Letter to Gov of Calif, criticizing use of ILUC hypotheses, signed by over 100 scientists!

[JohnWxy]

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/lcfs-general-ws/28-phd_lcfs_mar09.pdf

This letter informed Governor Schwarzeneggar that the use of ILUC (Indirect Land Use Changes) theories by the Calif Air Resources Board is not supported by scientific established conclusions and that ILUC are not understood well enough to use any untested conclusions in regulating biofuel production and use.

As you are aware, ARB staff continues to push a regulation that includes an indirect land use change (iLUC) penalty for biofuels. To be clear, this effect is not the direct land conversion from growing crops for fuel. It (ILUC_JW) is the alleged indirect, price-induced land conversion effect that could occur in the world economy as a result of any increase in demand for agricultural production. The ability to predict this alleged effect depends on using an economic model to predict worldwide carbon effects, and the outcomes are unusually sensitive to the assumptions made by the researchers conducting the model runs. In addition, this field of science is in its nascent stage, is controversial in much of the scientific community, and is only being enforced against biofuels in the proposed LCFS.


The push to include iLUC in the carbon score for biofuel is driven at least partially by concerns about global deforestation. There is no question that global deforestation is a problem, and that indirect effects must be looked at very carefully to ensure that future fuels dramatically reduce GHG emissions without unintended consequences. The scientific community is actively seeking ways to mitigate deforestation, enhance efficient land use, feed the poor and malnourished and reduce global warming. Because of the complex and important issues involved, it is critical that we rely on science-based decision-making to properly determine and evaluate the indirect effects of all fuels, as well as any predicted changes in agricultural and forestry practices. In a general sense, it is worth noting that most primary forest deforestation is currently occurring in places like Brazil, Indonesia and Russia as a direct result of logging, cattle ranching and subsistence farming.

More than 20 scientists wrote to the ARB in June 2008 suggesting that more time and analysis is required to truly understand the iLUC effect of biofuels. In addition to iLUC, we know very little about the indirect effects of other fuels, and therefore cannot establish a proper relative value for indirect effects among the various compliance fuels and petroleum under the LCFS. In consideration of this and other rulemaking activities and research conducted since June 2008, we, the undersigned 111 scientists, continue to believe that the enforcement of any indirect effect, including iLUC, is highly premature at this time, based on the following two principles:

1) The Science Is Far Too Limited and Uncertain For Regulatory Enforcement

~~
... Even at this late stage in the LCFS process, the GTAP model runs still do not reflect basic on-the-ground realities, such as the use of marginal and idle lands. They do not reflect recent articles about the potential for energy crops to absorb carbon at higher rates than previously thought. A partial solution to this problem is to conduct a series of model runs with different assumptions and adjustments. Unfortunately, this has not occurred at ARB (researchers have run limited sensitivity analysis within the current set of primary assumptions). We are only in the very early stages of assessing and understanding the indirect, market-mediated effects of different fuels. Indirect effects have never been enforced against any product in the world.

2) Indirect Effects Are Often Misunderstood And Should Not Be Enforced Selectively

~~
Proponents of iLUC inclusion claim that all regulations are uncertain. This is true. However, the level of uncertainty implicated here far outweighs that found in other regulatory fields. For example, the European Parliament declared in December that the iLUC of biofuel “is not currently expressed in a form that is immediately usable by economic operators.”1 They decided not to incorporate iLUC penalties in their biofuel programs and initiated further analysis of the issue.
~~
~~
Sincerely,
Blake A. Simmons, Ph.D.
Vice-President, Deconstruction Division
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Manager, Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories

Jay D. Keasling, Ph.D.
Director
Physical Biosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Hubbard Howe Distinguished Professor of Biochemical Engineering
Departments of Chemical Engineering and Bioengineering
University of California, Berkeley
Chief Executive Officer
Joint BioEnergy Institute

Harvey W. Blanch, Ph.D.
Chief Science and Technology Officer
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Member, National Academy of Engineering
Merck Professor of Chemical Engineering
University of California, Berkeley


Robert B. Goldberg, Ph.D.
Distinguished HHMI University Professor &
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Department of Cell, Developmental, & Molecular Biology
University of California, Los Angeles

Pam Ronald, Ph.D.
Vice-President, Feedstocks Division
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Department of Plant Pathology
University of California, Davis

Paul D. Adams, Ph.D.
Deputy Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley
Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy Institute
Head, Berkeley Center for Structural Biology

Bruce E. Dale, Ph. D.
Distinguished University Professor
Dept. of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science
Michigan State University

Charles E. Wyman, Ph.D.
Ford Motor Company Chair in Environmental Engineering Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT)
Professor of Chemical and Environmental Engineering Bourns College of Engineering
University of California, Riverside

Alvin J.M. Smucker, Ph.D.
Professor of Soil Biophysics
MSU Distinguished Faculty
Michigan State University

Greg Stephanopoulos, Ph.D.
W.H. Dow Professor of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology
Department of Chemical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sharon Shoemaker, Ph.D.
Director
California Institute for Food and Agriculture Research
University of California, Davis


Stephen R. Kaffka, Ph.D.
Extension Agronomist
Department of Plant Sciences
University of California, Davis

Terry Hazen, Ph.D.
Director of Microbial Communities
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Scientist/Department Head
Ecology Department
Earth Sciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Lonnie O. Ingram, Ph.D.
Director, Florida Center for Renewable Chemicals and Fuels
Dept. of Microbiology and Cell Science
University of Florida

George W. Huber, Ph.D.
Armstrong Professional Development Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Massachusetts

Kenneth G. Cassman, Ph.D.
Director, Nebraska Center for Energy Science Research
Heuermann Professor of Agronomy
University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Om Parkash (Dhankher), Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Cole Gustafson, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics
North Dakota State University

Robert C. Brown, Ph.D.
Anson Martson Distinguished Professor in Engineering
Gary and Donna Hoover Chair in Mechanical Engineering Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical and Biological Engineering, and Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Director, Bioeconomy Institute Director, Center for Sustainable Environmental Technologies
Iowa State University


John Ralph, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Biological Systems Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte, Ph.D.
Professor, Agricultural Policy Analysis Center
Department of Agricultural Economics
The University of Tennessee

