published as a letter to Science?

I know; the Journal Science is part of the conspiracy against the agribussiness and ethanol industries, right?

**********************************************

I include the exchange between Khosla and Searchinger:

By Khosla

Biofuels: Clarifying Assumptions
The Report by T. Searchinger et al. ("Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change," 29 February, p. 1238) provides one scenario for the conversion from a fossil-based energy economy to a bio-based, renewable-energy economy. However, Searchinger et al. failed to include several important considerations.

It is inaccurate and misleading to allocate the cutting down of Brazilian rainforest, which is done often for timber production, to biofuels use. The economic signals driving biofuels or agricultural land-use changes are different from the timber-driven economic signals driving land-use change patterns. The deforestation estimates of Searchinger et al. are appropriate for biodiesel production in the Far East. A cheaper and more likely use of land for increased biofuels production is the 6 billion acres of underutilized or unused rainfed agriculture land available, according to a Food and Agriculture Organization report (1).

Searchinger et al. analyze switchgrass as an energy crop when miscanthus and sorghum have much higher yields and would dramatically reduce the demand for land. Furthermore, because these crops have not been optimized for biomass, they are likely to produce substantial further yield increases per acre. Given the theoretical maximum yield of 40 to 50 tons per acre in a region with an average of 40 inches of rain, practical yields of 50 to 60% of this maximum are likely. It has even been suggested that maximum theoretical yield values will be reached and possibly surpassed (3).

Searchinger et al. assume that crops grown in developing countries will have lower yields. The yields are lower because of low prices and lack of farmer income. In these conditions, farmers cannot afford the best seed crops and other inputs such as fertilizer (1). It is likely that if farmer incomes improve, yields will also increase.

Searchinger et al. state that "igher prices triggered by biofuels will accelerate forest and grassland conversion there even if surplus croplands exist elsewhere." Energy costs influence the food Consumer Price Index (CPI) three times as much as does the basic price of corn (4, 5). Implying that these price increases are principally caused by biofuels production is inaccurate.

Cellulosic ethanol will probably be so much cheaper to produce (even at $50 per dry ton feedstock costs) that it will displace all corn ethanol based on price alone, thus freeing up much of the more than 20 million acres of land used in 2007 for corn produced for ethanol.

The potential for biomass from other sources is grossly underestimated. If biomass-oriented winter crops were planted on annual crop lands, it would improve land ecology and produce substantial biomass for cellulosic biofuels. A yield of 3 tons per acre on 50 to 70% of our annual crop lands (320 million acres) would yield 480 to 672 million tons of biomass; a yield of 5 tons per acre by 2030 (assuming crop optimization for biomass by then) could yield 800 to 1120 million tons of biomass or sufficient biomass for more than 100 to 145 billion gallons with no additional land use. If corn stover and crop waste are included, even larger quantities of biomass can be made available without land use. Sustainable removal of stover from corn crops is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.0 additional tons per acre.

The potential-for-waste outline in the U.S. Department of Energy biomass study (6) is completely ignored. The study concludes that up to 1.3 billion tons of sustainable biomass can be available "without a significant change in agricultural practices." Additional cellulosic and waste production will result from organic municipal waste, sewage, and other waste sources.

The authors assume that more marginal lands will be used for food cultivation, when in fact "land recovery" can happen with proper crop rotation practices on marginal and degraded agriculture lands and especially with perennial, polycultured energy crops, which are likely to dominate the energy crop field (7, 8).

In allocating land displacement, Searchinger et al. fail to account for the most attractive regions in the world, namely, parts of Africa where biomass income is sorely needed.

Furthermore, the baseline for carbon emission costs of biofuels should be incremental alternative sources of new oil like tar sands and oil shales, not an average value of emissions for oil.

Vinod Khosla
Khosla Ventures
Menlo Park, CA 94028, USA
E-mail: vk{at}khoslaventures.com

References

1. FAO, World Agriculture Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Perspective (FAO, Rome, 2003).
2. S. P. Long et al., Global Change Biol. 14, 2000 (2008).
3. S. P. Long et al., Plant Cell Environ. 29, 315 (2006).
4. J. Urbanchuk, "The relative impact of corn and energy prices in the grocery aisle" (LECG Report, 2007); www.ncga.com/news/notd/pdfs/061407_EthanolAndFoodPrices.pdf.
5. P. A. Sanchez, Science 295, 2019 (2002).
6. R. D. Perlack et al., Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply (U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 2005); http://woodycrops.org/reports/Billion%20Ton%20Supply.pdf.
7. D. Tilman et al., Science 294, 843 (2001).
8. D. Tilman, J. Hill, C. Lehman, Science 314, 1598 (2006).
9. Khosla Ventures is an investor in various biofuels startups; a full list can be seen at www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/Flower_Chart.ppt .

