More Bad News about Biofuels: Land-Use Concerns Nix Benefits
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 02. 8.08
Image courtesy of TheFriendlyFiend via flickr
In a clear sign that the biofuel debate is still far from being resolved, the publication of two new studies has once again raised doubts about the alternative fuels' supposed merits in helping to mitigate climate change. According to the new research, which will be published in the journal Science, most biofuels used today cause more GHG emissions than fossil fuels if the environmental impact of producing them - the razing of ecosystems - is taken into account.
As Timothy Searchinger, a professor at Princeton University and one of the study's authors, explained to the International Herald Tribune's Elisabeth Rosenthal: "Previously, there's been an accounting error: Land use change has been left out of prior analysis." This discrepancy, he alleges, had led previous studies to greatly underestimate the environmental damage caused by biofuel production.
Joe Fargione, a regional scientist for The Natural Conservancy and the author of the second study, said that the destruction of grassland, rainforests, peatlands or savannas in countries like Brazil and the U.S. released 17-420 times more carbon dioxide emissions than the fuels they replace.
Despite the imposition of new regulations by the EU and other states aimed at curtailing the amount of biofuels imported from countries which destroy land to produce crops, Searchinger claims that their purchase - whether directly or indirectly - would still lead to the razing of natural ecosystems, simply as a result of higher demand and rising prices.
In light of similar concerns being raised about both the U.S.'s and the EU's new energy directives, which seek to boost biofuel usage for transport to 15% by 2022 and 5.75% by the end of 2008, respectively, some are questioning the climate change-fighting benefits these "green" fuels offer. Officials at the UN and various interest groups, including Washington's Renewable Fuels Association, tried to tamp down fears raised by these studies, arguing that biofuels should be part of any climate change agenda.
In an extended interview, Fargione explains what he sees as the role for biofuels in a climate change strategy:
"There is a role for biofuels. Although there is no silver bullet to solve climate change, there are many silver BBs.
Biofuels can be a silver BB if produced without requiring additional land to be converted from native habitats to agriculture. For example, biofuels can be made from waste from agriculture and forests, and from native grasses and woody biomass grown on marginal lands unsuitable for crop production.
We not only have to consider how we produce biomass, but how we convert it to energy. Producing liquid transportation fuels may not be the most efficient way to use the energy contained in biomass.
Multiple technologies currently exist that can economically convert biomass for heat, cooling and electricity. To make the best use of biomass from a climate change standpoint, we should consider these uses, not just producing liquid transportation fuel."
Via ::The Nature Conservancy: The True Cost of Biofuels (news website)
See also: ::Secret Report Threatens European BioFuels Strategy, ::European Union to Ban Imports of some Biofuel Crops
Crops grown in soil for fuel seems like a bad idea for me, (I always wonder and never hear about soil depletion) but that does not mean bio-fuel is a bad idea.
Algae is a better feeder for bio fuel. It has a 50x greater yield per acre (literally), it can be grown above ground in tubes, or downstream from animal feedlots where it will remove pollution form the water before the water goes farther downstream, or it can be grown next to a power plant, and feed on the CO2 coming out of the power plant, as well as benefit from the waste heat.
I think replacing Oil by another Oil is a dead end even in short terms. Electricity, Hydrogen, compressed air, name it, all as more potential in the long run anyway.
Great article. Thanks so much. I love that "silver BBs" line, what a great analogy. really brings to light different aspects of the biofuels controversy and is still a somewhat positve message :)
Another reminder that consumption must be curbed before supply solutions can be explored.
We'll get all the biofuel kinks worked out eventually. Matter Network has an interesting article on fuels make from waste biomaterials that could make a big difference:
http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/2/a-greener-biofuel.cfm
There's a Matter Network article that talks about the prospects for greener biofuels made from waste products like garden waste and forest thinnings:
http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/2/a-greener-biofuel.cfm
Ragnar,
You mention "Electricity, Hydrogen, compressed air" but none of those are fuel sources. There is nowhere to grow or mine Electricity, Hydrogen, compressed air, they are produced by burning fuel that has been grown or mined, or by wind, or solar, or geo thermal, or tidal. They might be smart ways to transport energy, or change energy into a form that can be used in cars, but they are not sources of energy.
"Ragnar,
You mention "Electricity, Hydrogen, compressed air" but none of those are fuel sources. There is nowhere to grow or mine Electricity, Hydrogen, compressed air, they are produced by burning fuel that has been grown or mined, or by wind, or solar, or geo thermal, or tidal. They might be smart ways to transport energy, or change energy into a form that can be used in cars, but they are not sources of energy."
You couldn't take it more literal then that.
Obviously you know that they can transfer energy or we can harvest energy from it, so why say energy doesn't come from these sources?
That's like saying "Fossil fuels doesn't allow us to generate energy, they only combust, the combustion is where the energy comes from." blah blah blah.
They make it possible, that's what mainstream calls the energy, why can't he call it that?
Anywho. We all know the problem, we all know we should fix it, but not that many is willing to sacrifice their... money, time or effort.
If we really did care so much about our world, we would have halted everything until our little global warming situation had a solution, granted ALOT of people are trying, they're putting themselves first, just like most everyone does, sacrificing the least possible.
I thought about this when I read the first article about biofuel/farming industries, and i'm only 17. If a 17 year old could have thought of this, why not a scientist of a greater calibur?
This just shows me that we're approaching our problems in the worst way, hastingly and unfocused, it's like cancer research, EVERYONE is going at it, but they treat it as a RACE, if we all joined together and brainstormed, i'm quite sure we could solve our problems within a year(possible fix them within 10), instead of this big race to go down in histroy of the person to save the world from the remnants of an industrialized and polluted planet we call Home, even though most of the people on it are senseless and have no idea how to preserve our planet nor do they realise anything they do as a problem, which is why we shouldn't just make green products or solutions for a symptom, we treat the problem at its source.