Michael A. Henson, Ph.D.
Co-Director
Institute for Massachusetts Biofuels Research (TIMBR)
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Danny J. Schnell, Ph.D.
Professor and Head
Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Jeffrey L. Blanchard, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology
Morrill Science Center
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Y-H Percival Zhang, Ph.D.
Biological Systems Engineering Department
Virginia Tech University

Venkatesh Balan, Ph.D.,
Assistant Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering and Material Science
Michigan State University

Gemma Reguera, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics
Michigan State University
Wayne R. Curtis, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
Penn State University

James C. Liao, Ph.D.
Chancellor's Professor
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
University of California, Los Angeles


Brian G. Fox, Ph.D.
Marvin Johnson Professor of Fermentation Biochemistry
Department of Biochemistry
Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center
University of Wisconsin

Robert Landick, Ph.D.
Dept. of Biochemistry
Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison

Prof. dr. ir. Christian V. Stevens
Professor Chemical Modification of Renewable Resources
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering
Director of the Center of Renewable Resources
Ghent University, Belgium

Alexander J. Malkin, Ph.D.
Scientific Capability Leader for BioNanoSciences
Physical and Life Sciences Directorate
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Dennis J. Miller, Ph.D.
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science
Michigan State University

David Keating, Ph.D.
Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Susan Leschine, Ph.D.
Professor
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Qteros, Inc.

David T. Damery, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Dept. of Natural Resources Conservation
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Kenneth Keegstra, Ph.D.
University Distinguished Professor
Department of Plant Biology
Michigan State University


Tobias I. Baskin, Ph.D.
Biology Department
University of Massachusetts

Christopher M. Saffron, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering
Dept. of Forestry
Michigan State University

Emily Heaton, Ph.D.
Asst. Prof. of Agronomy
Iowa State University

Kurt D. Thelen, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Dept. of Crop & Soil Sciences
Michigan State University

Bin Yang, Ph.D.
Associate Research Engineer
Bourns College of Engineering
Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT)
University of California, Riverside

Andrea Festuccia, Ph.D.
Professor
University of Rome-Italy

Francesca del Vecchio, Ph.D.
Professor Cambridge University
St. John Biochemistry Department
Cambridge, UK

David Shonnard, Ph.D.
Department of Chemical Engineering
Michigan Technological University

R. Mark Worden, Ph.D. Professor
Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science
Michigan State University

Satish Joshi, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
Michigan State University

Timothy Volk, Ph.D.
Senior Research Associate
346 Illick Hall
Faculty of Forest and Natural Resources Management
SUNY-ESF

Henrik Scheller, Ph.D.
Director of Plant Cell Wall Biosynthesis
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Joshua L. Heazlewood, Ph.D.
Director of Systems Biology
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Dominique Loque, Ph.D.
Director of Cell Wall Engineering
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

David A. Grantz, Ph.D.
Director, University of California Kearney Agricultural Center
Plant Physiologist and Extension Air Quality Specialist Department of Botany and Plant Sciences and Air Pollution Research Center University of California at Riverside

Rajat Sapra, Ph.D.
Director of Enzyme Engineering
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories

Masood Hadi, Ph.D.
Director of High-Throughput Sample Prep
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories

Swapnil Chhabra, Ph.D.
Director of Host Engineering
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Seema Singh, Ph.D.
Director of Dynamic Studies of Biomass Pretreatment
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories

Bradley Holmes, Ph.D.
Director of Biomass Pretreatment and Process Engineering
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories

Manfred Auer, Ph.D.
Director Physical Analysis
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Physical Biosciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Phil Hugenholtz, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Joint Genome Institute
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Chris Petzold, Ph.D.
Scientist
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Steven Singer, Ph.D.
Scientist
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Michael Thelen, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
11
David A. Grantz, Ph.D.
Director, University of California Kearney Agricultural Center
Plant Physiologist and Extension Air Quality Specialist Department of Botany and Plant Sciences and Air Pollution Research Center University of California at Riverside

David Reichmuth, Ph.D.
Scientist, Sandia National Laboratories

Amy J. Powell, Ph.D.
Scientist, Department of Computational Biology
Sandia National Laboratories

Anthe George, Ph.D.
Post-doctoral Fellow
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories

Özgül Persil Çetinkol
Post-doctoral Fellow
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Supratim Datta, Ph.D.
Post-doctoral Fellow
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories

Zhiwei Chen, Ph.D.
Post-doctoral Fellow
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories

Joshua Park, Ph.D.
Post-doctoral Fellow
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories

Chenlin Li, Ph.D.
Post-doctoral Fellow
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories
12
Hanbin Liu, Ph.D.
Post-doctoral Fellow
Joint BioEnergy Institute
Biomass Science and Conversion Technology
Sandia National Laboratories

Richard Hamilton, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
Ceres, Inc.

Richard B. Flavell, Ph.D.
Chief Scientific Officer
Ceres, Inc.

Robert J. Wooley, Ph.D., P.E.
Director, Process Engineering
Abengoa

Tim Eggeman, Ph.D., P.E.
Chief Technology Officer, Founder
ZeaChem Inc.

Dan W. Verser, Ph.D.
Co-Founder
EVP R&D
ZeaChem Inc

José Goldemberg, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus University of São Paulo
São Paulo, Brazil and Former Secretary for the Environment

Neal Gutterson, Ph.D.
President and CEO
Mendel Biotechnology Inc

James Zhang, PhD
VP of Tech Acquisition and Alliances
Mendel Biotechnology Inc

Mark D. Stowers, Ph.D.
Vice President, Research and Development
POET
13
Steen Skjold-Jørgensen, Ph.D.
Vice-President of Biofuels R&D
Novozymes North America, Inc.

Claus Fuglsang, Ph.D.
Senior Director of Bioenergy R&D
Novozymes, Inc.

John Pierce, Ph.D.
Vice President-Technology, DuPont Applied BioSciences &
Director, Biochemical Sciences and Engineering
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.

