bioenergy promoters are advancing preposterous claims about phytomass as the solution the world's energy problems, and are moving beyond phytomass to advocate the use of animal lipids. There is now actually a proposal to use biofuel from salmon oil (Reyes and Sepúlveda 2006). For the benefit of those who know nothing about salmonid fishes I should explain that (a) wild salmons
have been largely decimated by overfishing and hence any additional salmon catch for fuel oil would spell the final death toll for the precariously suriving species; and (b) the farmed salmon requires roughly 3.1-3.9 units of fishmeal and fishoil (which must be obtained by catching massive amounts of such wild species as sardines, anchovies and shrimp) in order to produce a unit of edible tissue (Tacon 2004). Consequently, one could not think about more insane way to either completely destroy once super-abundant marine species or to produce
a hugely negative energy outcome than producing salmon oil fuel.

Regrettably, these kinds of delusions are publicly funded, some to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Among the most bizarre ideas is (this is not a joke) an IEA program that evaluates "the risk of using animal tallow derived from specified risk materials, dead stock, and downer animals as feedstock for the production of biodiesel" (IEA 2005:39). Just imagine: relying on biofuel from "risk material": read BSE (mad) cows! How far would that go?

And there is also a proposal (thankfully a non-EIA) to "link a biodiesel plant with the cosmetic surgeons." Says a New Zealander Peter Bethune, the founder of Earthrace project aiming to set a new round-the-world powerboat speed record in a boat to be powered by biodiesel fuel partly manufactured from human fat: "In Auckland we produce about 330 pounds of fat per week from liposuction, which would make about 40 gallons of fuel" (Schouten 2005).

been regularly biking to work since '95... tidal...