The new study published by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in the journal Nature Climate Change presents the researchers, with the unexpected, for alarmists, reality of bioenergy. It turns out that without excess regulation, bioenergy’s carbon footprint could exceed that of traditional fossil fuels due to the land use changes necessitated by biomass production.
The study’s lead author, Leon Merfort, warns about the regulatory inadequacies stating,
“The state of current global land regulation is inadequate to control land-use-change emissions from modern biofuels.”
The global energy market is deeply intertwined with our economies. For instance, as the researchers pointed out, in their most hopeful of ways.
“Phasing out fossil fuels will generate demands of bioenergy worth hundreds of billions of Dollars by mid-century.”
Consequently, if biofuels take off, the agricultural sector would inevitably pursue these new opportunities. Such a massive shift would have significant implications for global economies and job markets, such as the global food price escalation of 2007 and 2008.
The “month-by-month” five-year analysis disputes that increases in global grain consumption and droughts were responsible for price increases, reporting that this had had only a marginal effect and instead argues that the EU and US drive for biofuels has had by far the biggest effect on food supply and prices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis
PIK’s study emphasizes the problem of CO2 emissions resulting from land clearing related to the production of biofuels, suggesting it is a regulatory challenge. Nico Bauer, a co-author, proposes a globally comprehensive land protection or carbon pricing scheme to prevent these emissions. However, the necessity, likely success, or the avoidance of disaster, of such an ambitious global policy reform is debatable. The idea of stringent regulations on land-use, and implementing carbon pricing will obviously hinder economic progress, particularly in countries where the bioenergy industry holds substantial opportunities for economic growth and job creation.
Moreover, the study indicates that
“bioenergy can be produced with limited emissions under effective land-use regulations.”
This statement implies that it is not the bioenergy per se that is problematic but the lack of efficient regulations and policies. There’s just not enough central planning, command, and control dammit! Sane people would question if our focus should be on implementing overly ambitious and wasteful climate action or investing more into better energy management and economic regulatory actions.
An interesting observation from the study is that:
“protection of 90% of all global forest areas is not enough because the remaining 10% would still be too big of a loophole.”
This quote hints at the absurd scale of action that is imagined to be necessary to control the boogeyman of climate change. In no way does the potential benefit justify the massive effort and cost. Change, especially on a global scale, is an inherent part of our natural world.
The results of this study make it clear governments should reconsider the policies they are choosing to combat the imagined climate change monster hiding under the bed. Our efforts would obviously be better spent improving regulatory practices for ensuring reliable energy rather than focusing on an aggressive phase-out of fossil fuels.
The study may be found here.
via Watts Up With That?
June 28, 2023 at 12:51AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 