[APWG] BioFools Re: NEWS: Invasive plant's use for biomass worries some

[Wayne Tyson]

Honorable APWG:

A ton of people, some of them biologists, botanists, ecologists, are making 
a ton of money on the biofoolish idea that some plant or another is going to 
solve the energy problem. Follow the money--most of it your tax money, some 
of it donated to "enviro" front organizations. (Algae MIGHT be and 
exception--please feed me info on this.) The ratio of energy input to output 
is essentially negative, not positive. (Yes, some "studies" have "shown" 
meager "evidence" of fractional net production, but it's only a fraction of 
the story--things like the tortilla riots being only one dramatic example.)

There's nothing wrong with amateurs--but neither they nor "scientists" 
should pop off unless they know what they're talking about. That includes 
me, but one can't "prove" a negative. However, fans of such harebrained 
schemes are welcome to submit evidence/calculations of its net energy value.

There are so many errors in the article, I won't go through them all, but 
the "drought tolerant" one seems to be such a frequently-claimed conclusion 
that I must say again--more biomass requires more water, and so-called 
"marginal" lands (meaning "undeveloped" ecosystems) will not produce more 
than a relatively tiny fraction of the biomass of those from more mesic 
sites (in this case, wetlands).

If by "drought-tolerant" the misinformed mean that, for example, Arundo 
donax can survive relatively dry-weather periods, it does not mean that they 
are "drought-tolerant" (a questionably, ill-defined term at best), but that 
they might be termed "drought" enduring.

Please, please, please--do not accept "authority" as evidence for anything, 
any time. DEMAND evidence to back up claims. Dig into the research 
literature, and go 'way back to the early 19th century at least, and 
question all of it. If it holds, you're probably on firm ground. If not, YOU 
can be the hero, and refute the errors that would be comical, were they not 
so pathetically and simply just figments of guesswork and presumption.

WT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Olivia Kwong" <plant at plantconservation.org>
To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 6:23 AM
Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive plant's use for biomass worries some


> http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/nov/21/growing-controversy/
>
> Invasive plant's use for biomass worries some
> Wednesday, November 21, 2012
>
> OXFORD, N.C. (AP) -- It's fast-growing and drought-tolerant, producing 
> tons of biomass per acre. It thrives even in poor soil and is a 
> self-propagating perennial, so it requires little investment once 
> established.
>
> See the link above for the full article text.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the 
> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5436 - Release Date: 12/04/12
>