This just in (literally) from today’s issue of the journal Science:
Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products. [emphasis added]
Not that I believe the precision of this model any more than I do the ones predicting year-round golfing in Maine, the inundation of Manhattan within decades and three or four more Nobel Prizes for Al Gore as a direct result of my not buying a Prius, but this new information neatly points up the massive, irreducible complexity of what is not just a climate system but an interrelated economic and social one as well.
Here are a few questions to ponder on a snowy Friday: What if 51% of the world’s population were to decide that they liked it being warmer? What if 80% did? What if nobody did… except God himself?
