I find this whole notion of Indirect land use conversion disingenuous at best. It ignores the utility in having a closed greenhouse gas loop for fuel (the CO2 from currently grown plants does not increase the co2 burden of the biosphere whereas adding fossil fuels directly increases the co2 burden). Secondarily, biofuel crops are not "used" in the way fossil fuels are "used". For corn, only the starch is removed, leaving a BETTER livestock feed in the form of distiller's grain. So the corn isn't really removed from the animal feedstock supply chain although i would grant a slight decrease. Lastly and probably most importantly, the vast majority of corn grown is field corn, not directly consumed by people but mostly fed to livestock. So, the amount of food is changed so much as the composition of food and the arguments about the "wastefulness" of producing animal protein versus direct food protein essentially nullifies this indirect land use nonsense. This is a desperate gambit to discredit biofuels. Why isn't indirect land use analysis done on industrial development or suburbs or even food farming versus forest maintenance, or oil drilling, or refining oil versus refining ethanol?
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.