Science Mag Rejects Second Rebuttal
Posted: November 16, 2009
Last week, the National Corn Growers Association Web site featured a letter to the editor that was rejected by Science magazine. The letter was by Dr. Bruce Dale, a professor of chemical engineering at Michigan State University, someone who know quite a lot about biofuels production and is a recognized expert in the scientific community. You can read the NCGA story and Dale’s letter here.
Now, we’ve received a second letter that was rejected by Science magazine, despite the thoughtfulness that seems to have gone into it. Brent Erickson of BIO points out an important aspect of reliance on fossil fuels when it comes to carbon:
“… fossil fuel use has an additive effect on the terrestrial carbon cycle, taking sequestered carbon from deep below the earth’s surface and adding it to the terrestrial carbon cycle between atmosphere, soil and oceans. The world’s forest, wetlands and oceans are inadequate to absorb this continually added fossil carbon.”
You can read his unpublished letter here.
Ethan Edwards Said,
November 16, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
It’s easy to see why they rejected Dr. Dale’s letter: It’s poorly written. I’m not saying what he said is wrong, only that he didn’t say it very well.
In reply to Brent Erickson: Where do you think that sequestered carbon came from? It’s no different than recently sequestered carbon, except for millions of years. Can you really say that a carbon atom captured in biomass millions of years ago and held deep below the earth’s surface in oil is any different than a carbon atom captured this summer in an ear of corn?
In either case, once released they go into the atmosphere, and both become indistinguishable to the corn plants that will grow next summer.
Carbon released from corn plants grown this summer is no better — or worse — than carbon released from algae and plankton grown millions of years ago.