|

Conventional Biofuels are Evil, Part 43124

Byoliveridley

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

Studies Deem Biofuels a Greenhouse Threat – New York Times

I think it is time to conclude that anyone who talks up biofuels is a) affiliated with an agri-biotech firm b) Big farmer c)Lobbyist, or d)Politician beholden to a,b and c.

It’s not even close. Clearing hitherto productive forest/grassland for biofuel growth  releases 93 times the amount greenhouse gases saved by the use of this biofuel. Diverting farmland for biofuel use makes things worse as the crop substituted will then be grown on land cleared.

The studies do give sugarcane and biofuel from agricultural wastes a cautious maybe. Corn ethanol and palm biodiesel will lead to the destruction of our ecosystems, make food more expensive and scarce, and actually exacerbate global warming.

References

  1. Joseph Fargione, Jason Hill, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, and Peter Hawthorne. Land
    Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science, page 1152747, 2008.
  2. Timothy Searchinger, Ralph Heimlich, R. A. Houghton, Fengxia Dong, Amani Elobeid, Jacinto Fabiosa, Simla Tokgoz, Dermot Hayes, and Tun-Hsiang Yu. Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change. Science, page 1151861, 2008.

Blogged with Flock

Tags:

Similar Posts

  • |

    Tuesdays with Turtles – Climate change and nesting patterns

    Byoliveridley

    Turns out that in Guyana, nesting patterns are changing. Different types of sea turtles are showing up, and earlier than they used to. The earlier part can be explained by climate change, but the species distribution? I am sure there are other factors involved including habitat loss, poaching, etc. Anyway, interesting story.

    Stabroek News

    The changing nesting patterns of endangered sea turtles in Guyana, is alerting environmentalists to the impact of climate change on these marine animals.

    The shell beaches in Region One have hosted thousands of nesting turtles over the years, and conservationists have been endeavouring to protect the turtles from heavy domestic use and from being traded.

    Project Coordinator of the Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society (GMTCS) Michelle Kalamandeen told Stabroek News recently that climate change is affecting the sea turtle population.

    According to Kalamandeen, in the 1960s the Hawksbill (critically endangered) and the Olive-Ridley (endangered) were our main nesting turtles, now the green turtles (endangered) and the leatherbacks (critically endangered) are mostly coming to nest on Guyana’s shores. The Pacific Leatherback is said to be now extinct and the Atlantic Leatherback is facing extinction.

    The change in the time period for nesting in Guyana, she said, may also be a significant sign.

    Usually sea turtles nest in Guyana from March to August every year. However, for the last three to four years, says Kalamandeen, the nesting pattern has shifted from mid-January to mid-July. This may have a significant impact on the hatchlings as food availability may be an issue for them.

  • Goldman Prize – The Green Nobel – Google Earth Narrative

    Byoliveridley

    This is very inspiring, and wonderful to watch.

    The Goldman Prize has developed a tour that uses 3-D Google Earth imagery to tell the stories of the 2009 Prize recipients. Narrated by Robert Redford, the tour allows viewers to travel the world, visiting huge mountaintop removal mines, ship breaking yards and other locations where the Prize winners live and work.

    Goldman Prize – Google Earth Tour

    The Goldman honours grassroots environmentalists all over the world.

  • EPA chief: Bush climate policy working

    Byoliveridley

    If by working, you mean increasing CO2 is good for the world, a warm place is a better place, right!

    EPA chief: Bush climate policy working – Yahoo News

    The EPA said its annual greenhouse gas assessment showed that 7.26 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were released by U.S. sources in 2005, an increase of 0.8 percent from the previous year.

    “The Bush administration’s unparalleled financial, international and domestic commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is delivering real results,” Johnson proclaimed in a statement.

    This statement makes perfect sense and is the complete truth if you assume that increasing GHG emissions demonstrates “unparalleled” commitment to “reducing” greenhouse gas emissions? Unparalleled all right! Nobody’s better at emitting CO2 than the U.S of A! Wohoo!!

  • Arsenic in the News, US Edition

    Byoliveridley

    Boy, it’s all arsenic all the time on this blog!

    Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News – In Katrina’s Wake, An Arsenic Threat

    An incredible 72 million m3 of debris was created when Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc in Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005. A survey of this debris now reveals that an estimated 1,740 metric tons of arsenic could leach into groundwater from unlined landfills where the materials are being disposed (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es0622812).

    Here’s EPA’s page on arsenic treated wood, and here’s the cheerleader page for same (mmm, industry advocacy websites, delicious!). Note that the EPA is currently working with the manufacturers to “voluntarily” phase out the use of Chromated Copper Arsenate in residential settings. Note that there are several alternatives available, all of them less toxic and equally effective. While this “voluntary” action limits direct exposure for certain types of people, old wood ending up in unlined landfills will overwhelmingly affect people who live near said landfills, namely the poor, and African American. 

    Even lined landfills leak eventually, and while other organic matter may degrade before the leaking, arsenic and heavy metals are not going anywhere. Unlined landfills, which is a fancy way of saying hole in the ground where you throw trash in, are completely unacceptable in this day and age in a so called developed country like the US of A. On the other hand, it is fashionable to refer to Louisiana as a third world country, so I guess anything goes for those kinds of people, eh.

