Yeah, because there is no chance that farmers in Mexico or Africa or any other third world nation who have been unable to compete with very low priced food dumped into their markets by the US and EU agricultural policies would respond to higher food prices by growing food.

Meanwhile, in the US the reaction to higher prices for corn might be that high fructose corn syrup would not be added to every single thing that we eat.

Yeah, because there is no chance that farmers in Mexico or Africa or any other third world nation who have been unable to compete with very low priced food dumped into their markets by the US and EU agricultural policies would respond to higher food prices by growing food.

Meanwhile, in the US the reaction to higher prices for corn might be that high fructose corn syrup would not be added to every single thing that we eat.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28396/pub_detail.asp

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28396/pub_detail.asp

This study is based on hypothetical assumptions, not fact. The MIT study is a false impression of how cellulosic ethanol could impact the planet 40 years from now. No matter how bright these MIT minds are, their predictions are not correct. Furthermore, indirect land use change has not been scientifically proven and is based on false assumptions and fuzzy math. Biofuels are not the primary cause of deforestation:

In Indonesia, the number one cause of deforestation is the ravenous lumbering of forests for paper pulp and valuable hardwoods, which are shipped all over the world. Then, after the big timber and the paper pulp feedstock has been taken, the use of the land changes, to cattle grazing, cassava fields, agriculture, or palm plantations, etc. 70 percent of all palm oil goes to food. Does the study assign 70% of the palm deforestation to food production? No. Does the study assign deforestation to paper pulp and hardwood lumber production, or meat production? No. If cassava is grown on deforested land, food, feed and fuel are derived from the same crop. Does the study spread the effects of deforestation across all three products? No. The study blames biofuel.

In Brazil, again the value of the lumber is the origin of deforestation, not biofuels. Amazon deforestation occurs when rainforest is illegally cut by unscrupulous fly by night lumber companies. They cut the big timber and run. They leave the smaller trees behind and do not burn the waste. Next, cattle grazers move in and squat on the land. They are the ones who burn what’s left, the smaller trees, the lumbering waste, and the underbrush. They grow grass and graze cattle on the land, for years, until the grass and the soil is depleted. And finally, farmers move in with agricultural crops, and typically grow soybeans, which restores nitrogen to the soil. By the way, 75 percent of a soy crop is high protein feed that produces food. The oil extracted from the soybeans is a smaller component that goes to food or fuel. Did the study specify that 75% of the crop went to food and not biofuel?

Did the study assign deforestation to the production of lumber, cattle meat, and the feed and food portion of the soybean crop? No. Deforestation is falsely blamed on the oil component of the soy crop, produced years after the actual deforestation occurred.

In her study, Holly Gibbs uses 20 years worth of irrelevant data, from 1980 to 2000, long before biofuels had any impact. During this time frame, rainforests were being cut for lumber, paper pulp, cattle grazing, and agricultural crops, not biofuels. Deforestation has been taking place long before biofuels was even a factor. Again, biofuels are not the primary cause.

What kind of biofuel is MIT talking about anyway? Corn ethanol? Grain sorghum ethanol. Sweet sorghum ethanol? Cassava ethanol? Algae ethanol? How about cellulosic ethanol made from waste? What kind of waste? From Biomass? What kind of biomass? Biodiesel, made from what? Soybeans, corn, winter canola, cambre, rapeseed, algae, palm, jatropha? Is it a winter crop, doubling up with corn or soybeans? Biogas from manure? From Biomass? From food waste? They all have different effects on the environment. They all have different byproducts. They all have different energy returns. They’re grown in different climates under different conditions. Not all biofuels are the same. Ethanol, biodiesel, and biogas are three different animals. Painting all biofuels with the same brushstroke is totally un-scientific and not credible.

