Like David, I'm not reflexively opposed to biofuels. But I'm very skeptical that they can significantly displace crude oil as fuel for a 211-million fleet of cars. Reducing reliance on cars--say, by building out a functional train system--probably trumps biofuel subsidies as a wise course for public policy.

Victual Reality

In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44 x 1018 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota".

In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals.

The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy - and the extraordinary power densities it gives us - with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction.

Biofuels are turning the surface of the planet into money, environmentalists need to wake up:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2006/2006-01-24-10.asp

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

Replace liquid fuels with electricity derived from renewable sources.  Like these floating wind machines.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/26/1723898.html

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

On a more serious note...to Tom Philpott -- trains are nice, but the bigger and probably more important trick is to arrange our lives so we have to travel a lot less than we do now.  Which--if global examples mean anything--probably means living in much denser cities and neighborhoods.  Manhattan-style living is pretty darn fuel efficient; and it also creates the densities that can allow trains (or other transit) to actually be cost effective.

I'm very interested in what Iogen is doing in Idaho right now -- they're actually developing a cellulosic ethanol plant (see, e.g., http://www.aginfo.com/reportView.cfm?recordid=1505). A little experience there should give some clues about whether the marketplace--not to mention the landscape--will sustain this sort of thing.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm

I tend to agree that technologies such as cellulosic ethanol and algal biodiesel won't really take off under today's current market conditions but if a cap & trade system on GHG emissions comes to fruition in the U.S. (which seems inevitable given the global pressure to do so), then these solutions become a lot more attractive in the marketplace.  

Biofuels can be produced sustainably.  Contrary to biodiversivist's beliefs, not all biodiesel feedcrops are grown in orangutan habitat.  Domestically produced biodiesel has no ill effects on biodiversity beyond the effects of industrialized agriculture.  

To respond to Tom P., two popular biodiesel feedcrops, mustard and rapeseed/canola, actually fix nitrogen in the soil.  While they aren't tilled under like a typical cover crop, which would be ideal for soil health, they are improving the soil.

Also, to clear up a common misconception.  Palm oil biodiesel won't really work in most of the U.S. It gels up when the temperature dips below 55 degrees, as in jello in your fuel tank.  Even with the latest fuel additives, developed only in the past month, the fuel still gels at 32 degrees (important to note that no biodiesel fuel additives have panned out yet).  How practical is that for the U.S. and Europe?  So it's not like Palm oil biodiesel is primed for U.S. consumption, as has been purported on this blog and elsewhere.  

Lastly, how does global warming impact the world's biodiversity? What is the impact of not exploring carbon friendly solutions like biofuels?  Out of the frying pan into the fire if you ask me.  

Our efforts should be going into efficiency and reducing our energy needs, not more ways to rape Mother to feed our voracious appetites.

a liberal in redsville

Also, my arguments are not against future technologies like algae. The argument is about existing technologies and what they are doing to the planet. They are separate discussions. Mixing them together is a smoke screen. Soy or rapeseed refinery infrastructure cannot be used for algae. But, I have said all of this before.

Biofuels can be produced sustainably.

One problem you have is finding an environmentalist who thinks our industrial food crop system is sustainable. At least you said "can be" instead of "are being produced sustainably."

Contrary to biodiversivist's beliefs, not all biodiesel feedcrops are grown in orangutan habitat.

They aren't? Now you tell me. How about where the Amazon used to be?

Domestically produced biodiesel has no ill effects on biodiversity beyond the effects of industrialized agriculture

Let me qualify that statement a little, if I may:

Domestically produced biodiesel has no ill effects on biodiversity beyond the effects of industrialized agriculture and assuming it does not usurp the millions of acres of conservation reserve land now acting as a giant carbon sink thus destroying habitat needed to maintain biodiversity.