  • The emperor's "new" climate policy

    Byoliveridley

    You mut have heard by now that the emperor of the US (I call him that because he thinks he is above the law and rules by fiat) announced a new meeting to tackle climate change issues. David Roberts of Grist broke it down and concluded that it was worse than nothing. It rejects targets, groups China and India with the developed world, which ensures that nothing will ever come out of his “meeting”, kicks everything down the road until after he has abdicated his throne in 2009, and tries to take advantage of climate change to push for free trade deals.

    But this article by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post caught my attention for the rather surreal exchange between a CBS reporter and the White House spokesman.

    Dana Milbank – As the World Warms, the White House Aspires – washingtonpost.com

    In this instance, you have a long-term, aspirational goal,” Connaughton answered.

    Aspirational goal? Like having the body you want without diet or exercise? Or getting rich without working?

    “I’m confused,” Axelrod said. “Does that mean there will be targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, and that everybody will be making binding commitments?”

    “The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term, aspirational goal,” the Bush aide repeated.

    Axelrod had his answer. “Voluntary,” he concluded.

    “Well,” said Connaughton, “I want to be careful about the word ‘voluntary.’ “

    Yes, please do be careful, let’s not over promise and under deliver like we always do!

    Connaughton may want to be careful, but the plan the White House outlined yesterday listed no concrete targets or dates, no enforcement mechanism and no penalties for noncompliance. It also wouldn’t take effect until four years after Bush leaves office. It was, rather, a call to spend the final 18 months of the Bush presidency forming an aspirational goal.

    Umm, we’re not in 1985 any more, aspirational goals have long since been established, stabilization at 450 ppm C anyone?

    I love the emperor and his merry band of climate advisers!

  • Study Says U.S. Companies Lag on Global Warming – New York Times

    Byoliveridley

    Study Says U.S. Companies Lag on Global Warming – New York Times

    European and Asian companies are paying more attention to global warming than their American counterparts. And chemical companies are more focused on the issue than oil companies.

    Those are two conclusions from “Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection,” a report that Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmentalists, expects will influence investment decisions.

    The report, released yesterday, scored 100 global corporations — 74 of them based in the United States — on their strategies for curbing greenhouse gases. It covered 10 industries — oil and gas, chemicals, metals, electric power, automotive, forest products, coal, food, industrial equipment and airlines — whose activities were most likely to emit greenhouse gases. It evaluated companies on their board oversight, management performance, public disclosure, greenhouse gas emissions, accounting and strategic planning.

    The report gave the chemical industry the highest overall marks, with a score of 51.9 out of a possible 100; DuPont, with 85 points, was the highest-ranking American company in any of the industries. Airlines, in contrast, ranked lowest, with a score of 16.6; UAL, the parent of United Airlines, received just 3 points.

    Well, clearly government policy and media attitudes have more to do with market behavior and regulation than the “free market fundamentalists” would care to accept.

2 Comments

  1. Does this mean local producers of biofuels are contributing to global warming? or is this study more about the effects of neo-liberal business practices aka globalization? i.e. destroying rainforest for new biofeul crops and shipping the raw goods long distances. Can we paint all biofuel producers with the same brush?

    BTW – I don’t really have a horse in this race AND I am for the end of using combustion engines some day. Plus I’m not a, b, c. or d. I’m just thinking about selling my gasoline vehicles and getting a diesel to run biodiesel.

    But I am concerned these studies may have corporate sponsorship that could have serious pro-oil bias. (I am ready to be wrong.) I learned recently about what happens when the media hypes a new article in the journal Science BEFORE it can be vetted in a open manner.

    I’m asking some science friends in the know to look into it. 🙂

  2. Brian:

    I read the abstracts. The papers are not yet out on academic institutional subscriptions, so I will know more in a day or two. The work is genuine and reinforces the scientific wisdom that biofuels based on conventional commodity agriculture such as corn ethanol, palm oil biodiesel, etc are not sustainable, dangerous and will cause many more problems than they solve.

    Biodiesel made from leftover grease, on the other hand, is not that bad. What the science is telling us is that uncultivated land is a huge carbon sink and every time you clear land not previously used for agriculture and start growing input intensive crops such as corn, you are screwing the carbon balance over.

    So, simple rule of thumb, look for the source of the biofuel. If it is from a cultivated plant, it is not acceptable (sugarcane may be an exception, but not a sustainable one if Brazil starts chopping down its rain forests to grow cane). If it from some previously unutilized waste product such as vegetable oil, fast food grease, agricultural waste, etc, the lifecycle analysis is much more favorable as land use and the destruction of carbon sinks do not come into the picture.

    On a side note, big oil is already diversifying its holdings in the US corn ethanol based economy and stands to benefit a lot from the promotion of conventional biofuels. So, they are not in conflict, but in concert here. Big oil has the money and the infrastructure know how to get involved in new refinery building, pipelines, etc. Also, fertilizer production uses a lot of oil and natural gas, and increased corn planting leads to, you guessed it, increased oil/natural gas sales!

    On getting a car to run biodiesel, again, the source of your fuel is the most important thing. Piedmont Biofuels tries very hard to use local feedstock and locally generated waste. So they’re good. But if you start buying biodiesel sourced from Malaysia, woe betide you!

Comments are closed.