Mike Arbige, Ph.D.
SVP Technology Genencor,
a Danisco Division

Joe Skurla , Ph.D.
President, DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol

David Mead, Ph.D.
CEO, Lucigen Corporation

Bernie Steele, Ph.D.
Director, Operations
MBI International

Stephen del Cardayre, Ph.D.
Vice President, Research and Development
LS9, Inc.

Douglas E. Feldman, Ph.D.
Corporate Development
LS9, Inc.

Matt Carr, Ph.D.
Director, Policy
Industrial and Environmental Section
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)

R. Michael Raab, Ph.D.
President
Agrivida, Inc.

Philip Lessard, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Agrivida, Inc.

Jeremy Johnson, Ph.D.
Co-Founder
Agrivida, Inc.

Humberto de la Vega, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Agrivida, Inc.

David Morris, Ph.D.
Vice-President
Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR)

Gregory Luli, Ph.D.
Vice-President, Research
Verenium Corporation

Kevin A. Gray, Ph.D.
Sr. Director, Biofuels R&D
Verenium Corporation

Gregory Powers, Ph.D.
Executive VP, Research & Development
Verenium Corporation

Keith A. Krutz, Ph.D.
Vice-President, Core Technologies
Verenium Corporation

Nelson R. Barton, Ph.D.
Vice-President, Research and Development
Verenium Corporation

Hiroshi Morihara, Ph.D.
Chairman of HM3 Ethanol

Kulinda Davis, Ph.D.
Director of Product Development
Sapphire Energy

Neal Briggi, Ph.D.
Global Head of Enzymes
Syngenta Biotechnology Inc.
15
Jeffrey Miano, Ph.D.
Global Business Director Biomass
Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.

Ian Jepson, Ph.D.
Head of Enzyme R&D
Syngenta Biotechnology Inc

Patrick B. Smith, Ph.D.
Consultant, Renewable Industrial Chemicals
Archer Daniels Midland Research

Terry Stone, Ph.D.
Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.

Ramnik Singh, Ph.D.
Director, Cellulosic Processing & Pretreatment
BioEnergy International

Cenan Ozmeral, Ph.D.
SVP and General Manager
BioEnergy International

Cary Veith, Ph.D.
Vice-President
BioEnergy International

Cc: Mary Nichols, Chairman, Air Resources Board
David Crane, Special Advisor for Jobs & Economic Growth, Office of Governor Schwarzenegger
Linda Adams, Secretary, Cal-EPA
A.G. Kawamura, Secretary, California Department of Food & Agriculture
Mike Scheible, Deputy Director, Air Resources Board
Karen Douglas, Chair, California Energy Commission

[glitch]

1. K & R nt

[kristopher]

2. More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

California isn't listening to either Inhofe or you.

John, don't you think the ethical course would be to divulge your financial interests in the construction of ethanol facilities?

[JohnWxy]

4. what do you mean by "dissent over man-made global warming "claims"?"

Are you saying these claimed people don't think human activities are the major cause of global warming??? Wow!
And what 700 scientists?

Actually, given that I just posted a letter signed by a hundered scientists pointing out that the use of the nascent field of research of ILUC of fuel usage (all fuels, not just biofuels have indirect affects) IT IS IRRELEVANT whether i am invested in ethanol production or not. The letter to Gov Schwarzeneggar was signed by about 100 scientists who are knowedgeable in this area of research - THAT'S WHAT IS IMPORTANT HERE.

HOwever, am I invested in ethanol,? that's easy: NO.

I am persuaded by the evidence which, based on the latest scientific research (university of Nebraska study), shows that ethanol reduces CO2 51% compared to gasoline. This study is important in that all the arguing over the past several years going on between scientists on the one side and article writers on the other (and one Chemical Engineer, a former employee of Shell Oil), have been based on data that is as much as 10 years old. The ethanol industry has been changing rapidly and the newer plants are much more efficient than the older plants which were the only ones in use in the mid 90's when much of the data used was gathered. This study includes performance data which includes the newer and far more efficient plants turning out ethanol today. The study also pointed out that ethanol facilities employing Closed Loop technology have an even smaller Carbon footprint reducing CO2 relative to gasoline by 64%. These are Direct Effects.

GEtting back to the letter: As the eminently qualified scientists who work in this field have indicated, the study of Indirect Land Use Changes (ILUC) of all fuels (not just biofuels) is in it's nascent stages and not nearly well enough understood to start basing regulations on. The California Air Regulations Board based their decision on a few 'studies' which, by the way, have been widely critisiced (by individual's qualified by training and area of expertise) as having drawn highly dubious conclusions based on questionable assumptions.

But I am interested in ILUC with regard to ethanol. The increased production of ethanol competes with gasoline and brings the price of gas, and oil, down. In doing so this makes many projects of exploration for more oil less cost effective. This year, it has been noted the oil companies have put many projects on indefinite hold because they are not cost effective at the current price level for gas/oil. It is entirely possible that ethanol by bringing down the price of gas is reducing ILUCs by making many exploration project NOT cost effective. This is why I AM FOR LEGITIMATE STUDIES OF ILUC affects of all fuels.

There is an area approximately the size of TExas currently set aside for oil exploration in the virgin rainforests of Brazil.:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/215628.html

Vast swathes of the western Amazon are to be opened up for oil and gas exploration, putting some of the planet's most pristine and biodiverse forests at risk, conservationists have warned.

A survey of land earmarked for exploration by energy companies revealed a steep rise in recent years, to around 180 zones, which together cover an area of 688,000 sq km, almost equivalent to the size of Texas.

Detailed mapping of the region shows the majority of planned oil and gas projects, which are operated by at least 35 multinational companies, are in the most species-rich areas of the Amazon for mammals, birds and amphibians.

Researchers used government information on land that has been leased to state or multinational energy companies over the past four years to create oil and gas exploration maps for western Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia. The maps showed that in Peru and Ecuador, regions designated for oil and gas projects already cover more than two thirds of the Amazon. Of 64 oil and gas regions that cover 72% of the Peruvian Amazon, all but eight were approved since 2003. Major increases in activity are expected in Bolivia and western Brazil.