Also, to clear up a common misconception. Palm oil biodiesel won't really work in most of the U.S. It gels up when the temperature dips below 55 degrees.... Even with the latest fuel additives, developed only in the past month, the fuel still gels at 32 degrees (important to note that no biodiesel fuel additives have panned out yet)

It is interesting to hear you tout future potential advances in the production of biofuels while at the same time pooh-pooh future potential advances that will make imports of palm oil useable in low temperatures. The last time you cleared up a common misconception you said:

Biodiesel is currently, for all intents and purposes, a domestically produced fuel. Part of its budding appeal is that the U.S. wouldn't be importing it. You're assuming that biodiesel will be a cost effective export fuel and that has never been proven in real world circumstances

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/19/Business/Huge_biodiesel_shipme.shtml

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060113005 080&newsLang=en

But, I have said all of this before.

How practical is that for the U.S. and Europe?

You tell me. Better yet, you better tell Europe who is importing it hand over fist, increasing the demand from Malaysia by over 9 percent from last year. From Monbiot's article:

Last week, the chairman of Malaysia's federal land development authority announced that he was about to build a new biodiesel plant. His was the ninth such decision in four months. Four new refineries are being built in Peninsula Malaysia, one in Sarawak and two in Rotterdam. Two foreign consortiums - one German, one American - are setting up rival plants in Singapore. All of them will be making biodiesel from the same source: oil from palm trees.
"The demand for biodiesel," the Malaysian Star reports, "will come from the European Community ... This fresh demand ... would, at the very least, take up most of Malaysia's crude palm oil inventories." Why? Because it is cheaper than biodiesel made from any other crop.

I could swear that I have said all of this before.

Lastly, how does global warming impact the world's biodiversity? What is the impact of not exploring carbon friendly solutions like biofuels? Out of the frying pan into the fire if you ask me.

Here is the answer to both of your questions: Crops to produce vegetable oils to meet the demand for biodiesel are directly destroying tens of thousands of square miles of rainforest as I write. You want documentation, I got it. Out of the frying pan into the fire indeed, or shooting yourself in both feet.

The winners in the fee market need consumers. If consumers choose not to purchase biodiesel it will not be a winner. Electric cars may be the winners. Admittedly, that will be hard to do if the government makes you use it. A few years from now, you will soon have no way to tell if your biodeisel came from Indiana, Indonesia, or South America. Do you know where your coffee was grown? Without piling your state tax money on top of your federal tax money to bring the costs down, it is highly unlikely that biodiesel sold in Seattle is going to come from the northern latitudes and poor soils of Washington State, not if the free market has any say in it.

Some day, if it really can be made in quantities from algae, we will have a whole new ball game. But, by then, there may be little left to save.


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

This argument is about biofuels, not industrialized agriculture. If biofuels went away tomorrow, there would still be unsustainable industrialized agricultural practices.  It's easy to point out the problems and only harp on them, as long as you also consider the massive benefits of a 3 to 1 net energy gain (from biodiesel) and 78% less CO2 than petroleum.  

They aren't? Now you tell me. How about where the Amazon used to be?

Obviously, there are biofuel feedcrops being grown around the world. They aren't all being grown in Orangutan habitat, that was my point.  

Let me qualify that statement a little, if I may: Domestically produced biodiesel has no ill effects on biodiversity beyond the effects of industrialized agriculture and assuming it does not usurp the millions of acres of conservation reserve land now acting as a giant carbon sink thus destroying habitat needed to maintain biodiversity.

And where, may I ask, are millions of acres of conservation reserve being usurped in the U.S.?  Hence the meaning of the word domestic...

It is interesting to hear you tout future potential advances in the production of biofuels while at the same time pooh-pooh future potential advances that will make imports of palm oil useable in low temperatures. The last time you cleared up a common misconception you said: "Biodiesel is currently, for all intents and purposes, a domestically produced fuel. Part of its budding appeal is that the U.S. wouldn't be importing it. You're assuming that biodiesel will be a cost effective export fuel and that has never been proven in real world circumstances"

This is just an effort to smear me.  I'm surprised quite frankly. You make very coherent arguments, I didn't expect you to stoop to that.  I wasn't poo-pooing anything, merely stating the facts about biodiesel additives - I really don't want palm oil biodiesel to succeed, but algae, I do.

