Advertisement
Anyone care to comment on this article? I don't know much about it but somewhat discouraging to say the least. If this is true I'm thinking there must be a solution still but what?
---------
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 published Thursday have concluded.
The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production.
These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example.
These studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, 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.
Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse-gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted — directly or indirectly, intentionally or not — in new lands being cleared for food or fuel.
"When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gases substantially," said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University.
Searchinger's team determined that corn-based ethanol almost doubles greenhouse-gas output over 30 years when the land-use changes to grow corn are considered. Cellulosic ethanol made in the U.S. from switchgrass, a fuel that has been singled out by President Bush as a way to reduce the country's dependence on oil, produces 50 percent more emissions than gasoline does, the study said.
The clearing of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. "So for the next 93 years you're making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions."
Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which takes relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel. He added that governments should focus on developing biofuels that did not require cropping, such as those from agricultural waste products. "This land-use problem is not just a secondary effect — it was often just a footnote in prior papers," Searchinger said. "It is major."
Industry groups, like the Renewable Fuels Association, immediately attacked the new studies as "simplistic."
"Biofuels like ethanol are the only tool readily available that can begin to address the challenges of energy security and environmental protection," said Bob Dineen, the group's director, in a statement issued after the Science reports' release.
advertising
In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States' most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists on Thursday sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies.
The U.S. recently enacted legislation boosting biofuel production to 36 billion gallons in 2022 from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. The European Union requires 10 percent of transportation to use biofuels by 2020.
The European Union and a number of European countries have recently tried to address the land-use issue with proposals stipulating that imported biofuels cannot come from land that was previously rain forest.
Fargione said that the dedication of so much cropland in the United States to growing corn for bioethanol had caused indirect land-use changes far away — for instance, by increasing pressure on Brazil to meet soybean demand. "Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world's soybeans — and they're deforesting the Amazon to do it," Fargione said.
There should be more focus on producing biofuels from municipal waste and from land that can't be used for food crops, said Alex Ferrell, an energy and resource professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Soil and plants are essential stores of carbon, containing more than the atmosphere, he said.
Ferrell, who wasn't involved in the two studies, said the economic model used in Searchinger's study will have a "profound" impact on the biofuel debate because it questions the rationale of governments who see biofuels as a way to limit global warming.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 7:38 PM
-
Unsu...
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Wed, March 26, 2008 - 11:47 AMSo f*#ing exasperating to see this.
Did people really need a study to figure that out? This was one of the most obvious forseeable consequences of widespread biofuel use, in addition to higher arable land prices leading to higher food prices. Wake up people.
If your going to save the planet, THINK about some basic consequences of your "solutions".
You don't need to be a scientist to figure out that demand for biofuels will mean the wealthier people (to include most people who own a car) will be burning the poor people's food into energy for their car.
You really may as well go hire a team children from a third world country to carry you around on a palanquin and tell everyone how green your mode of transportation is. Atleast you'll actually have incentive to be feeding said children and won't be actually destroying rainforest to get it. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Wed, March 26, 2008 - 12:06 PMFor the sake of offering some hope:
Conspiracy theories about supressed technology aside, there is as yet no renewable energy source that can output enough energy to meet current energy demands, and certainly none that do not have serious negative consequences when they attempt to meet those demands--case in point: demand for biofuel leading to higher demand for arable land which in turn leads to higher food prices and rapid forest clearing (this is already happening).
But the situation is not hopeless. We waste so much energy, we have the ingenuity to build infrastructure which could significantly reduce energy demand. Pubilc transit, high gas prices through high taxes (make people feel the true cost of fuel use, with tax exemptions for non-luxury industries such as agriculture). This is what we need to be talking about. Biofuel is a huge waste of time and energy at this point.
Maybe in the future, when they finally get the algae worked out and find that that doesn't have any negative consequences itself, or if someone else finds some other way to produce biofuel which lessens the negative consequences. But as of right now, its probably he worst idea since the atom bomb. Genius but devastating.
