New study shows U.S. ethanol's Indirect Land use change impacts are negligible to non-existent.

... Wow, an article reporting on an actual scientific study of ethanol's impact! Now THAT is remarkable in itself!


http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/26/3796298/new-study-finds-us-ethanol-production.html


A new study published in the July 2011 Biomass and Bioenergy Journal on indirect land use change (ILUC) due to biofuels production indicates that the real impact of U.S. biofuels production on ILUC domestically and internationally is negligible or nonexistent. The study, "Indirect land use change for biofuels: Testing predictions and improving analytical methodologies" was coauthored by Dr. Seungdo Kim and Dr. Bruce E. Dale of Michigan State University. “It is the first evidence-based evaluation of ILUC utilizing actual historic data, employing a 'bottom-up', data-driven, statistical approach based on individual world regions’ land use patterns and commodity grain imports,” stated Dr. Roger Conway, senior partner at Rosslyn Advisors LLC and former director of the United States Department of Agriculture's Office of Energy Policy and New Uses.

Very few previous studies have attempted to find empirical evidence for or against indirect land use change from the historical data. Most previous studies relied on global economic simulations. "Unlike most other ILUC work this study relied on very few assumptions and did not attempt to quantify nor to predict ILUC effects," commented Bruce Dale, coauthor of the study. "We searched for direct historical evidence for ILUC in relevant world areas rather than attempting to project or predict what course ILUC might take. Projecting forward can force scientists to make untestable assumptions."

One interpretation of no ILUC effects is that U.S. crop intensification absorbed and exceeded new ethanol production demand. It is also possible that the effects of biofuels production expansion on ILUC may simply be negligible. Past studies based on economic model assumptions often do not take into account new agricultural techniques that allow for greater crop yields on existing U.S. lands where biofuel corn is produced.

The new study used 1990 -- when the U.S. biofuels industry was very small -- as its baseline and then measured crop changes against that as U.S. ethanol production grew rapidly in subsequent years. In order to test the hypotheses that ILUC had occurred, the authors searched for actual land use change in 18 regions around the world where corn and/or soybeans are produced.
(more)

abstract can be viewed here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953411002418

those "new agricultural techniques" are likely quite harmful in themselves. This, aside from the fact that the ethanol use has resulted in greatly diminished fuel economy in most vehicles on the road and caused lots of damage to these vehicles.

being used by farmers but the modeling studies that Dale, Kim refer to have not considered this.


http://www.mendeley.com/research/life-cycle-assessment-of-corn-grain-and-corn-stover-in-the-united-states/

No-tillage practices offer higher accumulation rates of soil organic carbon, lower fuel consumption, and lower nitrogen emissions from the soil than the current or conventional tillage practices. Planting winter cover crops could be a way to reduce nitrogen losses from soil and to increase soil organic carbon levels.


... there are no documented damage to cars that i know of.

Biomass is the only fuel source that can do both.

http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/%5B35%5D.pdf">Carbon budget of mature no-till ecosystem in North Central Region of the United States

We're already fucking huge acreages of the world via deforestation, pollution, soil erosion and humus degradation using industrial monocropping. When you start from that low of a baseline, you don't really have anywhere to go but up (though I suppose you could just tread water and be just as bad).

that in the U.S. farmers are moving to more low-till, no-till practices.