In DepthClimate Change

Bioenergy not a climate cure-all, panel warns

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  09 Aug 2019:
Vol. 365, Issue 6453, pp. 527-528
DOI: 10.1126/science.365.6453.527

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: Bioenergy not a climate cure-all, panel warns

    Look at the picture of "cottonwoods in France". Over 90% of sunshine hits soil surface & is not captured by tree leaves- young plantations are a terrible waste! Real forests usually capture over 90% of visible photons: conifers year-round & deciduous, broad-leaf trees during most sunny months. Selective thinning & harvest of individual mature trees, while maintaining forests' complete canopy closure, continually captures incoming solar radiation & biosynthesises carbohydrates. ron 8Aug'19

    Competing Interests: Adapted, Born, Conceived, Domiciled, Educated, Farmed, Fretted, Gardened, Grew up on planet EARTH during 7 different decades in 2 millennia!
  • RE: Researchers see the straw in the Bioenergy eye bot do not see the log in the rebewable eye
    • cesar alfredo barbero, scientific researcher, Research Institute on Energy Technology and Advanced Materials

    The worries about bioenergy sound very reasonable but it sounds strange that the same caveats are not made about renewable energy which is, at best, a neutral CO2 energy (not considering the carbon footprint of fabrication). Specially absurd is the claim that other negative emissions technologies should mature when renewables has been subsidized for more than 30 years, with no end in sight. The greening of the earth due to increasing CO2 levels points out that bioenergy with CO2 capture could just be helping the self-regulation of global climate. Obviously, there are possible drawbacks such as fuel vs food use of land. However, the production of biodiesel has steadily increasing and the effect on food prices is not obvious. The price of soybean went from 200$/tn in the 99s to 600 $/tn ion mid 2010s to the present 300 $/tn. The main influence is the food needs of China, not biodiesel fabrication. No one method could solve the problem but negative emission techniques are much better than renewables.

    Competing Interests: None declared.