Comments on: The “War on Science” Continues . . . http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220&cpage=1#comment-13898 David Bruggeman Mon, 18 May 2009 05:29:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220#comment-13898 Re-read (or read) the press release. The argument here is that the Members of Congress behind the press release are attacking the science because it does not support biofuels to the extent that they would like. They are seeking a change in the calculations - removing consideration of indirect land use in the generation of biofuels - in order for their preferred policy choice to be accepted. The calculation they seek is not better in any scientific terms; arguably from an impact perspective it is worse. It is better for their political interests. They are conflating a political interest with a scientific claim. It happens a lot. Re-read (or read) the press release. The argument here is that the Members of Congress behind the press release are attacking the science because it does not support biofuels to the extent that they would like. They are seeking a change in the calculations – removing consideration of indirect land use in the generation of biofuels – in order for their preferred policy choice to be accepted. The calculation they seek is not better in any scientific terms; arguably from an impact perspective it is worse. It is better for their political interests. They are conflating a political interest with a scientific claim. It happens a lot.

]]> By: MAKR http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220&cpage=1#comment-13897 MAKR Mon, 18 May 2009 03:49:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220#comment-13897 I think dismissing the systematic effort of the bush administration to undermine critical scientific evidence and facts particularly in the areas of biodiversity and climate change is foolish and dangerous. Moreover, I agree with CurtFischer that this is a very sloppy posting. I assume based on the response to CF that you are against biofuels, but while I agree with you in part, this post lacks the requisite nuance. Corn ethanol, like natural gas, is dangerous specifically because it is a transition fuel at best, but once we reach it, fossil fuel interests will continue to drag out any progress. While corn ethanol and to some extent sugar ethanol are problematic, the biofuel option should not be ignored. Algal biofuels offer what might be a more viable alternative with further development. I think dismissing the systematic effort of the bush administration to undermine critical scientific evidence and facts particularly in the areas of biodiversity and climate change is foolish and dangerous.

Moreover, I agree with CurtFischer that this is a very sloppy posting. I assume based on the response to CF that you are against biofuels, but while I agree with you in part, this post lacks the requisite nuance. Corn ethanol, like natural gas, is dangerous specifically because it is a transition fuel at best, but once we reach it, fossil fuel interests will continue to drag out any progress. While corn ethanol and to some extent sugar ethanol are problematic, the biofuel option should not be ignored. Algal biofuels offer what might be a more viable alternative with further development.

]]> By: dispatches from TJICistan » Blog Archive » the government mandate to burn food is … wait for it … raising the cost of food http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220&cpage=1#comment-13893 dispatches from TJICistan » Blog Archive » the government mandate to burn food is … wait for it … raising the cost of food Sun, 17 May 2009 19:28:28 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220#comment-13893 [...] http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet… [...] [...] http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet…; [...]

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220&cpage=1#comment-13892 Roger Pielke, Jr. Sun, 17 May 2009 19:11:38 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220#comment-13892 -5-CurtFischer 1. You write, "I’m not seeing any criticism of the scientific merits of their position" There are scientific merits to their position? 2. The payback period matters because even if one includes indirect land use in the lifecycle emissions calculations, one can still gin up a CO2 benefit for ethanol. So EPA went out of its way to appease politicians, so far, as I argued in that earlier post, that they probably have already compromised the emissions benefit of the policy in any case. Finally, anyone who thinks that biofuels policy is about science, well, I won't get very far with my argument . . . ;-) -5-CurtFischer

1. You write, “I’m not seeing any criticism of the scientific merits of their position”

There are scientific merits to their position?

2. The payback period matters because even if one includes indirect land use in the lifecycle emissions calculations, one can still gin up a CO2 benefit for ethanol. So EPA went out of its way to appease politicians, so far, as I argued in that earlier post, that they probably have already compromised the emissions benefit of the policy in any case.

Finally, anyone who thinks that biofuels policy is about science, well, I won’t get very far with my argument . . . ;-)

]]> By: CurtFischer http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220&cpage=1#comment-13891 CurtFischer Sun, 17 May 2009 18:39:00 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220#comment-13891 In my assessment this is a very, very sloppy post by Prof. Pielke. First, who is he attacking? The bipartisan members of Congress who propose that indirect land use change not be considered as part of GHG emissions for biofuels? If so, on what grounds? I'm not seeing any criticism of the scientific merits of their position. Or are we attacking the Bush Administration critics who constantly whined about the "war on science"? If so, why? It's not clear to me that the Congressional proposal is unscientific or without scientific merit. And without establishing that, it's a bit premature to call anyone unscientific or even to use the occasion to highlight the irony stemming from past cries of "war on science". Roger's sense that EPA's terms are "very favorable" is great, but the post he linked to was mainly about the GHG payback period used for corn ethanol. Scientifically speaking (of course), what does that issue have to do with whether indirect land use is included in estimates of lifetime GHG emissions? Why should EPA's decision on one area affect the other? In my assessment this is a very, very sloppy post by Prof. Pielke. First, who is he attacking? The bipartisan members of Congress who propose that indirect land use change not be considered as part of GHG emissions for biofuels? If so, on what grounds? I’m not seeing any criticism of the scientific merits of their position.

Or are we attacking the Bush Administration critics who constantly whined about the “war on science”? If so, why? It’s not clear to me that the Congressional proposal is unscientific or without scientific merit. And without establishing that, it’s a bit premature to call anyone unscientific or even to use the occasion to highlight the irony stemming from past cries of “war on science”.

Roger’s sense that EPA’s terms are “very favorable” is great, but the post he linked to was mainly about the GHG payback period used for corn ethanol. Scientifically speaking (of course), what does that issue have to do with whether indirect land use is included in estimates of lifetime GHG emissions? Why should EPA’s decision on one area affect the other?

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220&cpage=1#comment-13889 Roger Pielke, Jr. Sun, 17 May 2009 18:00:05 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220#comment-13889 -1-David Well, from the press release linked above, i suppose the question might be posed as: "“How do we meet the Renewable Fuel Standard mandates?" Alternatively, the question might be: 'How do we appease corn belt politicians?" ;-) -1-David

Well, from the press release linked above, i suppose the question might be posed as:

““How do we meet the Renewable Fuel Standard mandates?”

Alternatively, the question might be:

‘How do we appease corn belt politicians?” ;-)

]]> By: The Bipartisan (Biofuel) "War on Science": | My Legal Spot http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220&cpage=1#comment-13888 The Bipartisan (Biofuel) "War on Science": | My Legal Spot Sun, 17 May 2009 17:44:25 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220#comment-13888 [...] are the answer. Politicians will alter the scientific inquiry [...] [...] are the answer. Politicians will alter the scientific inquiry [...]

]]> By: The Volokh Conspiracy http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220&cpage=1#comment-13887 The Volokh Conspiracy Sun, 17 May 2009 17:36:51 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220#comment-13887 <strong>The Bipartisan (Biofuel) "War on Science":...</strong> Biofuels are the answer. Politicians will alter the scientific inquiry accordingly. ... The Bipartisan (Biofuel) “War on Science”:…

Biofuels are the answer. Politicians will alter the scientific inquiry accordingly. …

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220&cpage=1#comment-13886 David Bruggeman Sun, 17 May 2009 16:58:33 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5220#comment-13886 Sorry to be so thick, but what is the question for which biofuels is the answer? Sorry to be so thick, but what is the question for which biofuels is the answer?

]]>