Live data from Hacker News

Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

lithub.com

61–70 of 257 posts

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#61
post #35

I read the whole article and I still don't see how Big Ag misled anyone. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems that the author is trying to differentiate between growing corn for food vs growing the same corn for ethanol. I assume the entire reason the lobby exists is that farmers want to grow corn for food and ethanol. But the researcher lost interest before proving anything around there. Maybe ethanol is actually…

The EU does something impressively crazy burning 23 million tonnes of wood pellets in 2021. https://unece.org/media/press/372591 It's labeled as 'renewable' electricity.

What do you think the furniture industry does with the wood byproducts such as sawdust and bark?

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#62
post #55
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes perfect sense. Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest . The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's argument states that more forests will be grown to be cut down if burning wood pellets (that are shipped from North America to the EU) is considered renewable and that means you're now cutting down even more forests to clear land for growing more trees. The lan…

Forests are not long term carbon sinks. They flatline rather quickly. This is obvious to anyone who has spent much time in a forest, because if this wasn’t the case, forests would be sitting on thousands of feet of sequestered carbon. Instead of a few feet (typically) of non-mineral soil. Forests also (typically) go through cycles of burning. The highest rate of carbon sequestration is when a forest is in the 3-25 ye…

Look dude, read the papers or read the book. I don't have much more to offer you. This isn't just about the forest itself but about the land used to grow the forest.

"In the Carbon Costs of Global Wood Harvests, published in Nature in 2023, WRI researchers using a biophysical model estimated that annual wood harvests over the next few decades will emit 3.5-4.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. That is more than 3 times the world’s current annual average aviation emissions. These wood-harvest emissions occur because the great majority of carbon stored in trees is released to the atmosphere after harvest when roots and slash decompose; as most wood is burned directly for heat or electricity or for energy at sawmills or paper mills; and when discarded paper products, furniture and other wood products decompose or burn. Another recent paper in Nature found that the word’s remaining forests have lost even more carbon, primarily due to harvesting wood, than was lost historically by converting forests to agriculture (other studies have found similar results1). Based on these analyses, a natural climate solution would involve harvesting less wood and letting more forests regrow. This would store more carbon as well as enhance forest biodiversity."[0]

[0]https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emis...

And the original paper that introduced the idea of land use https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#63
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's labeled 'renewable energy' (not electricity), if wood pellets are sourced from sustainable renewable forest growth. What is your argument?

Because is bs, pure and simple. Typical Brussels re-inventing the definition of words in order to push their political objectives.

[deleted]

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#64
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's labeled 'renewable energy' (not electricity), if wood pellets are sourced from sustainable renewable forest growth. What is your argument?

Because is bs, pure and simple. Typical Brussels re-inventing the definition of words in order to push their political objectives.

I would agree if you'd be talking about branding gas as sustainable, which Germany actually tried before the war in Ukraine and the sabotage of the Northstream pipeline. But in this context, it's pure hogwash. Burning wood pellets is actually sustainable and renewable and has been a net win for Eastern European counrties that joined the EU, mainly because little to no sawdust is discarded into rivers and streams any longer. I remember the 2000s and before, when we hiked through the mountains: wherever there was a wood processing plant, there were also overflowing heaps of sawdust. None of that is a reality any longer, all of it is pelletized, sold and burned.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#65
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's labeled 'renewable energy' (not electricity), if wood pellets are sourced from sustainable renewable forest growth. What is your argument?

That it isn't sustainable. As Eating the Earth points out, by growing trees to then cut them down again we're not accounting for the cost of using that same forested land for anything else, like a forest which is a great carbon sink. Instead burning wood pellets is considered renewable until you consider the cost of using that land for something else in which case it isn't a renewal resource.

The word renewable has a specific meaning (the source renews). Just because something is renewable, doesn't mean it's climate-friendly and/or sustainable.

Burning pellets as Bioenergy is renewable - it's just not sustainable[1] or climate-friendly.

[1] not sustainable in large scale use.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#66
Just because you can drive 2’ and casually get 100 liters of gasoline does not make fossil fuel infinite. People forget that oil is not like air.