Response by Searchinger etal:

On balance, Khosla's letter promotes hope for biofuels that use agricultural and forest residues, cover crops, and municipal waste, and that therefore do not divert the capacity of productive land. Our Report also encouraged such biofuels. We similarly encouraged a focus on lands that would otherwise provide little food or carbon storage but that might produce ample biofuels. We even cited the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) "billion-ton study," precisely because most of the potential biomass it estimates is waste. Yet DOE's full 1.3 billion tons also relied on diverting millions of hectares of cropland to grow biofuel crops. All cellulosic biofuels are not the same, and policies should support only those that do not use productive land.

Unfortunately, the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO's) estimate of roughly 6 billion acres of potential new rain-fed cropland referenced by Khosla in fact consists primarily of the world's wetter forests and grasslands, not "underutilized or unused" agricultural land (1). Studies predicting future cropland expansion point heavily to carbon-rich areas in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, which contain most of the best potential cropland (1, 2). The U.S. Department of Agriculture now predicts that future food growth will rely more heavily on cropland expansion and less on yield growth than on past growth because cereal yield growth has fallen below 1% per year (3), well below the rate of population growth. Khosla correctly notes the capacity to boost yields in many developing countries, but the world must already unleash that capacity to feed a larger, selectively richer, world population while also reducing deforestation. Biofuels should not exacerbate this already imposing challenge.

The plight of the Amazon is a matter of both forestry and agriculture. Typical logging removes a few trees per hectare, causes collateral damage, and facilitates conversion through road-building, but forests regrow carbon if the land is not subsequently converted to agriculture (4). Biofuels that use good cropland anywhere in the world raise crop and meat prices and help spur the actual conversion to pasture or cropland by increasing their net economic return.

For cellulosic ethanol grown on corn land, our study found increased greenhouse gas emissions, even with dramatically higher yields (18 tons per hectare) and conversion rates (362 liters per hectare) than now broadly obtainable. As Khosla indicates, researchers using Illinois cropland to grow the hybrid miscanthus giganteus have obtained higher yields, but planting this hybrid requires digging up the roots to sever and then replant the rhizomes, which implies an expensive, slow process of expansion (5). Efforts to use seed-producing varieties continue to face obstacles (5). Yet even with major breakthroughs that double our assumed biomass yields, cellulosic ethanol grown on corn land would only reduce emissions compared with gasoline by 37% counting land-use change. By avoiding land use change, biofuels from wastes and residues could achieve far greater reductions.

Although Khosla correctly points out that rising crop prices only modestly increase food prices in U.S. grocery stores, the poor around the world eat basic cereals and vegetable oil. Their prices worldwide rose 300 and 400%, respectively, between 2000 and spring 2008 (6). Nearly all analyses assign a major role to biofuels (6, 7): Biofuels consumed the vast bulk of the world's growth in cereals and vegetable oil between 2005 and 2007, requiring the world to deplete stocks to meet growing food demand (8).

Khosla's high confidence in a quick transition to better biofuels, however welcome, also seems excessive. Even the latest hopeful DOE research plan in 2005 envisions 15 years of research and development before cellulosic production can start to scale up (9). Optimistic scenarios predict modestly lower costs after many years (10), but some studies conclude that cellulose will indefinitely remain more expensive than corn ethanol (11). It will be a great achievement if cellulosic biofuels can supply the 21 billion gallons (79 billion liters) of noncorn biofuel now required by U.S. law in 2022, let alone the additional 15 billion gallons mandated (57 billion liters) that corn ethanol may supply. Yet, because some corn ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at reasonably high oil prices, corn ethanol from existing plants will probably remain with us, regardless of the supply of cellulosic biofuels (7, 11).

Contrary to Khosla's claim, our analysis actually did predict a modest expansion of cropland in Africa in response to U.S. biofuels. More expansion there would not change our result because it generates greenhouse gases comparable to the world average (12). Sub-Saharan Africa already imports much of its food and has roughly 400 million hungry people who together suffer 85% of the world's calorie gap (13). Climate change could decrease yields by 50% in the region (14). Although small-scale bioenergy production might justifiably help local people fill unmet needs or switch from inefficient use of fuel wood, as a whole, sub-Saharan Africa needs to use its good arable land for food even more than other regions.

Finally, our result would change little even if all alternative gasoline to biofuels originated in tar sands (and only some will) (15).