Biofuel critics typically drag ethanol into the argument against biodiesel. And they drag biodiesel into the argument against ethanol. Like the Gibb’s study, many other biofuel warnings refer to biofuels as one big entity that they can slash and burn, regardless of what they’re derived from or how they’re produced. It is a false claim to smear all biofuels as a major cause of deforestation and climate change. Especially when biofuels are derived from crops that also produce feed and food. And especially when other industries are the primary cause of deforestation.

Biofuel critics falsely claim that food crops are going totally to fuel, and that food acreage is being diverted to fuel acreage. In the U.S., we only use one third of the arable land. There is zero displacement of food acreage by fuel acreage. And the average person is overweight. Corn ethanol for example is also feed and food, not just fuel. Only the starch in feed corn goes to ethanol, which cattle and dairy cows have difficulty digesting. The byproduct of corn ethanol, high protein distillers grains is a better feed product than the whole corn itself. It’s what you call a value-added product. This corn ethanol byproduct supplements a large livestock, dairy, poultry, and fish farming industry. Feeding distillers grains to livestock and dairy cows increases meat and milk production. Last time I checked this was FOOD. Corn oil is also extracted from distillers grains. That can go to human consumption or biodiesel. Agricultural waste such as corn cobs and stover are now being used for cellulosic ethanol. Are these anti-biofuel studies accurately taking into account the value of all the byproducts? No.

Here in the U.S. and around the world, we deforest land to produce lumber, which creates urban sprawl. We deforest land to build furniture and many other products. We deforest land to clear the way for roads, power lines, railroads, you name it. Why no warnings about this? What we need is a study that evaluates all causes of deforestation and puts them in the proper order, based on how much impact they have. This study falsely implies that biofuel is the main cause of deforestation, when it is not. It also implies that biofuel crops will be a major cause of climate change, when it is not. The main cause of climate change is coal burning and burning transportation fossil fuels. Where is the MIT warning addressing these? The study does mention the release of methane into the atmosphere caused by feedlots. Methane is 22 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is a much bigger problem than hypothetical biomass crops. But the study implies just the opposite, because it falsely assumes future deforestation will be caused primarily by biofuels. By the way, the methane problem from landfills, feedlots, dairy farms, poultry farms, hog farms, widespread septic systems and sewage disposal plants, which also contaminate the watershed. These are here now. Not hypothetically 40 years from now.

Coal burning, fossil fuel burning, methane, urban sprawl, and deforestation from other causes. These are the real threats. Not the false impression we get from this study.

This study is based on hypothetical assumptions, not fact. The MIT study is a false impression of how cellulosic ethanol could impact the planet 40 years from now. No matter how bright these MIT minds are, their predictions are not correct. Furthermore, indirect land use change has not been scientifically proven and is based on false assumptions and fuzzy math. Biofuels are not the primary cause of deforestation:

In Indonesia, the number one cause of deforestation is the ravenous lumbering of forests for paper pulp and valuable hardwoods, which are shipped all over the world. Then, after the big timber and the paper pulp feedstock has been taken, the use of the land changes, to cattle grazing, cassava fields, agriculture, or palm plantations, etc. 70 percent of all palm oil goes to food. Does the study assign 70% of the palm deforestation to food production? No. Does the study assign deforestation to paper pulp and hardwood lumber production, or meat production? No. If cassava is grown on deforested land, food, feed and fuel are derived from the same crop. Does the study spread the effects of deforestation across all three products? No. The study blames biofuel.

In Brazil, again the value of the lumber is the origin of deforestation, not biofuels. Amazon deforestation occurs when rainforest is illegally cut by unscrupulous fly by night lumber companies. They cut the big timber and run. They leave the smaller trees behind and do not burn the waste. Next, cattle grazers move in and squat on the land. They are the ones who burn what’s left, the smaller trees, the lumbering waste, and the underbrush. They grow grass and graze cattle on the land, for years, until the grass and the soil is depleted. And finally, farmers move in with agricultural crops, and typically grow soybeans, which restores nitrogen to the soil. By the way, 75 percent of a soy crop is high protein feed that produces food. The oil extracted from the soybeans is a smaller component that goes to food or fuel. Did the study specify that 75% of the crop went to food and not biofuel?

