What the ...?

Some environmentalists wake up to the dangers of biofuels

Posted by biodiversivist (Guest Contributor) at 6:57 PM on 11 Dec 2005

Well, I have resisted the urge to post on this subject for over a week now. Take a look at this picture from BirdLife International. Like a bolt from the blue, a number of environmental organizations and individuals (BirdLife, the World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth, Forest.org, Mongabay.com, Greenpeace, and the European Environmental Bureau) have suddenly and collectively realized that biofuels may not be such a great idea. A divide is growing between environmentalists who are enamoured with or will profit from a fuel you can grow (call them the enthusiasts) and environmentalists who do not think biofuels are worth destroying rainforests for (me).

George Monbiot sums it all up in an amazing article. Take the time to read it, especially if you don't think you want to hear what he has to say. The quote at the top of his web page is especially poignant:

Tell people something they know already, and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new, and they will hate you for it.

Two paragraphs of interest:

The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as I have ever been sent by the supporters of the Iraq war. The biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in their denial as the executives of Exxon. I am now prepared to admit that my previous column was wrong. But they're not going to like it. I was wrong because I underestimated the fuel's destructive impact.

And:

All this illustrates the futility of the technofixes now being pursued in Montreal. Trying to meet a rising demand for fuel is madness, wherever the fuel might come from. The hard decisions have been avoided, and another portion of the biosphere is going up in smoke.

More stories on the subject can be found at CNS News, ENN, Stackyard, and Climate Ark.

For story: What the ...?
10 Comments | Post a Comment

Change

We'll need to make fuels from renewable sources, that's something everyone can agree on. The folks who think that biodiesel and ethanol will solve all our problems (and I used to be one of them) are assuming we can maintain a lifestyle similar to the one we have now, with suburban McMansions and empty cities. To put it bluntly; they're afraid of change.

Since I've moved into the city, I've become less of a biofuels nut. Sure, it woudl be great if my car ran on vegetable oil, but it would be even better if I didn't need a car at all.

We're not addicted to oil. We're addicted to our cars.

by Icelander at 5:29 AM on 12 Dec 2005

What I've Been Saying All Along

This is exactly what I've been saying ever since I've been posting here. There are no magical solutions to anything. The only real solution to problems caused by overconsumption (which include problems caused by consuming things we shouldn't be consuming at all, like oil) is to stop consuming. We should be advocating for a major simplification of lifestyles, not material enrichment of people at the expense of the planet and those people who live naturally (i.e., traditional indigenous people).

Tha

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 10:30 AM on 12 Dec 2005

Pimental on biofuels: the 2nd law of thermodynamic

Biofuel fans may be interested in reading a recent paper by David Pimental and Tad Patzek, which alleges that it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce a gallon of ethanol or biodiesel than the energy contained in that gallon.

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/biofuels/nrrethanol.2005.pdf

My googling for a public version of the paper revealed that the National Corn Growers Association has launched a major campaign to discredit Pimental and Patzek. Demonstrating that they don't have much to discredit with, they try to smear Pimental by associating him with a radical organization known as "The Sierra Club," while simultaneously trying to discredit Patzek because apparently he worked for Shell Oil about 15 years ago. I hope the National Corn Growers suceed in drawing ALOT of attention to this paper.

by Forrest at 12:48 PM on 12 Dec 2005

other biofuel problems

Monbiot's article addresses the deforestation that certain biofuel production would lead to. But essentially biofuel production would worsen all the standard problems of chemical, large scale agriculture. At the moment it seems clear that the energy output in the form of biofuel is actually less than the energy input in the form of fossil fuel; if any way is found to produce such high yields as to raise the energy output, you can bet that such a method would hardly be sustainable. Exhausting our soil fertility is a far worse prospect than exhausting our fossil fuel reserves, with more consequences.

by syzygy at 12:49 PM on 12 Dec 2005

Forrest, I looked into this in detail

You can see my conclusions here. Pimental's analysis is not perfect either. His claims are exagerrated as are his opponents. The bottom line is this. The energy balance is basicly a push and therefore not a real answer to long term energy needs.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 7:24 PM on 12 Dec 2005
[ Parent ]

What about WVO...

