A couple of lines mean that our approach to achieving carbon reduction by planting forest on arable land is ”unrealistic” and ”ill-advised”. But we speak not of reforestation is unrealistic or not; we have only calculated what the potential climate benefits would be if you chose that option. With our approach means the use of land for bioenergy a omintetgjord kolinbindning in the forest that otherwise could have grown on the site. Therefore, we believe, entails the use of arable land for bio-energy with a permanent increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
We can, and should, argue about how big the carbon cost of bioenergy is, and how important it is when we compare biofuels with other options. Of course, we should also discuss the extent to which kolinbindning with the growing forest is appropriate with regard to other aspects. But we can't pretend that the possibility does not exist, as all replikförfattare seem to do. For the consequence of ignoring it is that politicians, organisations and consumers make their choices on a wrong basis.
via batteries or alternatively vätgasbränsleceller. In order to make a difference, the production in both cases, greatly scaled up, which will lead to increased carbon emissions initially.
For biodrivmedelsalternativet will vast areas of land to be needed Just to replace half of the world's fossil fuels would be a low estimate for an area corresponding to one-third of the world's current farmland needed. It goes without saying that such an expansion will not be without significant deforestation and associated carbon emissions. These emissions will have to be repaid and result in net reductions only after a very long time, probably several decades.
For elalternativet is the emissions from the manufacture of batteries. However, these emissions are comparatively small. And the increased use of electricity for transport will, to a large extent to be met with expanded wind and solar power, which provide relatively low carbon dioxide emissions.
, not least because emissions reductions will be achieved the closer in time compared with biofuels. The long-term and global uppskalningsmöjligheterna for electricity is also higher because solar and wind power can be produced anywhere, while biofuels requires fertile soil – a resource that represents about 5 percent of the earth's surface, and whose scarcity will only increase in pace with the increased world population.
the Swedish policy has, by reduktionsplikten chosen to very strongly force biodrivmedelsalternativet. For us, it seems reckless. When the goal is a fossil-free and climate-neutral vägfordonsflotta, we need to take the big and long-term moves, in a global perspective. It would then seem unwise to build ourselves into a large-scale biodrivmedelsberoende, because we already now know that biofuels have a limited potential, with a carbon reduction that will probably first far forward in time.
The limited quantities of climate-friendly biofuels that can be produced should instead be reserved for niches where electrification will be the most difficult, such as the aviation and maritime transport.