Biofuels Damage the Environment

A brief history

Founded in 1931 to promote international scientific activity in the different branches of science and its application for the benefit of humanity, the International Council for Science (ICSU) is one of the oldest non-governmental organizations in the world. It represents the evolution and expansion of two earlier bodies known as the International Association of Academies (IAA; 1899-1914) and the International Research Council (IRC; 1919-1931). ICSU's strength and uniqueness lies in its dual membership, National Scientific Members and International Scientific Unions, whose wide spectrum of scientific expertise allows ICSU to address major, international, interdisciplinary issues which its Members could not handle alone.

ICSU seeks to accomplish its role in a number of ways. Over the years, it has addressed specific global issues through the creation of Interdisciplinary Bodies, and of Joint Initiatives in partnership with other organizations. Important programmes of the past include the International Geophysical Year (1957-58) and the International Biological Programme (1964-74). Major current programmes include the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme: A Study of Global Change (IGBP), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), DIVERSITAS: An Integrated Programme of Biodiversity Science and the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP).

In 1992, ICSU was invited to act as principal scientific adviser to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro and, again in 2002, to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. Prior to UNCED, ICSU organized an International Conference on an Agenda of Science for Environment and Development into the 21st Century (ASCEND 21) in Vienna, in 1991, and ten years later, ICSU mobilized the scientific community even more broadly by organizing, with the help of other organizations, a Scientific Forum in parallel to the WSSD itself. ICSU is also actively participating in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, 2003 and Tunis, 2005.

In 1998, Members agreed that the Council’s current composition and activities would be better reflected by modifying the name to the International Council for Science, while its rich history and strong identity would be well served by retaining the existing acronym, ICSU.
http://www.icsu.org/5_abouticsu/INTRO_Hist_1.html

Sinistrous
Sat May-23-09 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. This "report" alleges that the PLANTS used to make biofuels

are polluters. Why do I Hear "JUNK SCIENCE" echoing from across the pond?

The relationship, on a global basis, between the amount of N fixed by chemical, biological or atmospheric processes entering the terrestrial biosphere, and the total emission of nitrous oxide (N2O), has been re-examined, using known global atmospheric removal rates and concentration growth of N2O as a proxy for overall emissions. The relationship, in both the pre-industrial period and in recent times, after taking into account the large-scale changes in synthetic N fertiliser production and deforestation, is consistent, showing an overall conversion factor of 3–5%. This factor is covered only in part by the ~1% of "direct" emissions from agricultural crop lands estimated by IPCC (2006), or the "indirect" emissions cited therein. This means that the extra N2O entering the atmosphere as a result of using N to produce crops for biofuels will also be correspondingly greater than that estimated just on the basis of IPCC (2006). When the extra N2O emission from biofuel production is calculated in "CO2-equivalent" global warming terms, and compared with the quasi-cooling effect of "saving" emissions of fossil fuel derived CO2, the outcome is that the production of commonly used biofuels, such as biodiesel from rapeseed and bioethanol from corn (maize), can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2O emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings. Crops with less N demand, such as grasses and woody coppice species have more favourable climate impacts. This analysis only considers the conversion of biomass to biofuel. It does not take into account the use of fossil fuel on the farms and for fertilizer and pesticide production, but it also neglects the production of useful co-products. Both factors partially compensate each other. This needs to be analyzed in a full life cycle assessment.

We used the term cycle earlier when discussing the flow of nutrients from soil to plant to animal to soil, as well as global carbon and nitrogen cycles (chapter 4). Some farmers depend more on natural soil nutrient cycles as contrasted with purchased commercial fertilizers to provide fertility to plants. Is it really possible to depend forever on the natural cycling of all the nutrients the crop needs? Let's first consider what a cycle really is and how it differs from the other ways that nutrients move from one location to another.

When nutrients move from one place to another, that is a flow. There are many different types of nutrient flows that can occur. When you buy fertilizers or animal feeds, nutrients are "flowing" onto the farm. When you sell sweet corn, apples, alfalfa hay, or milk, nutrients are "flowing" off the farm. Flows that involve products entering or leaving the farm gate are managed intentionally, whether or not you are thinking about nutrients. Other flows are unplanned: when nitrate is lost from the soil by leaching to groundwater or when runoff waters take nutrients along with eroded topsoil to a nearby stream. When crops are harvested and brought to the barn to feed animals, that is a nutrient flow, as is the return of animal manure to the land. Together these two flows are a true cycle, because nutrients return to the fields from which they came. In forests and natural grassland, the cycling of nutrients is very efficient. In the early stages of agriculture, where almost all people lived near their fields, nutrient cycling was also efficient (figure 7.1a). However, in many types of agriculture, especially modern "industrial-style" farming, there is little real cycling of nutrients, because there is no easy way to return nutrients shipped off the farm. In addition, nutrients in crop residues don't cycle very efficiently when the soil is without living plants for long periods, and nutrient runoff and leaching losses are much larger than from natural systems.

The first major break in the cycling of nutrients occurred as cities developed and nutrients began to routinely travel with the farm products to feed the growing urban populations. Few nutrients now return to the soils that grew them many miles away (figure 7.1b, 7.1c). The accumulated nutrients in urban sewage have polluted waterways around the world. Even with the building of many new sewage treatment plants in the 1970s and 1980s, effluent containing nutrients still flows into waterways, and sewage sludges are not always handled in an environmentally sound manner.

The trend to farm specialization has resulted in the second break in nutrient cycling by separating animals from the land that grows their feed. With specialized animal facilities (figure 7.1c), nutrients accumulate in manure at the same time that crop farmers purchase large quantities of fertilizers to keep their fields from becoming nutrient deficient.

http://www.sare.org/publications/bsbc/chap7.htm

Closing the Global Energy and Nutrient Cycles through Application of Biogas Residue to Agricultural Land – Potential Benefits and Drawback

Abstract: Anaerobic digestion is an optimal way to treat organic waste matter, resulting in biogas and residue. Utilization of the residue as a crop fertilizer should enhance crop yield and soil fertility, promoting closure of the global energy and nutrient cycles. Consequently, the requirement for production of inorganic fertilizers will decrease, in turn saving significant amounts of energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, and indirectly leading to global economic benefits. However, application of this residue to agricultural land requires careful monitoring to detect amendments in soil quality at the early stages.

http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/2/226/

The reason is that the plants raised to be turned into ethanol and biodiesel release large volumes of nitrous oxide (N2O), which is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/biofuels-damage-environment-nitrous-oxide-trumps-carbon-dioxide