Over 80% of WVO (waste Veggie Oil) is incinerated. And in the process the biproducts are very similar to burning in a vehicle, all that energy is wasted. I understand that the overconsumption bit makes sense to all of us, but to get my neighbors and a majority of Americans to stop eating fatty fried foods is probably not going to happen anytime soon. So that oil just goes to the flame. Why can't we burn it and travel guilt free? I do everyday. if 50% of all diesel vehicles on the road today started burning WVO it would still not keep all of the WVO from being incinerated. I think we need to use it while its here. Smile!

by Moonblink at 5:55 AM on 13 Dec 2005

All biodiesel not created from rainforests

Before I dive in to my take on biofuels, let me state clearly that I am avid supporter of biofuels derived from a sustainable feedcrop. I've come a long way from my extreme enthusiasm, to a much more guarded support for this budding industry, especially in light of biofuels being exported. My enthusiasm remains for domestically produced fuels, derived from existing agricultural land.

The Pimental article makes some grossly imprecise assumptions about energy input and output. For example, he assumes that biofuels are derived from crops planted on what used to be forests. Which, of course, is perfectly applicable when evaluating palm oil plantations built on what used to be rainforests. However, it's a useless evaluation of energy balance when the feedcrops are planted on existing agricultural land, like they are throughout the entire United States. Moreover, biodiesel and ethanol have vastly different production methods. One is refined (read: high energy input) and one is extracted (read: low energy input) so it's ridiculous to lump the two together.

Pimental does not evaluate cellulosic ethanol nor biodiesel made from anything except soybeans. Soybeans, as it so happens, are one of the least efficient feedcrops for biodiesel. He also never considers that the soybeans, after they are used for the oil that goes into biodiesel, are then added to animal feed. The whole plant is typically used, but he really doesn't consider that.

I'm not trying to be an apologist here, I'm just trying to put a very controversial study in perspective. This is the only study to say that biodiesel has a 1 to 1 energy balance while dozens of studies claim it to have a 3 to 1 energy balance. Ethanol can't be as easily defended but as I said, ethanol and biodiesel are not the same fuel, all biofuels are not created equally. Biodiversivist, you've done this for months, lumping the two biofuels together in terms of energy balance, and it is truly unfair, you're just plain wrong. Ethanol is a push, biodiesel much more efficient.

And obviously, commodity biodiesel, imported from foreign countries that are stripping down rainforests is indefensible. If this trend continues, then I'll likely be changing my tune. But as long as my biodiesel is produced domestically, I'm still a supporter. It's almost the same as making an effort to buy local produce. Domestically produced biodiesel from recycled waste vegetable oil and domestic crops deserves the support of environmentalists, not their scorn. Shame on the finger pointers.

Ultimately though, I tend to agree with Icelander, we need better designed communities and fewer cars, that's the only real solution.

by greenstork at 1:19 PM on 13 Dec 2005

I agree with you that not all biofuels are created

equal. Pimental has lost a lot of credibility with me. His analysis is full of holes.

Domestically produced biodiesel from recycled waste vegetable oil and domestic crops deserves the support of environmentalists, not their scorn. Shame on the finger pointers.

First, suggesting that there is someone out there who thinks we should not recycle used vegetable oil is a strawman argument. I also disagree with your call for environmentalists to support a fuel made from domestic crops (soybeans) that will increase their ecological footprint by 10 acres (a 90% increase in my case).

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 8:31 PM on 13 Dec 2005
[ Parent ]

not exactly a supportive thread

Biodiversivist,

It seemed to me that the sentiment on this thread was to dismiss biofuels as a whole, so I thought it was worthwhile to remind everyone that biofuels can indeed be produced from recycled oil. You and most of the comments were happy to jump on the "we hate biofuels" bandwagon, failing to mention the fact that there are some highly sustainable biofuels. So while you call it a strawman argument, I felt someone needed to point out the obvious positives that were so egregiously overlooked.

Second, domestic crops does not equal soybeans. Although soybeans are the predominant crop, they are the least efficient. You have a current agricultural industry subsidized to grow soybeans for food, until relatively recently when biodiesel started growing in popularity. As it becomes more popular, farmers are growing crops better designed for oil and fuel, like rapeseed, which happens to be much more efficient. And you still ignore the fact the the leftover pant material from soybean biodiesel is used in animal feed, it's not as if biodiesel is the exclusive end use of the crop.

Not surprisingly, you don't mention any of the benefits of biofuels at reducing CO2 emissions, I guess global warming is a good thing for biodiversity?

by greenstork at 10:23 PM on 13 Dec 2005

Didn't mean to be unsupportive

Your point about recycled oil was a good one. I apologize for dismissing it as a strawman argument.

Your points about soybeans being an inefficient choice for biofuel stock and that biofuels produce little CO2 are also good ones.

I hope you will continue critiqing my thoughts in the future. I don't want to come off sounding like some preacher in a church.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 3:52 PM on 16 Dec 2005
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.