At the time when I made the statement you quoted, U.S. biodiesel was predominantly domestically produced. In fact, it still is.  While Europe is importing biodiesel, the U.S. really hasn't imported much more than a trickle of it.  And in the U.S., ethanol imports in 2005 from Brazil total only 112 million gallons, a mere 1% of the global production capacity (Stats from Grist: http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/12/15/hearn/) A lot has changed in the past 8 months.  I have since earned up to this mistake on my part with this comment:

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.

You never answered my question about how climate change impacts the world's biodiversity?  I know your views on why imported biofuels are bad for biodiveristy, but I'd like to know what you think the effects of runaway global warming will be on rainforests.  

A few years from now, you will soon have no way to tell if your biodeisel came from Indiana, Indonesia, or South America. Do you know where your coffee was grown?

I know where my biodiesel comes from because I ask, the same applies to my coffee.  

I am concerned, like you, that not everyone will ask.  Most folks will buy the cheapest fuel and be done with it. But not if conscientious advocates of biofuels continue to support domestic production. Aside from the "do-gooders", do you think the U.S. agricultural lobby wants consumers to buy biofuels from Brazil and Malaysia? You don't think they'll insist upon tax incentives only for U.S. fuel and labeling schemes to inform consumers?

While I don't necessarily support subsidies on principle, if given the choice, I'd rather subsidies go to support domestic biofuels than to go towards foreign oil.  I'd rather the free market decide, in the absence of subsidies.  But the free market relies upon equal access to information and that the true costs are reflected in the product.  Right now, the costs of petroleum are largely hidden, like the costs of GHG emissions and war.  

The point I keep coming back to is that there is a way to do it right.  You seem intent on poking at what's wrong rather than supporting something that's right.  Affecting change requires a broad-based movement and the perfect is the enemy of the good. Although I think both viewpoints are important, you can choose to support sustainable biofuels or to denounce unsustainable ones.  I tend to see the glass half full, particularly in light of the many promising technologies on the horizon.  

You never answered my question about how climate change impacts the world's biodiversity? I know your views on why imported biofuels are bad for biodiveristy, but I'd like to know what you think the effects of runaway global warming will be on rainforests.

That is a good point Greenstork. People have lost sight of the real goal. They think the goal is to reduce global warming but it isn't. Think about it. The goal is to preserve the planet's ecosystems. We are attempting to save those ecosystems by stopping global warming. Destroying ecosystems to stop global warming is, how do I say this... just plain stupid (that remark is not aimed at you). Destroying rainforests or plowing under conservation land carbon sinks to grow biofuels is robbing Peter to pay Paul and makes no sense at all. And, on top of that logic, deforestation greatly exacerbates global warming. Schemes to reduce global warming that destroy biodiversity are completely contradictory to the ultimate goal, which is the preservation of the Earth's ecosystems (saving biodiversity), and are therefore self-nullifying.

Our domestic production of biodiesel using conventional food crops has the potential to reduce the annual US contribution of CO2 less than half of a percent with soy, and a percent or two, with rapeseed (a future scenario), leaving 99.5 untouched. That will not save any rainforests. Ethanol made from corn does not even reduce CO2. Look at the thousands of square miles of rainforest lost in large part to soybeans in South America in just the last two years. How can you equate that as being a better alternative to having no biodiesel? I have all the numbers, with multiple sources if you want them.

I completely understand your point of view. I see no harm in producing small amounts of biodiesel domestically. It burns much cleaner than today's diesel fuels, and can supplement diesel supplies. The problems start to arise with higher demand and production to meet that demand using conventional food crops like soy and rapeseed. I am not against biofuels, I am against biofuels that compromise biodiversity.

If biofuels went away tomorrow, there would still be unsustainable industrialized agricultural practices.

That is a good argument only if you assume that demand for biodiesel will not outstrip the ability of existing cropland to produce it. When that happens, biofuels will be increasing those practices. There are only two options: displace food crops, or put our conservation reserve land, which presently makes the US a carbon sink, to the plow.

It's easy to point out the problems and only harp on them as long as you also consider the massive benefits of a 3 to 1 net energy gain (from biodiesel) and 78% less CO2 than petroleum.

