Intellectual Property Law

biofuels and other myths of global warming -- the unintended consequences of making laws in a vacuum

By Obi

        the feds and the states are busy passing biofuel-related laws.   (for example, these.)   apparently, these guardians of the welfare of the rest of us didn't consider the environmental cost of the burgeoning biofuels industry.    suddenly, we learn from two scientific studies that the use of biofuels will double co2 emissions that would otherwise have been generated by the use of gasoline.    this doesn't apply to community biodiesel companies that use trap grease as the raw material for their refineries, but does apply to large-scale biodiesel companies, where the input is typically biomass.    biomass comes from trees and other oil-bearing plants.    planting large swaths of land in monoculture often means cutting down forest or jungle, which means reducing the lung capacity of the planet and an increase in the co2 gradient.

        will our illustrious public servants learn from this huge mistake, a hole into which billions have already been sunk, or will they continue on in the "ready, fire, aim" fashion that holds sway at the moment.     the latter course is virtually guaranteed, because the public, and in particular, the American voting public, is being stampeded into thinking we can and must stop global warming by reducing co2 emissions.    yet, the truth is that "no one thinks we can stop global warming", not even the nobel-prize-winning i.p.c.c. climatologists.    what those climatologists believe (or at least declaim) is that greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue to warm the earth irresepective of our co2 reductions, but  that by reducing future emissions we can keep the warming below catastrophic levels.

        i find that declamation curious, but then i'm not trying to secure funding for my pet climate modeling project.    if the co2 concentration today is x parts per million, and the anthropogenic forcing every day after today  x/10,000,000, doesn't the small incremental addition of co2 each day after today worsen the forcing and consequent forcing?

        anyway, the climatologists massaging their computer models may be comfortable in saying the earth is going to stay at least as warm as it is no matter what we do, but the politicians aren't.    the electorate has been set on fire by the gloomsayers, and the pols will oblige us now, and consider whether their actions were helpful or harmful later, if possible after they leave office.   what a way to run a railroad.

________________
footnote:  there are ways to reduce today's planet-wise temperatures, although they don't involve reducing future co2 emissions.     as discussed in another post, they include reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the earth or sucking vast quantities of co2 out of the atmosphere.    however, these methodologies defy the prevailing anthropophobic orthodoxy, and so will likely not be funded until the population's misery level silences the prevailing orthodoxy.

Full post as published by TechLawyer on February 13, 2008 (boomark / email).