Filed under: Biodiesel, Ethanol, Legislation and Policy
Would a five year freeze on biofuels save the planet?
In an article that is perfectly designed to elicit lots and lots of discussion (see the dozens of comments following the text), George Mobiot wrote an piece in The Guardian yesterday titled, "If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels." Sound intriguing? Read on.Monbiot's criticisms of biofuels and government policies that promote biofuels are as follows:
- "They are a formula for environmental and humanitarian disaster" because they cause "a competition for food between cars and people."
- Certain crop prices (for corn and what) are already increasing rapidly, thanks to ethanol demand.
- The only way farmers can plant enough fuel crops will be "by ploughing virgin habitat."
- Governments like biofuels because they don't really affect drivers. "They appear to reduce the amount of carbon from our cars, without requiring new taxes. It's an illusion sustained by the fact that only the emissions produced at home count towards our national total."
- Planting palm plants for biodiesel causes deforestation, and biodiesel made from palm oil "causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel."
Monbiot is right that biofuels bring their own heaping problems, especially the current production methods he has the most problems with. But he doesn't mention cellulosic ethanol or the work being done on algae biofuels. These technologies hold a lot of promise, and probably won't cause the same types of environmental destruction that palm biodiesel sometimes does. We should not cut-off these incentives.
The part where I agree with him the most is that the new fuel reality needs to affect drivers (and all of us) directly. Our fuel costs - especially the environmental ones - need to be accurately displayed so we can make the best decisions going forward.
You can read the original article here.
Related:
[Source: The Guardian via Treehugger]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 6:17PM (3/28/2007)
If you start with the assumption that the only feedstocks available for biofuels are corn and palms, then Monbiot's would follow fairly logically.
Since that isn't true, Monbiot's conclusions are also faulty.
Reply
rgseidl 7:06PM (3/28/2007)
HLK -
agreed, Monbiot should provide tools for deciding if a given feedstock delivers a net positive or not. In particular, special high-lipid algae grown intensively in bioreactrors or extensively in so-called racetrack are technologically viable, though only at the pilot stage right now. Because these organisms are single-celled, biomass yield per acre is far greater than for higher-order plants such as food crops.
Algaculture may also become possible in huge artificial enclosures in the open ocean in tropical latitudes. Think of a controlled algal bloom the size of e.g. Belgium out in the Pacific and you get the idea.
It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.
Reply
Scatter 7:44AM (3/29/2007)
I don't think his conclusions are faulty at all. What he's saying is put things on hold until these next gen fuels are available. Algal fuels are looking very interesting but as far as i understand it they are a long way from commercialisation. Ditto cellulosic (although I agree he could have mentioned both of these technologies to raise awareness).
What Monbiot does very well is to clearly lay out (and reference) his arguments with the aim of stimulating discussion, often on quite controversial issues. Also don't forget this is a newspaper article so he can't really go into a deatiled treatise on the carbon balances of different fuel stocks!
The European push for biodiesel (the vast majority of which will be grown outside of Europe) in particular could prove very costly and people need to be reminded of this.
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 7:57AM (3/29/2007)
So many naysayers! We've got to start somewhere. Yes, the current industrial models are not sustainable--that's why we're trying new things! I'm no big fan of the current administration, but I get the feeling that if a Gore administration had been on a biofuels push, we'd be hearing charges of stupidity from the hardcore right.
These fuels are a stop gap for the majority of transportation energy needs. That doesn't mean we need to stop working on them. It also doesn't mean there's no way to produce them sustainably. If we put our best minds to work on all things energy, we'll find solutions that won't collapse markets or wreck ecosystems. Most of all, keep looking for efficiency!
My advice to those in a panic: Buck up. Save the doom and gloom for those nights you can't sleep. Bore your sleeping life partner with it. But when you step out into the world of public dialog, use reason. Consider all things in a system. And when you criticize, you better Roll Wit' Sum Data, Biatch!
Reply
rick 8:23AM (3/29/2007)
Too bad all the so-called ethanol experts around the world don't know what they're talking about. Here's MIT on "Ethanol from Trash:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18084/
"There is enough municipal and industrial waste produced in the United States for the system to replace as much as a quarter of the gasoline used in this country, says Daniel Cohn, a cofounder of IET and a senior research scientist at the Plasma Science and Fusion Center.
According to Jeff Surma, another cofounder and the CEO and president of IET, the multistage system makes it possible to produce fuels from waste at competitive costs. The economics look even better when including the fact that cities and manufacturers will pay to have waste removed, he says. This makes possible costs of between 10 and 95 cents per gallon of fuel, depending on the size of IET's system and how much it is paid to take waste. IET is currently in talks with a major Midwest utility and several municipalities interested in employing its technology, Surma says."
Reply
Scatter 8:56AM (3/29/2007)
Absolutely Owain but it's not doom and gloom or panic (in fact I am very optimistic about our ability to get out of this situation we've found ourselves in). It's simply reasoned consideration of what the current state of play is. I think opting for carbon intensive bioufuels as a stopgap before new technologies come online is wrong. It gives people this warm fuzzy feeling that everything's ok but they're not seeing the bigger picture.
I fully agree that we need to develop all our options but this is relatively new technology and we shouldn't rush into doing something we might later regret. The politicians have jumped on biofuels as the panacea to our transport fuel problems and they don't fully understand them yet.
Reply
joe cross 11:00AM (4/01/2007)
Algae and trash based biofuels certainly seem to be the way to go.Corn production is currently so petroleum intensive(one source i heard claimed more petroleum use than pleasure vehicles) no wonder it is the darling of the powers that be.Does anyone have actual totals?
Reply