It is even easier to refuse to acknowledge the environmental price that will be paid to grow them. In the US, the energy gain comes with a price of stuffing 11.6 football fields of soy oil into your gas tank annually, in other parts of the world, it comes from stuffing rainforests into your gas tank. The 78% is even questionable. I was surprised when I ran my own numbers. Note that the study was a joint one with the Department of Agriculture. Note the soybean paint scheme on the bus. My point? You cannot accept as fact everything you read. You need to see the math and the sources and then decide, and if there is evidence of potential conflict of interest (soybeans painted on the side of a bus) and therefore bias, take what you read with a grain of salt. That is just human nature. Here are my numbers.

And where, may I ask, are millions of acres of conservation reserve being usurped in the U.S.? Hence the meaning of the word domestic...

Conservation reserve land is land that was once farmland that is now held in reserve. The government pays farmers something like $40 an acre to keep it out of production, to keep prices from tanking. It can be seen as another form of subsidization, or more recently, it is seen by environmentalists as the price to pay to conserve wetlands and other kinds of wildlife habitat. It has also inadvertently acted as a giant carbon sink.

I know where my biodiesel comes from because I ask, the same applies to my coffee.
I am concerned, like you, that not everyone will ask. Most folks will buy the cheapest fuel and be done with it.

You can bet your right arm that very few will ask. Read this article to see how many people buy shade grown coffee. How many people in Florida and the southwest where the tankers from South America are docking are asking where their fuel came from? Palm plantations have been destroying rainforests for some time now. There is a failed campaign to stop the destruction that has been around for years. Just imaging the futility of trying to control the damage thanks to biodiesel. Do you know which food products you eat used environmentally friendly palm oil?

But not if conscientious advocates of biofuels continue to support domestic production. Aside from the "do-gooders", do you think the U.S. agricultural lobby wants consumers to buy biofuels from Brazil and Malaysia? You don't think they'll insist upon tax incentives only for U.S. fuel and labeling schemes to inform consumers?

You are advocating a return to the defunct, "Buy American" campaign. Consumers killed that idea first time around, they will kill it again. The basic goal of a free market is to produce the lowest price for consumers. Do you think Joe six pack is going to vote for a politician who makes him buy "Made in America" biodiesel when cheaper fuel is trying to get into our ports?

But the free market relies upon equal access to information and that the true costs are reflected in the product. Right now, the costs of petroleum are largely hidden, like the costs of GHG emissions and war.

That is true, and until Monbiot, myself and a handful of others started pointing out the true costs of biodiesel, consumers were, and still are, being misled. It is not grown locally (but depending on your definition, it may be grown domestically), it is not carbon neutral, it does compete with food for cropland, it does pollute the air worse than a gasoline car, it is being imported, it is destroying rainforests, and hell, it doesn't even really smell like popcorn. How can you call something that feeds 11.6 football fields of crops to your car annually environmentally friendly? Jesus, we consume 10 pounds of coffee, 70 pounds of beef and 4000 pounds of auto fuel annually.

My two neighbors bought diesel cars specifically to burn biodiesel because they knew of no downsides whatsoever. They were both surprised to hear that their cars spew 5 to 10 times more NOx, than a gasoline car and consume 11.6 football fields of soy oil annually. Let me know if you want to see the numbers again. I have honed them and doubled up on the sources. Rapeseed would cut that to 3.9 football fields, still not good.

Environmentalists should be supporting research that leads to something like algae. Supporting the building of an infrastructure that makes biodiesel out of food crops does nothing to facilitate research that might find ways to make it out of algae. In fact, the more entrenched and powerful it gets, the less likely it will be displaced.

We are both quite obviously very concerned about the planet's health. I have no doubt that you will boycott biodiesel as soon as you learn it was not grown domestically or in an environmentally friendly way. When it reaches that point, it will be too late and you will be one of the few not buying it. I'm not waiting for it to get that far. I say boycott any fuel that displaces food crops or consumes carbon sinks. Hold out for and demand better technology, its coming.


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

Among the finest anywhere on this subject.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

I see that there were mentions of algal biodiesel...found an interesting site that is devoted only to this topic Oilgae - Oil from Algae...provides some useful inputs in this regard

Hope this helps, and may a thousand discussion bloom about biofuels!

Ec @ IT