Pretty sure that burning things generally leads to a lot of carbon emissions..
Some praries burn regularly and some don't. Most (as I said above, most land types) do not have significant ongoing accumulation of carbon in the soil. Obviously there are some biomes that do. Citing the fact that prairies burn as proof that they aren't long-term carbon neutral just seems to me like a low-quality argument if you are trying to challenge what I have suggested here, that land use changes are a one-off carbon cost which is paid off by biomass being used in fuels which replace fossil carbon.
You're also replying to someone who completely ignored the difference between the amount of carbon biomass and the change over time of that amount.
If I am completely mistaken and land types which are plausibly converted from unmanaged to biofuel crops are in fact accumulating significant stored carbon on an ongoing basis then tell me so and I stand corrected.
> Various studies of the potential for tallgrass prairie carbon storage have shown that the storage rates vary between .30 and 1.7 metric tons per acre per year. This storage ability is cumulative over time
> Ironically and sadly, because they produce the best, deepest and richest soils, grasslands have been their own worst enemy as they have been rapidly converted to agriculture.
Pretty much at odds with your whole point of converting to farmland being net neutral.
Prairies in the Midwestern United States (where we grow most of the corn for Ethanol) do burn (or rather, did), and do have significant long term accumulation of carbon in the soil - it's literally why our soil is so good for farming (for now). Like, where on earth do you get the nonsense idea that they're carbon neutral ecosystems? Tallgrass prairie has crazy deep roots that over time can place a lot of carbon in the ground, not even accounting for the persistent char layers that accumulate after periodic burns. Thousands of years of accumulation adds up, and converting it to farming:
1. Removes that service 2. Has one off costs 3. Has ongoing costs, in that biofuels are not (currently) carbon neutral at all 4. Has other negative impacts.
Assuming that biofuels have a one-off cost and then become carbon neutral just isn't supported by the evidence - it's a simplistic argument that is so at odds with the literature that I have a hard time taking it seriously.
Also, it might be true that prairies do long term accumulation of carbon, but not true that this represents more carbon than that which is removed from the environment by biofuel crop growing and harvesting. That was my original claim and I don't think you've shown quantitative evidence that it should be dismissed.