Oh totally agree about land management, it’s a mess. But if you compare the long term environmental damage of practices like tar sand extraction, fracking and other forms of fossil fuel extraction, farming practices has a lot of room for improvement, unlike the former. And increasing atmospheric CO2 will accelerate top soil loss by droughts and other extreme weather, so keeping more of it in the ground is still a positive for that issue.

I’m aware that growing conventional plants for biofuel isn’t scalable, but low-land area forms such as algae tanks could be promising for some uses.

Ultimately hydrocarbon use needs to be heavily reduced. But if we can use short-cycle hydrocarbons as a temporary replacement so that we can leave more coal, oil and gas in the ground, that’d be great. Especially coal is never, ever going to be created again in quantities that’ll have a significant impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 ppm. once it is out of the ground and released into the atmosphere, the carbon will have to be sequestered again by other means. And it’s dirty af.

“Plant based” might be a bit of a PR spin, but if it helps people that aren’t very knowledgeable about the issues to see it more positively than “fossil based”, I don’t mind it. It’s not just a different cycle period, it’s about keeping as much CO2 as possible sequestered underground before it’s too late. But yeah biofuels are not some kind of panacea by any means

> we’ll use new plant based petroleum to replace old plant based petroleum

Well yea, the whole point is the difference in the length of the carbon cycle and the fact that a lot of fossil fuels were created by processes that can’t exist anymore because microorganisms are much better at breaking down dead wood now, so by burning that old stuff we’re essentially releasing CO2 from permanent carbon sinks.

Not saying there aren’t major issues with biofuels, but there are good reasons why “young peutroleum” can be much better than fossil fuels.