-
-
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Wed, March 26, 2008 - 1:32 PM<Searchinger's team determined that corn-based ethanol almost doubles greenhouse-gas output over 30 years when the land-use changes to grow corn are considered. Cellulosic ethanol made in the U.S. from switchgrass, a fuel that has been singled out by President Bush as a way to reduce the country's dependence on oil, produces 50 percent more emissions than gasoline does, the study said. >
What I have never understood is why these industries are trying to grow new plants for biofuels unless they have a vested interest in the production and transportation. I feel that ethanol is a scam. If the world wants energy that does not require deforestation in the Amazon and more input energy than can be extracted, we would look for local solutions tot he problems.
Considering the fact that fast food is not going to stop mass producing crappy food, and many of us know that the old grease can be converted to biofuel, there is no reason to be importing soybeans from South America or clearing whole areas to grow switchgrass. The process of conversion is fairly simple. If small conversion plants were set up in every major city, throughout the city, the amount of energy needed to produce biofuel would be greatly reduced. The carbon cost of transporting veggie oils across the US is already there. We should be getting as much use out of it as possible. This also helps to recycle the oil (reuse more like), and help with disposal. Austin TX has a pretty good program where the grease is picked up for free by the conversion company. This helps food outlets as well since many of them have to pay to have grease removed.
And if people feel the need to grow new plants to be processed before using already available resources; why not take a look at rooftop gardening? Imagine how amazing it would be if every Wal-mart, Target, K-Mart, and massive chain grocery stores that are ubiquitous had full scale production of biofuel plants. If they did that, I might despise them just a little less.
The answer I feel is to look at more local solutions. The global industry dependent on fossil fuels for transportation and mono-cropping is what got us into this mess. How the hell do people think that is going to get us out of it?
Does anyone else think that it is absurd to grow biofuel plants and use petroleum to transport it to and fro? Really, who is behind this current biofuel movement? Exxon? Corn growers? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Wed, March 26, 2008 - 4:21 PMThere is enough used grease to perhaps fuel the trucks which deliver the unused grease in the first place, but even they would probably have to be supplemented.
So thats about the best bio-d could hope for right now: cutting back on the petrol use of a small portion of the fleets that deliver foodstuffs for restraunts. (That is its the best it could hope for without using arable land which should be being used to grow food)
-
-
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Wed, March 26, 2008 - 5:05 PMGuys, this is getting a little out-of-hand. Biofuels aren't inherently crap. They're just crap *today* because (commercially) they're made in less-than-ideal ways.
But that doesn't mean that it will always be that way.
Oil producing algae (which can easily be produced on land which isn't what you would called "arable") is one avenue. As are other oil and cellulose crops that don't compete with food for land. Recycled oil recovery is another interesting avenue, too (although I see it as fairly niche).
Sure, it sucks now. But I'm still buying my B99. Not because I'm clueless about the underlying realities of how my fuel is produced, but because biofuels won't ever have the opportunity to get awesome unless there's enough demand to force research and production through these growing pains.
Sure Biofuels are not THE answer. And I agree that there is not currently one single "THE" answer out there.
But if all the variety of answers (which include curbing usage) improve in the direction that current research indicates they could, then we have, all-combined, have *AN* answer. And Biofuels (along with solar, wind, low-impact hydro, fusion, etc.) can play a significant role as one of those many solutions.
Why does everybody think it has to be a single silver bullet? Sometimes you're better off killing your prey with a BUNCH of LITTLE BB's from a shotgun.
And what's the alternative, anyway? Quit driving?
I suspect I drive less than many of you (working from home and living on an island which encourages one to stay local) but damn guys, I still got to drive sometimes. And it's either high-mileage gas burners or biofueled (I'm omitting electrics until they're practical for the average consumer). Give those two choices I'll take the biofuels (and their higher price and the realities of their production) any day. I consider every tank of B99 a protest vote against the oil-industry (and the automotive industry which continues to deny the US high-mileage, low emission diesels) and a vote-of-confidence in an alternative fuel source.
And I'm going to keep doing that until I can afford my Tesla. :-)
Come on guys, don't make it all sound so negative.
The fact that we're even having this conversation means that we've already turned a corner. Demand for alternative energy sources (and biofuels, specifically) continues to rise. To the point where it's actually starting to compete with other aspects of the economy. Hot fucking damn. That's a bad thing?