We waste a ton of resources for drilling, transporting and refining, creating in the process huge externalities, to ensure reliable production and supply. And it will only get worse as we are running out of easy to tap sources.

Looking for cheap and viable alternatives to fossils is not a conspiracy or a game. It’s an absolute necessity.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#67

I read the whole article and I still don't see how Big Ag misled anyone. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems that the author is trying to differentiate between growing corn for food vs growing the same corn for ethanol. I assume the entire reason the lobby exists is that farmers want to grow corn for food and ethanol. But the researcher lost interest before proving anything around there. Maybe ethanol is actually…

Corn and most ag subsidies are using taxpayer money for corporate welfare for mostly mega farming consortia with a smattering of medium and smaller farmers, who also can't exist in the rigged market without welfare. 5% of all US land, not just arable land, ALL land is used for mostly cow corn. It's absolute insanity. And then there's the federal US sugar cartel keeping prices artificially (no pun intended) high.

Crop subsidies are certainly poorly applied and poorly distributed, but we also need to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Crop subsidization is the only alternative to the granary system, which while decent still resulted in repeated famines for thousands of years basically everywhere, while no country that has decent crop subsidization ever has famine. Crop subsidization in general makes granaries 90% obsolete because you always aim to over produce crops and so even in bad years you still produce enough food despite the unexpectedly low yields. It also makes food prices WAY more stable so that a bad July doesn't cause wheat prices to double because there isn't enough to satisfy demand. It is really the only way to ensure you always produce extra food in a capitalist economy because otherwise margins are only like 2% while crop yields can swing 30% even without extraordinary weather events or storm damage.

I do want to note though that corn is possibly one of the least useful crops to subsidize, it is one of the most robust and predictable food crops we grow, which is why so much of it is grown despite a large fraction of it's energy going into worthless stalk. More delicate crops that have larger and less predictable yield swings, like wheat, or something with delicate fruits that can't be stored long, likely deserve the majority of subsidization money that currently goes towards corn.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#68

For years I saw saturation ads for the Archer-Daniels-Midland Corporation on PBS, I found out years that this is the prime beneficiary of the ethanol program. Farmers growing corn for ethanol are growing broke despite subsidies. The program is an environmental disaster because people in the Mississippi River basin should be growing anything except corn because corn is a crop that requires huge imports of nitrogen fer…

Unless I'm going senile, I've done this calculation a few times and consistently I get that a solar farm produces 25-50 times more energy a year than corn.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#69
post #47
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That it isn't sustainable. As Eating the Earth points out, by growing trees to then cut them down again we're not accounting for the cost of using that same forested land for anything else, like a forest which is a great carbon sink. Instead burning wood pellets is considered renewable until you consider the cost of using that land for something else in which case it isn't a renewal resource.

That makes no sense with the definition of ‘renewable’. Trees grow again. They are renewed. What is this junk?

The soil is degraded, washed away on clear-cut forests, and even old-growth protected forests are being relabeled unprotected to provide energy for the industry all over Eastern-Europe. The resulting flash floods, the water of which is harder to retain on the lowlands are worsening the droughts and the effects of climate change.

Ah, end eventually trees will not regrow, because they need soil for that. And water. Modern forestry is far from renewable. Only externalities having a longer time-frame to kick in are conveniently ignored by the decision makers and the masses willing to see only the upsides.

Re: Big agriculture mislead the public about the benefits of biofuels

#70
post #55
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes perfect sense. Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest . The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's argument states that more forests will be grown to be cut down if burning wood pellets (that are shipped from North America to the EU) is considered renewable and that means you're now cutting down even more forests to clear land for growing more trees. The lan…

Forests are not long term carbon sinks. They flatline rather quickly. This is obvious to anyone who has spent much time in a forest, because if this wasn’t the case, forests would be sitting on thousands of feet of sequestered carbon. Instead of a few feet (typically) of non-mineral soil. Forests also (typically) go through cycles of burning. The highest rate of carbon sequestration is when a forest is in the 3-25 ye…

The soil they create, if they stay alive and are able to retain the soil layer, is gradually washed away (and locally replenished) and is fertilizing the lowlands.
Post reply on HN