Response to “How robust are reductions in modeled estimates from GTAP-BIO of the indirect land use change induced by conventional biofuels?”

Abstract Malins et al. (2020) recently published “How robust are reductions in modeled estimates from GTAP-BIO of the indirect land use change induced by conventional biofuels?”, provided their narrative from the model improvements in GTAP-BIO over time, made several critical points regarding this model, and argued that the implemented improvements in this model tended to decrease Induce Land Use Changes (ILUC) emissions. They also provided several critical points regarding the Carbon Calculator for Land Use Change from Biofuels Production (CCLUB) emissions model. In this response to Malins et al., we address these critiques point-by-point by providing our detailed responses to key issues: 1) the GTAP-BIO model and its improvements over time; 2) the inclusion of cropland pasture in the model; 3) the observed land use changes in the US that have been the bases for improvements in GTAP-BIO model, 4) the time trends in corn price and yield to challenge the concept of the yield to price response; 5) some sources of land intensification in crop production; 6) the FAO notifications with respect to the comparison between harvested area and arable land; and 7) the GTAP-BIO results for multiple cropping. We also provided responses to Malins et al. critical points regarding the CCLUB emissions model. We hope that this response letter will open more constructive discussion among the LUC modeling community to remain focused on the big picture regarding agriculture’s role as a very effective GHG mitigation tool that can shape the new policies to govern the production and consumption of biofuels.