By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Corn Growers Assoc. (NCGA) lambasted a respected science journal last week regarding a debate over biofuel.
In its news section online last Thursday the NCGA criticized Science magazine for “summarily” rejecting a letter by Bruce Dale, a noted professor of chemical engineering at Michigan State University and an expert on biofuel. The NCGA stated that Science rejected the letter “without explanation … even though it clearly points to major flaws in the previously published work.”
Ken Colombini, director of communications at NCGA, said he wrote the website piece after speaking with Dale about the situation.
“They’re not really offering a balanced perspective when it comes to any kind of fossil fuel,” Colombini said in an interview. “Science has been producing a lot of these anti-biofuels studies.”
Colombini also complained the lead author of the article in question, Tim Searchinger, has no formal background in science. “People come and present themselves as experts when they really aren’t,” he said.
He said it smacks of bias on the part of the magazine when it publishes articles from people with no science training with a particular viewpoint, yet rejects rebuttal letters from respected professors with an extensive background in the subject. Dale’s letter was brief, Colombini said.
Farm World left two messages with Science magazine last week, but they weren’t returned.
Searchinger is a lecturer in public and international affairs at Princeton University, according to his profile on the Princeton website. He was trained as a lawyer and worked for 17 years at the Environmental Defense Fund.
The article in question, “Fixing a Critical Accounting Error,” was published in the Oct. 23 issue of Science. In it, Searchinger and co-writers state, “the accounting now used for assessing compliance with carbon limits in the Kyoto Protocol and in climate legislation contains a far-reaching but fixable flaw that will severely undermine greenhouse gas reduction goals.
“It does not count (carbon dioxide) emitted from tailpipes and smokestacks when bioenergy is being used, but it also does not count changes in emissions from land use when biomass for energy is harvested or grown. This accounting erroneously treats all bioenergy as carbon neutral ...”
In his letter of rebuttal, Dale states, “There is no ‘critical accounting error’ for carbon in bioenergy products as recently claimed in the Policy Forum of Science.
“The carbon in these products came from the atmosphere, was fixed by green plants, converted into bioenergy products and will soon return to the atmosphere as the products are used. The cycle is continued as crops are replanted and re-grown.
“Using this carbon for fuel therefore does not increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The short life cycle of ‘biogenic’ carbon is the reason why the Kyoto Protocol and other climate policies correctly do not count the carbon dioxide emitted by bioenergy use,” he added.
The NCGA provides a link to the entire letter online at www.ncga.com/files/pdf/DaleLetter.pdf |