Timothy D. Searchinger
Woodrow Wilson School
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544, USA

R. A. Houghton
Woods Hole Research Center
Woods Hole, MA 02540, USA

References

1. J. Bruinsma, Ed., World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Perspective (FAO, Rome, 2003).
2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios, Findings of the Scenarios Working Group (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005).
3. USDA Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee, USDA Agricultural Projections to 2017 (OCE-1008-1, Washington, DC, 2008).
4. A. Verissimo, P. Barreto, M. Mattos, R. Tarifa, C. Uhl, For. Ecol. Manag. 55, 169 (1992).
5. D. G. Christian, N. E. Yates, A. B. Roche, Industrial Crops Prod. 21, 109 (2005).
6. D. Mitchell, A Note on Rising Food Prices (Policy Research Working Paper 4682, World Bank Development Prospects Group, Washington, DC, 2008).
7. P. C. Abbott, C. Hurt, W. E. Tyner, What's Driving Food Prices (Farm Foundation, Oak Brook, IL, 2008).
8. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017 Highlights (OECD-FAO, Paris, 2008), tables 2.3 and 2.5, pp. 41 and 43.
9. U.S. Department of Energy, Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol: A Joint Research Agenda (DOE/SC-0095 2006).
10. International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050 (IEA, Paris, 2008).
11. M. L. Baker, D. J. Hayes, B. A. Babcock, Crop-Based Biofuel Production Under Acreage Constraints and Uncertainty (Working Paper 08-WP 460, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2008).
12. As shown in table E-1 in the supporting online material of our Report, the average hectare converted to cropland in the 1990s in sub-Saharan Africa caused carbon emissions comparable to the world average, yet African cropland also has lower yields and therefore requires more land for the same crops.
13. S. Meade, S. Rosen, S. Shapouri, Food Security Assessment, 2006 (GFA-18 Economic Research Service, USDA , Washington, DC, 2007).
14. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (2007).
15. H. K. Gibbs et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 034001 (2008).

[JohnWxy]

14. PHEV CO2 reductions for 2030, assuming 41% penetration: -22% to -33% of Transportation

Sector emissions.

This is using the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) scenario which is more appropriate for 2030 as we are not likely to have a zero emissions Power sector in 2030.

I did not make adjustments for higher emissions in 2030 for power sector than the greatly reduced emissions assumed or CCS. They assumed emissions for CCS of about one third of current technology, so the 22% - 33% actually are somewhat high.


Link to excel spreadsheet showing calculations, for those who are interested:

http://sites.google.com/site/truthisstrangerthanfictionx/Jacobson_PHEV_emissions_2030.xls

This of course, should not be construed as an endorsement of the estimates in the Jacobson survey article. It's merely an attempt to put their numbers into a frame of reference most people are familiar with (i.e. GHG emissions reductions as a percentage of the transportation sector emissions)

[JohnWxy]

10. Now Jacobson's 31%-33% was for 100% PHEVs on the road. For 2030 you could use EPRI's 41% penetration

projection for PHEVs. So you would have to factor Jacobson's percentage reductions of CO2 emissions for PHEVs by .41 to arrive figures for 2030.

LET ME DO THAT FOR YOU (i know arithmetic ain't your fortay, as it were. You are more comfortable with bullshit aren't you?).... that comes to 12.7% to 13.5% for 2030 with 41% of the fleet being PHEVs.

Of course that's NOT considering the emissions for electric power in 2030. I don't think they would be at zero emissions, DO YOU????

So for a more accurate estimate for 2030 you would have to factor for how much higher emissions would be than zero for electric power production in 2030.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT JACOBSONs ARTICLE NOW???

NOte I have only criticised Jacobson's survey article re the assumptions on Ethanol he got from Searchinger. The rest of his article I have no comment on.

[kristopher]

11. And ethanol at 30% E85 penetration yields 0-9% INCREASE

Converting to corn-E85 could cause either no change in or increase CO2 emissions by up to 9.1% with 30% E85 penetration (Appendix, I37).

Converting to cellulosic-E85 could change CO2 emissions by +4.9 to -4.9% relative to gasoline with 30% penetration (Appendix, J16).



Running 100% of vehicles on electricity provided by wind, on the other hand, could reduce U.S. carbon by 32.5-32.7% since wind turbines are 99.2-99.8% carbon free over a 30-year lifetime and the maximum reduction possible from the vehicle sector is 32.73%.



Using HFCVs, where the hydrogen is produced by wind electrolysis, could reduce U.S. CO2 by about 31.9-32.6%, slightly less than using wind-BEVs since more energy is required to manufacture the additional turbines needed for wind-HFCVs.

Running BEVs on electricity provided by solar-PV can reduce carbon by 31-32.3%.

Nuclear-BEVs could reduce U.S. carbon by 28.0-31.4%.