And, as a result of the realities of fulfilling that demand, the research into biofuels and other alternative energy resources are being addressed by unprecedented levels of research and capital. We just gotta let it run a little longer so it can all get to the next step.
Sheesh.
- grey -
-
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Wed, March 26, 2008 - 9:23 PMyeah grey , i agree with you about the need for less consumption and multiple approaches to solving the fuel problem.
i posted this morning and didnt mean to sound negative at all. I did want to acknowledge that i don't believe biodiesel to be the absolute answer. but just because something is not a panacea doesn't mean we should just discard it all together.
i really feel like the general public really is making a positive shift toward organics, local food, and trying to go green. not all the kinks are worked out but we are headed in the right direction.
cities are such huge energy consumers. i think in order to ease the burden on outside inputs, we need to look at ways the cities can make its own energy or reuse everything it has as much as possible. San Francisco has some interesting programs that divert waste from the landfills:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news....html
eventually a large part of the solution will be lifestyle changes that curb consumption.
for example, i turn off the water while i soap up in the shower.
anyway, good call addressing the vibe here. i would like to participate in positive conversations and brainstorming sessions.
peace
<Why does everybody think it has to be a single silver bullet? Sometimes you're better off killing your prey with a BUNCH of LITTLE BB's from a shotgun. >
haha funny analogy
-
-
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Thu, March 27, 2008 - 9:00 PMFriends are always asking me about the biod and pros and cons, I don't think anyone thinks it is the only answer to our fuel problems.
For me it is an answer for today, until we figure out some better ways. WVO is a real nice quick fix too. Down her ein South Fl diesel is 4.21 a gallon today, Tampa area. I think I'll stick with my biod for now. Not all of us can afford a hybred, my 4k benz will do just fine for now. -
-
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Thu, March 27, 2008 - 9:01 PMi should say that the local biod distributor here has been out for a few days now, first time i put diesel in my car in three months -
-
Unsu...
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 6:06 PMIf you want to stop contributing directly to world hunger its probably better that way. -
-
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 9:29 PM> If you want to stop contributing directly to world hunger its probably better that way.
Not sure that's a fair statement. While it seems a reasonable enough assertion on it's face, the fact is that if we are indeed flirting with a global tipping point with respect to climate change, continuing to dump the byproducts of petrodiesel combustion into the atmosphere might well be the single worst thing you could possibly do for the planet, and by extension, for subsistence farmers worldwide.
I'm very alarmed at the rapid conversion of rainforest to palm oil plantations. But those projects are being driven by the perceived demand which was predicted a decade ago. Today's deforestation is driven by forecasted demand. Reduce that demand, and you'll reduce the deforestation. Simple as that. Fueling with petro rather than bio is unlikely to have much impact on worldwide demand, unfortunately.
SUSTAINABLE biodiesel is one (not THE) answer. But still a drop in the overall bucket.
Using your bike, convincing your friends to do the same, and lobbying for bike-friendly city planning might be the single biggest bang for the buck available to us peasants in terms of reducing demand. If you don't drive, you can't use big oil.
The corn ethanol boom is just one more big agribusiness scam in a looong line of scams. But keep in mind, if you don't farm the oilseed crop using tons of mechanized equipment and petro chemical fertilizers, there is simply no debate that the environmental impact is far less than that of mining and burning petroleum fuels. And obviously sustainable, in sharp contrast to petroleum. -
-
Re: Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 3:27 AMHere in Costa Rica we are experimenting with Jatropha curcas trees to make biodiesel. There's plenty of old, worn out steep pasture with soils that need reconstruction and this crop, carefully managed, could do that. Next we are researching interrow food crops as the soils come back. Finally we are considering the use of Jatropha byproducts and wastes to produce food. All fine except for one thing. This crop must be hand harvested by picking the fruits. And Costa Ricans are becoming just like those who live in the US, no one wants to do grunt agricultural work any more so labor must be brought in from other countries. Soaring food prices may force people to start producing some of their own food again like the Victory Gardens of World War II. This could be a positive effect!
-
-
-
-
-
-