Did the study assign deforestation to the production of lumber, cattle meat, and the feed and food portion of the soybean crop? No. Deforestation is falsely blamed on the oil component of the soy crop, produced years after the actual deforestation occurred.

In her study, Holly Gibbs uses 20 years worth of irrelevant data, from 1980 to 2000, long before biofuels had any impact. During this time frame, rainforests were being cut for lumber, paper pulp, cattle grazing, and agricultural crops, not biofuels. Deforestation has been taking place long before biofuels was even a factor. Again, biofuels are not the primary cause.

What kind of biofuel is MIT talking about anyway? Corn ethanol? Grain sorghum ethanol. Sweet sorghum ethanol? Cassava ethanol? Algae ethanol? How about cellulosic ethanol made from waste? What kind of waste? From Biomass? What kind of biomass? Biodiesel, made from what? Soybeans, corn, winter canola, cambre, rapeseed, algae, palm, jatropha? Is it a winter crop, doubling up with corn or soybeans? Biogas from manure? From Biomass? From food waste? They all have different effects on the environment. They all have different byproducts. They all have different energy returns. They’re grown in different climates under different conditions. Not all biofuels are the same. Ethanol, biodiesel, and biogas are three different animals. Painting all biofuels with the same brushstroke is totally un-scientific and not credible.

Biofuel critics typically drag ethanol into the argument against biodiesel. And they drag biodiesel into the argument against ethanol. Like the Gibb’s study, many other biofuel warnings refer to biofuels as one big entity that they can slash and burn, regardless of what they’re derived from or how they’re produced. It is a false claim to smear all biofuels as a major cause of deforestation and climate change. Especially when biofuels are derived from crops that also produce feed and food. And especially when other industries are the primary cause of deforestation.

Biofuel critics falsely claim that food crops are going totally to fuel, and that food acreage is being diverted to fuel acreage. In the U.S., we only use one third of the arable land. There is zero displacement of food acreage by fuel acreage. And the average person is overweight. Corn ethanol for example is also feed and food, not just fuel. Only the starch in feed corn goes to ethanol, which cattle and dairy cows have difficulty digesting. The byproduct of corn ethanol, high protein distillers grains is a better feed product than the whole corn itself. It’s what you call a value-added product. This corn ethanol byproduct supplements a large livestock, dairy, poultry, and fish farming industry. Feeding distillers grains to livestock and dairy cows increases meat and milk production. Last time I checked this was FOOD. Corn oil is also extracted from distillers grains. That can go to human consumption or biodiesel. Agricultural waste such as corn cobs and stover are now being used for cellulosic ethanol. Are these anti-biofuel studies accurately taking into account the value of all the byproducts? No.

Here in the U.S. and around the world, we deforest land to produce lumber, which creates urban sprawl. We deforest land to build furniture and many other products. We deforest land to clear the way for roads, power lines, railroads, you name it. Why no warnings about this? What we need is a study that evaluates all causes of deforestation and puts them in the proper order, based on how much impact they have. This study falsely implies that biofuel is the main cause of deforestation, when it is not. It also implies that biofuel crops will be a major cause of climate change, when it is not. The main cause of climate change is coal burning and burning transportation fossil fuels. Where is the MIT warning addressing these? The study does mention the release of methane into the atmosphere caused by feedlots. Methane is 22 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is a much bigger problem than hypothetical biomass crops. But the study implies just the opposite, because it falsely assumes future deforestation will be caused primarily by biofuels. By the way, the methane problem from landfills, feedlots, dairy farms, poultry farms, hog farms, widespread septic systems and sewage disposal plants, which also contaminate the watershed. These are here now. Not hypothetically 40 years from now.

Coal burning, fossil fuel burning, methane, urban sprawl, and deforestation from other causes. These are the real threats. Not the false impression we get from this study.