Of the electric power sources, coal-CCS producing vehicles results in the least emission reduction due to the lifecycle, leakage, and opportunity-cost emissions of coal-CCS.

His article is fine.

[JohnWxy]

15. assumptions re ethanol in Jacobsons survey article are from Searchinger's laughable "study" widely

criticized for wildly unrealistic assumptions and unsupported methodology. There is nobody involved in serious research on renewable fuels who regards the Searchinger stuff as anything but a joke.

Readers might find it interesting to know that...

Jacobson's "estimates" of ethanol's GHG emissions impacts are based upon the unsupported hypothesis advanced by Searchinger that planting corn to make ethanol leads inevitably to deforestation. He didn't provide any evidence to support this hypothesis, just took data from 1990's which showed increasing rates of deforestation and extrapolated this trend through 2016 even though more current data showed deforestation has been slowing down after 2000. Whatever the rate of deforestation Searchinger did not supply any empirical support for a causal link between increasing corn acreage in the U.S. and deforestation around the world.

It is these hypothetical "Indirect Land use" affects which enabled Searchinger and then Jacobson to arrive at rediculously low GHG emissions numbers for ethanol. They have made up a hypothesis but have not presented any emperical support for it. Then they calculate massive increases to GHG emissions (due to deforestation) based upon this hypothesis which reduces the very real reductions of GHGs achieved by ethanol.

Serious people who have studied deforestation for decades know that it's not a simple matter but that the leading cause of deforestation is illegal logging operations, followed by cattle grazing (after the logging operations are through) and then local farmers using the now deforested land for subsistence farming.

Here is an exerpt from one criticism of the Searchinger's stuff which I like to point out. Note that this critique mentions that Searchinger's estimate of land required to substitute for NEWLY planted acres to corn overstates the number of acres by DOUBLE. This is how Jacobson get's the wrong numbers for ethanol's GHG reductions vs gasoline. In fact, ethanol reduces GHG emissions relative to gasoliine by roughly 51% - this is based on the most current scientific research by the University of Nebraska and published in Yale's highly regarded journal of Industrial Ecology.


http://www.renewablefuelsagency.org/_db/_documents/ADAS_Seachinger_critique.pdf


Indirect Land Use Change

10. A fundamental problem raised by several respondents arises from Searchinger’s
inaccurate assumption (see 6 above) of ‘pound for pound’ displacement of corn.
Allowing for the higher protein of DDGS, and also for land to replace the oil
foregone (we assumed oil palm); we calculate that Searchinger’s assumption about
doubles the land required to substitute for US corn-ethanol. Ensus (ES15)
conclude the assumption trebles the result, but they do not account for the ‘lost’ oil
from the displaced soya.

It should be clarified what has been assumed in Searchinger’s approach about the
inter-changeability of maize, rice, wheat & barley etc. It is puzzling that there is 23
Mha of unused arable land in Eastern Europe & the former Soviet Union (Riddle
2008), yet the predicted response in these parts is for cropping to decrease!

(more)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note that by assuming a decrease in land cultivated in the 23 Million Ha of unused arable land in Eastern Europe, Searchinger can project land needs only being met by cutting down rain-forest!

[kristopher]

19. Tell that to the 486 peer reviewed articles that cite Searchinger

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=11841986969389597847&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=epEhS8bvAaSltgeGnM3fBw&sa=X&oi=science_links&resnum=1&ct=sl-citedby&ved=0CAwQzgIwAA

They seem to find that Searchinger's work in Science passes muster.

The response you cite appears here and has zero people citing it as a source.

Perhaps it was just too difficult to find, eh? It really seems to be a favorite of the ethanol industry blogs, but I'm not sure how many legitimate researchers use those to find rebuttals for articles in Science.

Biofuels and indirect land use change effects: the debate continues
John A. Mathews *, Hao Tan
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122327352/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

If anyone wishes to read the real follow up peer critiques and Searchinger etal's responses in Science, they can find them here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=searchinger+response&x=48&y=7

So far, the only one I've found was by your friend Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures in California. Quote: "Khosla Ventures is an investor in various biofuels startups; a full list can be seen at www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/Flower_Chart.ppt ."

In short, despite your attempts to SMEAR yet another researcher whose findings are damaging to the ethanol INDUSTRY; the scientific community seems to accept Searchinger etal's work as valid. Why do you suppose that Matthews and Tan's response was not accepted by Science since it is, according to you, such a devastating critique of Searchinger. I mean, they had it out one week after Science published Searchinger's analysis, right?

It is on point and "corrects" the horribly false conclusions that underpin work like Jacobson's, right? So why didn't it even get published as a letter to Science?