"We've been following oil and gas development in the Amazon since 2004 and the picture has changed before our eyes," said Matt Finer of Save America's Forests, a US-based environment group. "When you look at where the oil and gas blocks are, they overlap perfectly on top of the peak biodiversity spots, almost as if by design, and this is in one of the most, if not the most, biodiverse place on Earth."

Amazon rainforest threatened by new wave of oil and gas explorationWith over 35 multinational companies racing to tap into oil and gas reserves situated in peak biodiversity spots, conservationists urge an environmental impact assessment - The Guardian

Some regions have established oil and gas reserves, but in others, companies will need to cut into the forest to conduct speculative tests, including explosive seismic investigations and test drilling. Typically, companies have seven years to explore a region before deciding whether to go into full production.

"The real concern is when exploration is successful and a zone moves into the development phase, because that's when the roads, drilling and pipelines come in," said Finer.

Writing in the journal PLoS One, Finer and others from Duke university in North Carolina and Land is Life, a Massachusetts-based environment group, call for governments to rethink how energy reserves in the Amazon are exploited.

The creation of widespread road networks will put previously inaccessible forest at risk of deforestation, illegal hunting and logging, the authors argue.

Everyone knows that oil explooration means carving roads into previously innaccessible regions of the rainforest. What inevitably follows is illegal logging of the rainforest. This along with cutting down trees for charcoal and firewood by locals is the greatest threat to rainforests . to the extent that ethanol driving down the price of gas reduces this pressure on deforestattion and land use changes it may be that ethanol provides even greater benefits of an Indirect (land use ) nature than it does in terms of the direct benefits of reduced CO2 production.

There is another sort of oil project that can be slowed or put on hold by lower gas prices: producing oil from TAR SANDS.

Here is what Tar Sands Watch of Canada has to say about producing oil from the tar sands of Alberta:

http://www.tarsandswatch.org/files/Polaris_Tarsands_Moratorium_Declaration.pdf

The deep mining and extraction of crude oil from the tar sands in Alberta has
already generated a series of ecological threats:

• greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands production are three times
those of conventional oil and gas production (currently tar sands
production emits 27 megatonnes annum and is expected to rise to 108-
126 megatonnes per annum by 2015). Thus, the tar sands are now poised
to become Canada’s largest single emitter of greenhouse gas,
compounding this country’s contribution to global warming;

• water depletion & pollution, where an average of 2 to 4.5 (and as high
as 7) barrels of water are used to produce one barrel of oil, thereby
seriously lowering the water levels of the Athabasca River, the Mackenzie
Valley watershed and other related water sources in the region. And, toxic
water spewing from tar sands production has infected fish and wildlife,
causing sickness among Aboriginal peoples downstream;

• boreal forest destruction through the stripping away of the Athabasca
forest lands through oil mining operations, thereby digging a huge hole in
the northern lungs of the planet that could, if completed, encompass the
size of the state of Florida. Yet, the boreal forests have a key role to play
in the sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions from greenhouse gases;
• tailings ponds, vast holding tanks the size of lakes, some as large as 15
square kilometers, containing hydrocarbons and other chemical by
products from tar sands production.

Tar Sands Watch

AND AGAIN THESE AFFECTS ARE BEING FELT RIGHT NOW, AND CAN BE INCREASED QUICKLY - WHEN IT CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE - IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

[kristopher]

5. It means a list of interested parties doesn't make an argument.

The California Board of Energy has produced a good process to collect and evaluate data relative to biofuels before we proceed further down a path that looks much less promising than the arguments that have driven the political decisions to date. What you can't stand is that the "precautionary principle" is being applied. Tough shit.

You wrote: "HOwever, am I invested in ethanol,? that's easy: NO."

Bullshit.

[JohnWxy]

6. names, links, do they not believe in Global Warming? By denigrating input of legitimate scientists

you only argue "ad ignoratum" .... or, given your descent into vulgar denigrating language, should I say: "argumentum a ignoramus" (ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Sorry (for laughing at my own joke), .. couldn't help myself.).


You just made up the "700"? Into the bowels of balderdash road the 700... along with the Prince of balderash Kristopher (ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!). When your argument lacks supporting facts, make some up, huh? Well, that is consistent with Pearson and Tilman's approach to ILUC "research". When you lack a relationship, pick your assumptions to shape your results. (Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha).

[kristopher]

7. Into the bottle early again, I see.

The list of 700 scientists was compiled and is maintained by US Senator Inhofe and he is using the same "appeal to authority" fallacy to deny climate change that you are using to try and undermine the policy of the California Energy Board.

So I take it you aren't getting too many orders to build ethanol plants lately?

[JohnWxy]

8. sticking with "argumentum ignoramus" I see. The last resort of those without an argument.

GHG emmissions from producing oil from tar sands 3 X that of typical oil production.

an area the size of Texas set aside in the Amazon rainforest for more oil exploration.

MOre ethanol production will drive down the price of gas/oil - making many exploration projects not cost effective - thus saving much land from development for oil recovery.

I WANT legitimate research on ILUCs for ALL fuels!

Attempting to denigrate me and 100 legitimate researchers with won't convince anybody of anything except that you are what you accuse others of being.

[kristopher]

9. What is actually happening

It is simple really; the people on the list, some researchers and some business people (all, I'd wager, with a financial stake in ethanol) are against regulatory action based on what they feel are conclusions arrived at with too little data. Right?

Quote "The Science Is Far Too Limited and Uncertain For Regulatory Enforcement"

The problem with their logic (separate from the fallacious "appeal to authority" you are making in the OP) is that the status quo they seek to preserve is a policy and regulatory regime formed in the shadow of the SAME "Science Is Far Too Limited and Uncertain For Regulatory Enforcement" environment they are complaining about.

They didn't have a problem with establishing or increasing mandates while there is a dearth of information, but they are livid that this same uncertainty should be used to justify cutting into their frenzied feeding at the trough of public money.

Where were these altruists and their scientific integrity when the political clout of the farm lobby was pouring money into their pockets to go balls to the wall with development of a technology that they NOW admit has significant potential for unforeseen consequences.

