I was both confused and intrigued reading about the U of M report on biofuels recently published in the journal Science. One article reported:
"This research examines the conversion of land for biofuels and asks the question 'Is it worth it"'," said lead author Joe Fargione, a scientist for The Nature Conservancy. "The answer is no."
Okay. This makes it sound like biofuels in general are a bad idea. But a recent article I read in the DNR's Conservation Volunteer had trumpeted the wonderful possibilities of biofuels. I wanted to find out whether the U of M people thought the DNR was on the wrong track.
After reading several other articles reporting on the Science report, I still didn't have an answer. So I broke down and spent the $10 required for the privilege of reading the actual Science journal report. Which, by the way, is self-described as a "report," as opposed to a "study."
And wow, I found things that hadn't been mentioned in the various and sundry media reports on the "study." So many that this will take several blog posts.
Let's start with the recent DNR article. It states:
Under the right conditions, biofuels could provide a big boost for soil, water, and wildlife too. The right conditions include using native plants grown on previously disturbed or highly erodible land not well suited to agriculture, using residues from other enterprises such as agriculture or logging, and minimizing inputs of fossil fuels into production and distribution.
So they're not talking about corn or other food crops. And they keep talking about land that has been "previously disturbed or highly erodible" not well suited to agriculture. But how can harvesting biofuels provide a "big boost for soil, water and wildlife too?" I couldn't find any explanation of that.
What I did find was a couple of indications of why the DNR is interested in this in the first place. The article quotes Mark Lindquist, the DNR's "biofuels ambassador":
"[Biofuels offer] an opportunity to harness market forces to help support our conservation agenda," says Lindquist, "so we can be putting more grass on the landscape, more trees on the landscape, creating more wildlife habitat, more recreational opportunities, improving water quality, and helping stabilize the flow of water through our agricultural watersheds."
But the article doesn't explain outright how biofuels will give the DNR the opportunity to "harness market forces" to further the agency's agenda.
Cliffhanger number one. Stay tuned for the next post.