I know; the Journal Science is part of the conspiracy against the agribussiness and ethanol industries, right?

**********************************************

I include the exchange between Khosla and Searchinger:

By Khosla

Biofuels: Clarifying Assumptions
The Report by T. Searchinger et al. ("Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change," 29 February, p. 1238) provides one scenario for the conversion from a fossil-based energy economy to a bio-based, renewable-energy economy. However, Searchinger et al. failed to include several important considerations.

It is inaccurate and misleading to allocate the cutting down of Brazilian rainforest, which is done often for timber production, to biofuels use. The economic signals driving biofuels or agricultural land-use changes are different from the timber-driven economic signals driving land-use change patterns. The deforestation estimates of Searchinger et al. are appropriate for biodiesel production in the Far East. A cheaper and more likely use of land for increased biofuels production is the 6 billion acres of underutilized or unused rainfed agriculture land available, according to a Food and Agriculture Organization report (1).

Searchinger et al. analyze switchgrass as an energy crop when miscanthus and sorghum have much higher yields and would dramatically reduce the demand for land. Furthermore, because these crops have not been optimized for biomass, they are likely to produce substantial further yield increases per acre. Given the theoretical maximum yield of 40 to 50 tons per acre in a region with an average of 40 inches of rain, practical yields of 50 to 60% of this maximum are likely. It has even been suggested that maximum theoretical yield values will be reached and possibly surpassed (3).

Searchinger et al. assume that crops grown in developing countries will have lower yields. The yields are lower because of low prices and lack of farmer income. In these conditions, farmers cannot afford the best seed crops and other inputs such as fertilizer (1). It is likely that if farmer incomes improve, yields will also increase.

Searchinger et al. state that "igher prices triggered by biofuels will accelerate forest and grassland conversion there even if surplus croplands exist elsewhere." Energy costs influence the food Consumer Price Index (CPI) three times as much as does the basic price of corn (4, 5). Implying that these price increases are principally caused by biofuels production is inaccurate.

Cellulosic ethanol will probably be so much cheaper to produce (even at $50 per dry ton feedstock costs) that it will displace all corn ethanol based on price alone, thus freeing up much of the more than 20 million acres of land used in 2007 for corn produced for ethanol.

The potential for biomass from other sources is grossly underestimated. If biomass-oriented winter crops were planted on annual crop lands, it would improve land ecology and produce substantial biomass for cellulosic biofuels. A yield of 3 tons per acre on 50 to 70% of our annual crop lands (320 million acres) would yield 480 to 672 million tons of biomass; a yield of 5 tons per acre by 2030 (assuming crop optimization for biomass by then) could yield 800 to 1120 million tons of biomass or sufficient biomass for more than 100 to 145 billion gallons with no additional land use. If corn stover and crop waste are included, even larger quantities of biomass can be made available without land use. Sustainable removal of stover from corn crops is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.0 additional tons per acre.

The potential-for-waste outline in the U.S. Department of Energy biomass study (6) is completely ignored. The study concludes that up to 1.3 billion tons of sustainable biomass can be available "without a significant change in agricultural practices." Additional cellulosic and waste production will result from organic municipal waste, sewage, and other waste sources.

The authors assume that more marginal lands will be used for food cultivation, when in fact "land recovery" can happen with proper crop rotation practices on marginal and degraded agriculture lands and especially with perennial, polycultured energy crops, which are likely to dominate the energy crop field (7, 8).

In allocating land displacement, Searchinger et al. fail to account for the most attractive regions in the world, namely, parts of Africa where biomass income is sorely needed.

Furthermore, the baseline for carbon emission costs of biofuels should be incremental alternative sources of new oil like tar sands and oil shales, not an average value of emissions for oil.

Vinod Khosla
Khosla Ventures
Menlo Park, CA 94028, USA
E-mail: vk{at}khoslaventures.com

References

1. FAO, World Agriculture Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Perspective (FAO, Rome, 2003).
2. S. P. Long et al., Global Change Biol. 14, 2000 (2008).
3. S. P. Long et al., Plant Cell Environ. 29, 315 (2006).
4. J. Urbanchuk, "The relative impact of corn and energy prices in the grocery aisle" (LECG Report, 2007); www.ncga.com/news/notd/pdfs/061407_EthanolAndFoodPrices.pdf.
5. P. A. Sanchez, Science 295, 2019 (2002).
6. R. D. Perlack et al., Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply (U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 2005); http://woodycrops.org/reports/Billion%20Ton%20Supply.pdf.
7. D. Tilman et al., Science 294, 843 (2001).
8. D. Tilman, J. Hill, C. Lehman, Science 314, 1598 (2006).
9. Khosla Ventures is an investor in various biofuels startups; a full list can be seen at www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/Flower_Chart.ppt .