The decision by California doesn't unfairly target ethanol, it simply mandates that the precautionary principle (the gold standard in prudent public policy planning) be applied going forward. California agrees with the arguments presented in the letter regarding uncertainty and difficulty of cross technology comparisons. What they are rejecting is the assertion that the regulatory status quo should prevail until such uncertainty is resolved and that the ability to forecast indirect land use effects is as complete an exercise in futility as the ETHANOL INDUSTRY is claiming.

Now, have another Johnny Walker and mull over the self serving inconsistency in the position of these sterling representatives of industry and academia.

[JohnWxy]

10. This is NO "appeal to authority" did all you conservatives read the same ad?:

" BUY OUR BOOK and Learn the rules of rhetoric and debate and NEVER LET THAT BULLY KICK FACTS IN YOUR FACE AGAIN.!!
BE THE FIRST ON YOUR BLOCK TO IMPRESS YOUR FRIENDS WITH YOUR KILLER DEBATING SKILLS."


MY 'APPEAL' IS NOT to AUTHORITY IT IS TO SCIENCE. All you conservaties are the same. You think it's all a matter of rhetoric. The important thing is do your research and let genuine science and facts be your guide.



NOw, The Science has ALWAYS supported ethanol from the beginning.. NOW, with more efficient plants in operation making ethanol the case is just stronger (51% less GHGs for Ethanol vs gasoline). And it will get even stronger as more efficiencies are gained.


As for "pouring money into their pockets" the Petroleum Product Excise Tax Credit to blenders of ethanol of $.51 for every gallon of Ethanol (a non petroleum fuel) cost about $4.6 billion in 2008 (9.3 billion gallons of Ethanol blended). Since ethanol provided roughly 6.3% of the fuel supply and thus decreased the demand for gasoline by 6.3% (with one third of that or 2% of the entire supply of fuel, being new supply for 2008) that reduced the price of gas by about a third (because of something called the Elasticity of Price (with respect to Demand) for gasoline which measures how much a price changes for a given change in demand for gas).

(From Evidence of a Shift in the Short-Run Price Elasticity of Gasoline Demand, Hughes, Knittel and Sperling)

Based on the price income interaction, simultaneous equations and recession data models, the estimated price elasticity of gasoline demand is between -0.21 and -0.22 in the period from 1975 to 1980 and between -0.034 and -0.077 in the period from 2001 to 2006.

NOte that the Elasticity of Price with respect to demand is the inverse of the Price Flexibility. Taking the most conservative end of the range mentioned in the source (0.077) this gives you a Price flexibility of 13% for every 1% change in demand. Now just using the short term change (reduction) in demand for gasoline due to the supply of ethanol in 2008(2% of totat fuel supply) yields a 24% decrease in the price of gasoline (this would be the $4.10 peak we experienced in June 2008). This means that without the ethanol meeting 6.35 (2% new demand reduction in 20080 of the demand for gas, the price of gas would have risen 32% {(1/(1-.24) = 1.32}.

NOw applied to the total gallons of fuel consumed that would mean that ethanol could have saved us over $300 Billion or almost 65 times the "cost" in terms of Petroleum Product excise taxes not collected. {Of course, most would say that since ethanol is NOT a petroleum product the tax should not be levied on blenders in the first place and they would be right. But for sake of argument, I am willing to pretend this tax was due the government and therefor giving it up was a "cost". Even so the lowered cost of gasoline would have been about 100 times greater than this "cost".}

The reason I say ethanol "could have" saved us that much in reduced gasoline costs is that without ethanol the price of gas would not have risen a full 32% (1/(1-.24) = 1.32). My guess is, somewhere around $4.50 a gallon, gas usage would have been cut so severely and the impact on businesses would have been so severe - we would have been skidding into a depression. So the savings in the cost of gas would have been limited to perhaps $74 Billion ($4.50 - $4.00). Still this is about 16 times the "cost" of the Petroluem Product Excise tax "given up".

So by keeping the price of gas down ethanol not only saved us a say $70 Billion dollars in lower gas charges, it also prevented a depression (unfortunately, the Republican Deregulation Disaster drove us into depression anyway - ethanol could not do anything about that - except to make matters less severe then they have turned out to be).

The bottom line is producing ethanol saved us more than it "cost" and saved us from a gasoline cost induced depression or at least made our current Deregulation Depression less severe than it would have been.

AS FAR as your opinion about the sensibleness of the decision by the Calif Air Resources Board - I'll take the opinion of the 100 scientists and researchers in this field over yours (that's an EASY choice! LOL).

But look at it this way, I took my time to answer you. That I'm sure makes you feel good, important ("oh boy")! (of course, in reality I'm using your responses to shoot down the typical drivvel that one hears as criticism of ethanol. For that opportunity I guess I should thank you.)

[kristopher]

14. That is one economic analysis

Another would take the amount of money spent on ethanol research and deployment and invest it in the deployment of smart grid technology, battery manufacturing infrastructure and renewable sources of energy. Since the goal is to transition our entire economy from not just petroleum, but fossil fuels in all areas, the investment in ethanol technology is a wasteful diversion. Even when looked at strictly dealing with the transportation sector, ethanol ends up as the worst alternative available.

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85.

To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.

Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.

Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.

Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide.

Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85.

The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

And you still haven't address the point of the post you responded to:
It is simple really; the people on the list, some researchers and some business people (all, I'd wager, with a financial stake in ethanol) are against regulatory action based on what they feel are conclusions arrived at with too little data. Right?

Quote "The Science Is Far Too Limited and Uncertain For Regulatory Enforcement"

The problem with their logic (separate from the fallacious "appeal to authority" you are making in the OP) is that the status quo they seek to preserve is a policy and regulatory regime formed in the shadow of the SAME "Science Is Far Too Limited and Uncertain For Regulatory Enforcement" environment they are complaining about.

They didn't have a problem with establishing or increasing mandates while there is a dearth of information, but they are livid that this same uncertainty should be used to justify cutting into their frenzied feeding at the trough of public money.

Where were these altruists and their scientific integrity when the political clout of the farm lobby was pouring money into their pockets to go balls to the wall with development of a technology that they NOW admit has significant potential for unforeseen consequences.

