I've had a shit day and to come home to face this neo-classical economical, ecocidal mania is just too much for me. I need a drink.
And a spliff. I'm really not much of a reefer-fiend, preferring a glass of good rum when I'm in company. But tonight I just feel the need for that warm fuzziness and the welcome absolution of short-term memories.
I changed the epithet in the title. I regret my original term, which was designed for maximum offense and was a product of my earlier bitterness.
Anyway, how's this for an interesting observation:
" . . . arable land would store more carbon year on year for many decades if just left to revert to a natural ecosystem . . . . If we grow biofuels "on previously unfarmed land" we will obviously incur the opportunity cost that the land would (or already does) store more carbon if we DON'T grow biofuels on it than if we DO."
It was a comment from SteelyGlint below Mandletwat's article. I'm not sure how right it is but it certainly rings true to me. Carbon fixed in biofuel production on arable land is rapidly released back into the atmosphere. The obvious problem is that letting arable land 'return to nature' results in a loss of food production capacity, just as the conversion to biofuel production does.