Response by Searchinger etal:

On balance, Khosla's letter promotes hope for biofuels that use agricultural and forest residues, cover crops, and municipal waste, and that therefore do not divert the capacity of productive land. Our Report also encouraged such biofuels. We similarly encouraged a focus on lands that would otherwise provide little food or carbon storage but that might produce ample biofuels. We even cited the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) "billion-ton study," precisely because most of the potential biomass it estimates is waste. Yet DOE's full 1.3 billion tons also relied on diverting millions of hectares of cropland to grow biofuel crops. All cellulosic biofuels are not the same, and policies should support only those that do not use productive land.

Unfortunately, the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO's) estimate of roughly 6 billion acres of potential new rain-fed cropland referenced by Khosla in fact consists primarily of the world's wetter forests and grasslands, not "underutilized or unused" agricultural land (1). Studies predicting future cropland expansion point heavily to carbon-rich areas in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, which contain most of the best potential cropland (1, 2). The U.S. Department of Agriculture now predicts that future food growth will rely more heavily on cropland expansion and less on yield growth than on past growth because cereal yield growth has fallen below 1% per year (3), well below the rate of population growth. Khosla correctly notes the capacity to boost yields in many developing countries, but the world must already unleash that capacity to feed a larger, selectively richer, world population while also reducing deforestation. Biofuels should not exacerbate this already imposing challenge.

The plight of the Amazon is a matter of both forestry and agriculture. Typical logging removes a few trees per hectare, causes collateral damage, and facilitates conversion through road-building, but forests regrow carbon if the land is not subsequently converted to agriculture (4). Biofuels that use good cropland anywhere in the world raise crop and meat prices and help spur the actual conversion to pasture or cropland by increasing their net economic return.

For cellulosic ethanol grown on corn land, our study found increased greenhouse gas emissions, even with dramatically higher yields (18 tons per hectare) and conversion rates (362 liters per hectare) than now broadly obtainable. As Khosla indicates, researchers using Illinois cropland to grow the hybrid miscanthus giganteus have obtained higher yields, but planting this hybrid requires digging up the roots to sever and then replant the rhizomes, which implies an expensive, slow process of expansion (5). Efforts to use seed-producing varieties continue to face obstacles (5). Yet even with major breakthroughs that double our assumed biomass yields, cellulosic ethanol grown on corn land would only reduce emissions compared with gasoline by 37% counting land-use change. By avoiding land use change, biofuels from wastes and residues could achieve far greater reductions.

Although Khosla correctly points out that rising crop prices only modestly increase food prices in U.S. grocery stores, the poor around the world eat basic cereals and vegetable oil. Their prices worldwide rose 300 and 400%, respectively, between 2000 and spring 2008 (6). Nearly all analyses assign a major role to biofuels (6, 7): Biofuels consumed the vast bulk of the world's growth in cereals and vegetable oil between 2005 and 2007, requiring the world to deplete stocks to meet growing food demand (8).

Khosla's high confidence in a quick transition to better biofuels, however welcome, also seems excessive. Even the latest hopeful DOE research plan in 2005 envisions 15 years of research and development before cellulosic production can start to scale up (9). Optimistic scenarios predict modestly lower costs after many years (10), but some studies conclude that cellulose will indefinitely remain more expensive than corn ethanol (11). It will be a great achievement if cellulosic biofuels can supply the 21 billion gallons (79 billion liters) of noncorn biofuel now required by U.S. law in 2022, let alone the additional 15 billion gallons mandated (57 billion liters) that corn ethanol may supply. Yet, because some corn ethanol is cheaper than gasoline at reasonably high oil prices, corn ethanol from existing plants will probably remain with us, regardless of the supply of cellulosic biofuels (7, 11).

Contrary to Khosla's claim, our analysis actually did predict a modest expansion of cropland in Africa in response to U.S. biofuels. More expansion there would not change our result because it generates greenhouse gases comparable to the world average (12). Sub-Saharan Africa already imports much of its food and has roughly 400 million hungry people who together suffer 85% of the world's calorie gap (13). Climate change could decrease yields by 50% in the region (14). Although small-scale bioenergy production might justifiably help local people fill unmet needs or switch from inefficient use of fuel wood, as a whole, sub-Saharan Africa needs to use its good arable land for food even more than other regions.

Finally, our result would change little even if all alternative gasoline to biofuels originated in tar sands (and only some will) (15).