The decision by California doesn't unfairly target ethanol, it simply mandates that the precautionary principle (the gold standard in prudent public policy planning) be applied going forward. California agrees with the arguments presented in the letter regarding uncertainty and difficulty of cross technology comparisons. What they are rejecting is the assertion that the regulatory status quo should prevail until such uncertainty is resolved and that the ability to forecast indirect land use effects is as complete an exercise in futility as the ETHANOL INDUSTRY is claiming.

Now, have another Johnny Walker and mull over the self serving inconsistency in the position of these sterling representatives of industry and academia.

[JohnWxy]

11. this is not an appeal to authority it is an appeal to science. Here is a little information on one

of the researchers who signed the letter in the OP.

Read about his adademic accomplishments and his work and tell me if
you think you know more about the subject of biofuels than he does.

http://www.chems.msu.edu/php/faculty.php?user=bdale


Bruce E. Dale, PhD

University Titles:

University Distinguished Professor
Associate Director: Office of Biobased Technologies


Educational Achievements:

Ph.D. Purdue University 1979
M.S. University of Arizona 1976
B.S. University of Arizona with Highest Distinction 1974


Awards of Honor:

Charles D. Scott Award

Engineering Dean

Abell Young Faculty Research Award
Halliburton Outstanding Young Faculty Award



Selected Publications

Reviewed Journal Publications

Huda, M. S., Balan, V, Drzal, L. T., Chundawat, S. P. S., Dale, B. E. and Misra, M., “Effect of Ammonia Expansion (AFEX) and Silane Treatments on Corncob Granules on the Properties of Renewable Resource Based Biocomposites,” J. Biobased Materials Bioenergy, 1, no.1, 1-10 (2007).

Wyman, C.; Dale, B.E.; Elander, R.T.; Holtzapple, M.; Ladisch, M.R.; Lee, Y.Y. “Coordinated development of leading biomass pretreatment technologies,” Bioresource Technology 96, 1959-1966, (2005).

Teymouri, F.; Laureano-Perez, L.; Alizadeh, H.; Dale, B.E. “Optimization of the ammonia fiber explosion (AFEX) treatment parameters for enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover,” 96, 2014-2018, (2005).

Wyman, C.; Dale, B.E.; Elander, R.T.; Holtzapple, M.; Ladisch, M.R.; Lee, Y.Y. “Comparative sugar recovery data from laboratory scale application of leading pretreatment technologies to corn stover,” Bioresource Technology 96, 2026-2032, (2005).

Alizadeh, H.; Teymouri, F.; Gilbert, T.I.; Dale, B.E.; “Pretreatment of switchgrass by ammonia fiber explosion (AFEX),” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 121, 1133-1142, (2005).

Laureano-Perez, L.; Teymouri, F.; Alizadeh, H.; Dale, B.E. “Understanding factors that limit enzymatic hydrolysis of biomass,” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 121, 1081-1100, (2005).

Mosier, N.; Wyman, C.; Dale, B.; Elander, R.; Lee, Y.Y.; Holtzapple, M.; Ladisch, M. “Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass,” Bioresource Technology 96, 673-686, (2005).

Kim, S.; Dale, B.E. “Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: Bioethanol and biodiesel,” Biomass & Bioenergy 29, 426-439, (2005).

Kim, S.; Dale, B.E.; “Life cycle assessment study of biopolymers (polyhydroxyalkanoates) derived from no-tilled corn,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10, 200-210, (2005).

Kim, S.; Dale, B.E. “Life cycle inventory information of the United States electricity system,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10, 294-304, (2005).

Books, Chapters, Monographs
Kim, S.; Dale B. E. “Life cycle assessment of integrated biorefinery-cropping systems: all biomass is local,” Chapter 20 in Agriculture as a Producer and Consumer of Energy. Outlaw, J.L.; Collins, K.J.; Duffield, J.A., Eds., Published by CAB International (2005).

Other Works

Nathanael Greene, Principal Author. Bruce E. Dale among 13 contributing authors. “Growing Energy: How Biofuels Can Help End America’s Oil Dependence” December 2004.

Dale, B.E.; Weaver, J.K. “Process and Apparatus for Treating Cellulosic Materials,” Russian Patent #2239329 (2004).

Dale, B. E.; Weaver, J.K. “Process and Apparatus for Treating Cellulosic Materials,” Chinese Patent #99807580.9 (2004).

Dale, B. E.; Justin K. Weaver. “Process and Apparatus for Treating Cellulosic Materials" New Zealand Patent, #507-774, (2003).

[kristopher]

15. How does his work

in the chemistry of biofuels qualify him to address the issue of public policy in energy and land use?

[JohnWxy]

12. another of the signaories to the letter, do you know this subject better than he does?

http://cci.lbl.gov/~paul/cv.html

Curriculum Vitae
Paul D. Adams

Title
Acting Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley
Director, Computational Crystallography Initiative
Head, Berkeley Center for Structural Biology
Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy Institute
Investigator, Energy Biosciences Institute

Address
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
BLDG 64R0121,
1 Cyclotron Road,
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.

Email: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Education
1992-1997 Postdoctoral Training, Yale University
1988-1992 Ph.D. in Biochemistry, University of Edinburgh
1985-1988 B.Sc. in Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh

Appointments
2009-Present Acting Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
2008-Present Investigator, Energy Biosciences Institute, Berkeley, CA
2007-Present Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy Institute, Emeryville, CA
2007-Present Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering, UC Berkeley, CA
2005-Present Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
2004-Present Head, Berkeley Center for Structural Biology, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
1999-Present Director, Computational Crystallography Initiative, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
2003-2007 Deputy Principal Investigator, Berkeley Structural Genomics Center, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
2002-2003 Department Deputy, Structural Computational and Theoretical Biology, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
1999-2005 Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
1998-1999 Senior Associate, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Bethesda, MD
1998-1999 Research Scientist, Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University, New Haven, CT
1997-1998 Associate Research Scientist, Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University, New Haven, CT