Timothy D. Searchinger
Woodrow Wilson School
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544, USA

R. A. Houghton
Woods Hole Research Center
Woods Hole, MA 02540, USA

References

1. J. Bruinsma, Ed., World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Perspective (FAO, Rome, 2003).
2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios, Findings of the Scenarios Working Group (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005).
3. USDA Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee, USDA Agricultural Projections to 2017 (OCE-1008-1, Washington, DC, 2008).
4. A. Verissimo, P. Barreto, M. Mattos, R. Tarifa, C. Uhl, For. Ecol. Manag. 55, 169 (1992).
5. D. G. Christian, N. E. Yates, A. B. Roche, Industrial Crops Prod. 21, 109 (2005).
6. D. Mitchell, A Note on Rising Food Prices (Policy Research Working Paper 4682, World Bank Development Prospects Group, Washington, DC, 2008).
7. P. C. Abbott, C. Hurt, W. E. Tyner, What's Driving Food Prices (Farm Foundation, Oak Brook, IL, 2008).
8. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017 Highlights (OECD-FAO, Paris, 2008), tables 2.3 and 2.5, pp. 41 and 43.
9. U.S. Department of Energy, Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol: A Joint Research Agenda (DOE/SC-0095 2006).
10. International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050 (IEA, Paris, 2008).
11. M. L. Baker, D. J. Hayes, B. A. Babcock, Crop-Based Biofuel Production Under Acreage Constraints and Uncertainty (Working Paper 08-WP 460, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2008).
12. As shown in table E-1 in the supporting online material of our Report, the average hectare converted to cropland in the 1990s in sub-Saharan Africa caused carbon emissions comparable to the world average, yet African cropland also has lower yields and therefore requires more land for the same crops.
13. S. Meade, S. Rosen, S. Shapouri, Food Security Assessment, 2006 (GFA-18 Economic Research Service, USDA , Washington, DC, 2007).
14. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (2007).
15. H. K. Gibbs et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 034001 (2008).

[JohnWxy]

20. a "study" that doesn't give access to models and parameters so results can be tested isn't science

The first rule of scientific inquiry is to make your full data set and models used available so others can test your results. Not providing these data makes the results suspect. And it makes it clear that the exercise in question certainly WAS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY.


from Mathews & Tan criticism

"Indeed if you wished to put US ethanol production in the worst possible light, assuming the worst possible set of production conditions guaranteed to give the worst possible ILUC effects, then the assumptions chosen would not be far from those actually presented (without argument or discussion of alternatives) in the Searchinger et al. paper. This, together with the fact that the paper is not replicable, since the models and parameters used are not accessible, places a question mark over the refereeing procedures used for this paper by the journal Science. A paper that seeks to place a procedure in the worst possible light, and refrains from allowing others to check its results, is perhaps better described as ideology than as science."

Because other papers refer to a "study" or an article in no way should be construed as an acceptance of the results. Authors are showing they looked over the literature to see what has been said on the subject. HOwever, many have treated the Searhinger study and it's conclusins as if they are legitimate. But any examination of the assumptions and methodologies employed in the Searchinger "study" leaves no doubt at all that it is fraudulent fake science.

The Mathews and Tan article was a criticism of the Searchinger, et al "study" which advanced a hypothesis. The Matherws & Tan article isn't advancing an hypothesis, it is criticizing the Searchinger ILUC hypothesis as built on questionable assumptions and moreover that Searchinger's results cannot be tested. It also, questions given the points they raised that this "study" even should have been published in Journal at all and it questions the Journal Science's peer review process. This is sserious criticism of the Journal Science.


NOW RE THE ETHANOL ILUC HYPOSTHESIS advanced in the Searchinger et al "study".......


The Ethanol Indirect Land Use Changes (ILUC) hypothesis advanced in the Searchinger "study" holds that increased plantings of corn to make ethanol will inevitably produce Rainforest destruction to meet the demand for food to make up for food not cultivated for food but for ethanol.

There are number of serious questions regarding the methodology used in this "study":

Searchinger "study" alleges:

1) THAT new cropland would have to be claimed from the World's rainforest to meet this demand and,

2) THAT over a ten year period 10.8 Million hectares of new cropland around the world would be needed each year to make up for acreage planted to corn for ethanol.

HOWEVER:

.... THEY IGNORED UNDER-UTILIZED/ ABANDONED AGRICULTURAL LAND (385–472 MILLION HECTARES) or 30 to 47 times the area of the estimated new cropland needed (assuming this number was properly calculated Searchinger et al group: see next point) each year.

THAT MEANS FOLKS, THAT THE ENTIRE HYPOTHESIS OF ETHANOL DRIVING DESTRUCTION OF RAINFOREST TO MEET DEMAND FOR MORE CROPS (to replace those that would have been provided by ethanol crop acreage) IS WITHOUT IT'S MOST IMPORTANT BASIC ASSUMPTION - THAT THE EXTRA DEMAND FOR CROPS WOULD HAVE TO BE MET WITH NEW CROPLAND - TAKEN FROM RAINFOREST LAND!!


... THEY INCORRECTLY DOUBLED THE AMOUNT OF LAND NEEDED TO REPLACE CORN acreage planted to make ethanol: They used the wrong rate of substitution of other crops for corn planted for ethanol.

When corn is cultivated to produce ethanol only the starch is used to make ethanol. ALL THE PROTEIN in the corn is recovered and sold as a HIGH PROTEIN feed supplement for cattle. In other words it's NOT a one-for-one substitution. This must be PROPERLY accounted for when calculating land needed for substitution of crops for corn planted for ethanol. So the 10.8 million Ha is wildly high. It should be more like 5.4 million Ha.

Prof Roger Sylvester-Bradley in the Ghallager Review states:

"A fundamental problem raised by several respondents arises from Searchinger’s
inaccurate assumption (see 6 above) of ‘pound for pound’ displacement of corn.
Allowing for the higher protein of DDGS, and also for land to replace the oil
foregone (we assumed oil palm); we calculate that Searchinger’s assumption about
doubles the land required to substitute for US corn-ethanol. Ensus (ES15)
conclude the assumption trebles the result, but they do not account for the ‘lost’ oil
from the displaced soya.
[]
It should be clarified what has been assumed in Searchinger’s approach about the
inter-changeability of maize, rice, wheat & barley etc. It is puzzling that there is 23
Mha of unused arable land in Eastern Europe & the former Soviet Union (Riddle
2008), yet the predicted response in these parts is for cropping to decrease!

NOTE THAT Searchinger et al projected a DECREASE in cropping in Eastern Europe (in the face of increaseing demand and projected rising prices for agricultural commodities) with 23 Million ha of unused arable land!.


... THEY IGNORED ANOTHER OBVIOUS RAMIFICATION OF A RISE IN FARM COMMODITY PRICES - viz. Restoration of degraded soils resulting in an increase in soil carbon sequestration. With only one possibility in mind (that of conversion of rainforest to cropland) Searchinger et al had no interest in exploring other possible affects of a rise in commmodity prices.

"Commodity price increases from biofuels may also have beneficial ILUC by providing additional incentive to restore degraded soils, which will result in soil carbon sequestration 37"

37. Lal R, Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and
food security. Science 304:1623–1627 (2004).

... WHILE PREDICTING A DECREASE IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION DUE TO ETHANOL THEY "FORGOT" THE SIZABLE REDUCTION TO GHGs DUE TO FEWER LIVESTOCK.

Perhaps the largest indirect emissions savings from biofuel production is reduced livestock numbers due
to higher feed prices. Livestock have an immense GHG footprint, accounting for nearly 80% of agricultural emissions
and ~18% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (7.1 PgCO2e yr-1) – more than the entire global transportation
system.45 Searchinger et al.1 (Table B1) estimate that livestock production would fall by 0.9% as a result of an
additional 56 bly of corn-ethanol production, and their model accounts for associated reductions in cropland
used for feed grains. But the model does not account for other changes in livestock-related emissions including less methane emissions from enteric fermentation and manure, and reduction in livestock-related deforestation, which
account for ~6.4 PgCO2e yr-1 globally. A 0.9% decrease in livestock could contribute an additional emissions reduction
of about 58 TgCO2e yr-1, which would off set nearly one half of Searchinger’s ILUC estimate of 127 TgCO2e yr-1 (Table 1).

__ MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL THE CRITICISM IS THE POINT MADE BY OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY RESEARCHERS THAT THE ETHANOL ILUC HYPOTHESIS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE -


http://www.issues.org/25.3/kline.html

"This “induced deforestation” hypothesis is based on questionable data and modeling assumptions about available land and yields, rather than on empirical evidence."

"Diverse studies of global land cover and potential productivity suggest that anywhere from 600 million to more than 7 billion additional acres of underutilized rural lands are available for expanding rain-fed crop production around the world, after excluding the 4 billion acres of cropland currently in use, as well as the world’s supply of closed forests, nature reserves, and urban lands. Hence, on a global scale, land per se is not an immediate limitation for agriculture and biofuels."

So the Ethanol ILUC hypothesis not only is without any empirical evidence to support it but they have rather HUGE and multiple errors in calculating the amount of the affect if the original hypotheis should be validated at all.

[MH1]

21. Exxon/Mobil seems to have noticed DU, too.

(or I should say their cadre of disinformationists has)