Honors and Awards
Outstanding Performance Award, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley (2004)
Technology Transfer Award, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley (2003)
Upjohn Prize for Biochemistry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland (1988)
Science Faculty Bursary, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland (1986-1987)
Class medal for Chemistry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland (1986)
Professional Activities
Reviewer for:Acta Crystallographica Section D, Biophysical Journal, J. Chem. Inf. and Modeling, Protein Science, Proteins, J. Mol. Biol., JACS, and Structure.
Member, Photon Factory International Science Advisory Committee, Life Science Subcommittee (2009-Present)
Member, UCLA-DOE Institute for Genomics and Proteomics External Advisory Committee (2008-Present)
Member, wwPDB Validation Task Force (2008-Present)
Member, NIGMS/NCRR NSLSII advisory panel (2008)
Reviewer, NCRR P41 special emphasis panel (2008)
Ad hoc member, NIH Molecular Structure and Function D study section (2008-Present)
Reviewer, DOE INCITE program (2007)
Co-teaching of UC Berkeley Chem 272A/B graduate class (2006-Present)
Member, Protein Information Management System (PIMS) Scientific Advisory Board (2006-Present)
Reviewer, NCI Intramural Structural Biology Program (2004)
Chair, NIH Protein Structure Initiative data management committee (2003-Present)
Member, International structural genomics organization task force on data deposition (2002-Present)
Co-chair, Computational Methods, American Crystallographic Association Meeting, Salt Lake City (2006)
Chair, Diffraction Methods Gordon Conference, Bates College, Lewiston, Maine (2006)
Co-chair, Computational Methods, American Crystallographic Association Meeting, Chicago (2004)
Co-chair, Diffraction Methods Gordon Conference, Bates College, Lewiston, Maine (2004)
Meeting and Workshop Presentations
2009
TeachSG Workshop, Prague, Czech Republic, April 3rd-5th.
2008
Pittsburgh Diffracton Conference, Pittsburgh, USA, October 30th-31st.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 24th-28th.
International Conference on Structural Genomics, Oxford, UK, September 20th-24th.
XXIst IUCr Congress and General Assembly, Osaka, Japan, August 23rd-27th.
Diffraction Methods in Structural Biology, Gordon Research Conference, Lewiston, Maine, USA, July 13-18th.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Beijing, China, 10th-15th.
PDB New Validation Tools, Cambridge, UK, April 13th-16th.
Pittsburgh Conference, New Orleans, USA, March 4th-5th.
Recent trends in Macromolecular Structure and Function, Chennai, India, January 7th-14th.
2007
16th CoLuAa meeting, Aarhus, Denmark, November 9th.
X-ray Crystallography Computing Workshop, Aarhus, Denmark, November 7th-8th.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 26th-30th.
RapiData course, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Brookhaven, USA., April 23rd-27th.
CCP4/MAX-INF Workshop on Phasing and Refinement, York University, UK, April 10-15th.
The Molecular Replacement method, CCP4 Study Weekend, University of Reading, UK, January 4-6th.
2006
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 26th-31st.
International Conference on Structural Genomics workshop, Yokohama, Japan, October 19th-20th.
Distributed Data Analysis for Neutron Scattering Experiments (DANSE) meeting, Caltech, USA, August 15th-16th.
European Crystallography Meeting, Leuven, Belgium, August 9th-10th.
Neutron Diffraction Workshop, American Crystallographic Association Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, August 22nd-26th.
Canadian Light Source 9th Annual Users Meeting, Saskatoon, Canada, June 15th-17th.
8th International School on the Crystallography of Biological Macromolecules, Como, Italy, May 21st-25th.
CCP4/MAX-INF Workshop on Phasing and Refinement, Barcelona, Spain, March 1st-7th.
Trends in Macromolecular Structure and Function, Chennai, India, January 18th-20th.
2005
EMBL M2M Practical Course, EMBL Hamburg, Germany, November 9th-15th.
Get Phases workshop, Peking University, Beijing, China, October 29th-November 4th.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 20th-24th.
NCCR Practical Course, Swiss Light Source, Villigen, Switzerland, October 3rd-7th.
SSRL Summer School, Stanford, USA, September 13-15th.
12th Northern Protein Structural Workshop, Galashiels, Scotland, September 7th-9th.
EMBO Anomalous Diffraction Workshop, ESRF, Grenoble, France, June 15th-22nd.
American Crystallographic Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, USA, May 28th-June 1st.
Evolving Methods in Crystallography, Erice, Italy, May 11th-22nd.
Data management for high-throughput crystallography, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK, February 9th-11th.
2004
American Crystallographic Association mmCIF workshop, CARB, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, November 16th.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 30th-November 2nd.
NIH Protein Structure Initiative Advisory Committee meeting, NIH, Bethesda, USA, October 28th.
ALS Users Meeting, Macromolecular Crystallography Workshop, USA, October 19th.
SSRL Summer School, Stanford, USA, August 16-20th.
EMBO course on automated macromolecular structure solution, Amsterdam, Netherlands, May 23rd-June 2nd.
2003
UC Berkeley department of Bio-engineering colloquium talk, Berkeley, December 18th.
NIH Protein Structure Initiative Advisory Committee meeting, NIH, Bethesda, USA, December 2nd.
Frontiers in Structural Biology Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, September 11-12th.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 25th-30th.
American Crystallographic Association Annual Meeting, Covington, Kentucky, USA, July 26-30th.
NIH Data Management Workshop, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, July 10-11th.
EMBO Anomalous Diffraction Workshop, ESRF, Grenoble, France, June 17-23rd.
International Symposium on Diffraction Structural Biology, Tsukuba, Japan, May 28th-31st.
Data management aspects of high-throughput structure determination, European Bioinformatics Institute, Hinxton, UK, March 14th-15th.
2002
Getting the most from biological data: bridging the gap between experiment, analysis and simulation, LBNL offices, Washington DC, December 13th.
Automation for High Throughput Structure Determination, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, USA, December 6th-8th.
High-throughput Synchrotron Crystallography, Argonne National Laboratory, USA, November 20th-22nd.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 25th-28th.
Automation of X-ray Structure Determination for Structural Genomics, Berlin, Germany, October 8th-9th.
Diffraction Methods in Molecular Biology, Gordon Research Conference, New London, Connecticut, USA, July 14-19th.
Berkeley & Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Summer School, Stanford, USA, July 8-12th.
Structural Genomics Informatics and Software Integration Workshop, San Antonio, USA, May 22nd-23rd.
EMBO Course on Automated Macromolecular Structure Solution, Heidelberg, Germany, May 7-16th.
Interdisciplinary workshop promoting collaboration in high-throughput X-ray structure determination, Santa Fe, USA, March 22-23rd.
High-throughput structure determination, CCP4 Study Weekend, University of York, UK, January 4-5th.
2001
Polarizability in Biomolecular Simulations, Utah, USA, December 13th-14th.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 19th-21st.
ALS Users Meeting, Macromolecular Crystallography Workshop, USA, October 16th.
EMBO/MAX-INF Anomalous Diffraction Workshop, ESRF, Grenoble, France, June 18-23rd.
West Coast Protein Crystallography Workshop, Asilomar, USA, March 25th-28th.
ESRF High-throughput workshop, ESRF, Grenoble, France, February 20-21st.
CCP4 Workshop on Refinement of Macromolecular Structure, York University, UK, January 3-9th.
2000
Computational methods in structural biology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA, December 5th.
SCBMB seminar, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA, November 6th.
RTG Student Seminar, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA, November 16th.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 21-23rd.
SSRL Summer School, Stanford, USA, September 18-23rd.
Diffraction Methods in Molecular Biology, Gordon Research Conference, Andover New Hampshire, USA, July 2-7th.
EMBO workshop for automated macromolecular structure solution, EMBL, Grenoble, France, March 15-25th.
CNS workshop, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, February 7-8th.
1999
High-throughput methods for structural genomics, Argonne National Lab, USA, November 15-16th.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 25-27th.
International School of Crystallography of Biological Macromolecules, Barcelona, Spain, September 9-15th.
IUCr Crystallographic Computing School, Cambridge, UK, August 14-20th.
XVIIIth IUCr Congress and General Assembly, Glasgow, UK, August 4-13th.
ACA Summer Course in Crystallography, University of Georgia, USA July 12-24th.
Automation of Structure Determination workshop, Brookhaven National Lab, USA, June 20-21st.
29th Mid-Atlantic Protein Crystallography Workshop, Rockville, USA, April 28-30th.
CNS Workshop, University of Georgia, USA, April 21st.
1998
EC and CCP4 Workshop on Refinement of Macromolecular Structure, York University, UK, December 14-20th.
Advanced School of Macromolecular Crystallography, Sao Carlos, Brazil, November 29th - December 6th.
Macromolecular Crystallography Course, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA, October 25-27th.
Diffraction Methods in Molecular Biology, Gordon Research Conference, Andover New Hampshire, USA, June 21-26th.
Modelling and membrane proteins, Biochemical Society UK Spring Meeting, Southampton, UK, March 31st.
1997
CCP4 Refinement and Validation Workshop, York University, UK, September 1-6th.
Validation and Refinement of Macromolecular Structures, Oporto, Portugal, August 29-30th.
Modelling of Membrane Proteins, University of Toronto, Canada, May 5th.
West Coast Crystallography Workshop, Asilomar, USA, March 15-18th.
Prior to 1997
Macromolecular Refinement, CCP4 Study Weekend, Chester College, Chester, UK, January 5-6th (1996).
IMA Program on Protein Structure and Dynamics, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, July 18-22nd (1994).
CECAM Workshop on Simulations of biological macromolecules: improving sampling with parallelism and other techniques. Orsay, Paris, November 15-17th (1993).

[kristopher]

16. Actually yes.

How does his work in the chemistry of biofuels qualify him to address the issue of public policy in energy and land use?

[JohnWxy]

13. another signatory to the letter. Think he doesn't know what he's talking about?

http://cheme.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/keasling/keasling.html

Chemical Engineering Faculty
Jay D. Keasling
Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering and Bioengineering

Hubbard Howe Jr. Distinguished Professor of Biochemical Engineering

Director, Physical Biosciences Division, LBL and Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center

CEO, Joint BioEnergy Institute

https://keaslinglab.lbl.gov/wiki/index.php/Main_Page">The Keasling Lab

email: [e-mail]
office: 717 Potter Street
mailcode: MC 3224
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]

Research Group
Recent Publications

Research Interests

Metabolic engineering of microorganisms

The research in the Keasling Laboratory focuses on the metabolic engineering of microorganisms for degradation of environmental contaminants or for environmentally friendly synthesis. To that end, we have developed a number of new genetic and mathematical tools to allow more precise and reproducible control of metabolism. These tools are being used in such applications as synthesis of biodegradable polymers, accumulation of phosphate and heavy metals, and degradation of chlorinated and aromatic hydrocarbons, biodesulfurization of fossil fuels, and complete mineralization of organophosphate nerve agents and pesticides.

Biography

Joined the UC Berkeley Faculty in 1992

Education

1986 B.S., University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Chemistry and Biology
1988 M.S., University of Michigan, Chemical Engineering
1991 Ph.D., University of Michigan, Chemical Engineering
1991-1992 Postdoctorate, Stanford University, Biochemistry

Major Awards

2007 Fellow, American Academy of Microbiology
2002 Allan P. Colburn Memorial Lecture, University of Delaware
2000 Elected Fellow of the American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering
1999 AIChE Award for Chemical Engineering Excellence in Academic Teaching, Northern California Section of the American Institute for Chemical Engineers
1995 Chevron Young Faculty Fellowship, Chevron
1995 CAREER Award, National Science Foundation
1992-1997 Zeneca Young Faculty Fellowship, Zeneca Ltd
1991-1992 NIH Postdoctoral Fellowship, Stanford University
1982-1986 Regents Scholarship, The University of Nebraska,
1982-1986 Graduation with High Distinction, The University of Nebraska


Professional Experience

1986-1991 Research Assistant, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan
1991-1992 Postdoctoral Research Associate, Dept. of Biochemistry, Stanford University School
1992-1998 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
1998-2001 Associate Professor, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
1999-2000 Vice Chair, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
2000-present Executive Committee Member, UC BioSTAR Program
2000-present Director, University of California BioSTAR Program
2001-present Professor, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

[kristopher]

17. How does his work

in the chemistry of biofuels qualify him to address the issue of public policy in energy and land use?

[Fledermaus]

3. K & R n/t