If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels

Guardian UK ^ | 3/27/2007` | George Monbiot

[Uncledave]

It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry. Now it is plain fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that it causes more harm than good. But they plough on regardless.

{snip}

So what's wrong with these programmes? Only that they are a formula for environmental and humanitarian disaster. In 2004 I warned, on these pages, that biofuels would set up a competition for food between cars and people. The people would necessarily lose: those who can afford to drive are richer than those who are in danger of starvation. It would also lead to the destruction of rainforests and other important habitats.

{snip}

Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year". According to the UN food and agriculture organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from maize and wheat.

{snip}

Farmers will respond to better prices by planting more, but it is not clear that they can overtake the booming demand for biofuel. Even if they do, they will catch up only by ploughing virgin habitat.

[Uncledave]

Corn and farmer subsidies are an awful thing, I agree. It's certainly a related issue to the ethanol discussion, but on its own merits I don't think grain-based ethanol is a good plan.

[P-40]

Put some spinners on that baby and I'll take it! :)

[Tenacious 1]

[The only long term solution is electric cars and nuclear power]

Do more research on this. The electric cars and even some of the hybrids today actually use more resources to build and operate over thier lifetime than some of our fuel guzzling SUVs. I am still working on the research for this. But, I have confirmed that the nickel mine in Canada that produced the orr for the Prius is one of the largest polluters in the WORLD. The components to get the batteries made literraly are shipped around the world for assembly is several different countries. The chemicals and processes to get these "electric/hybird" cars built use and enormous amount of energy to construct. The selling point that they use less fuel to drive is only one componenent that is lost on the overall energy usage of the machine in its lifetime, which is projected to only last about 100,000 miles. SUVs out of detroit are running 250K miles these days and take significantly less energy to produce. They use more fuel to drive, but are significantly more efficient to produce.

Like I said, I am in the process of trying to objectively debunk this. But so far I can confirm that these innovative little fuel starved techno machines are production resource hungry tyrants.

BTW - Electricity still needs to be produced to charge these cars. The electricity is still largely produced by fossil fuels. If the envirowackos would let us build about 50 more Nuclear power plants in this country, I would support more electricity usage.

Finally, my motivation for alternate energy is national security driven, not to avoid human caused global warming. I want America to be 100% independent for energy production.

[GunRunner]

A new study from Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley directly challenges that, saying that turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates.

Good one. I wouldn't want to argue with a bunch of guys from Berkeley who say that biodiesel causes global warming and benefits corporations. I'll bet they even have Al Gore on speed dial.

Good luck with commuting to work with a photovoltaic cell or your hydrogen powered car.

[Uncledave]

You're giving a false set of choices that it's either support grain-based ethanol or support the middle East.

Here's some options: drop grain-based ethanol and drill for domestic fossil fuels, build nukes, for starters.

[JamesP81]

Do more research on this. The electric cars and even some of the hybrids today actually use more resources to build and operate over thier lifetime than some of our fuel guzzling SUVs.

Yes, that is currently true in some cases (the newer lithium ion batteries being used in electrics now are much lighter and cheaper, IIRC, and that technology is not yet fully matured). Nevertheless, it is possible under the laws of physics to improve battery storage and manufacturing techniques, and it is physically possible to construct the necessary electrical infrastructure to support all of this. It is not physically possible to grow enough ethanol and biodiesel crops to satisfy demand.

People will continually refuse to consider electric cars / nuclear power until we end up in a shooting war with Iran and gas goes $7.50 a gallon. Eventually, something's going to have to give, and when it does, it'll be ugly but only then will something actually get done.

[P-40]

drop grain-based ethanol and drill for domestic fossil fuels, build nukes, for starters.

Grain-based ethanol will decrease in popularity soon enough; long-term it is just too expensive. I'm all for nukes and domestic drilling...but the problem is you need to have a lot of Americans behind you that are willing to talk to their elected representatives....and what are the odds of that happening?

[GunRunner]

Here's some options: drop grain-based ethanol and drill for domestic fossil fuels, build nukes, for starters.

I have no problem with building nuke plants and domestic drilling; they would be a critical component to moving to biofuels. Saying we need to give them up is also a false choice.

[avacado]

Some of the emerging algae-based biofuels processes seem encouraging to me, but growing corn or palm oil for this purpose is a path I think we'll regret.

I agree. It's a bit spooky that we'll have MAN vs. MACHINE for the same food source.

[The Great RJ]

A far simpler solution is move a larger portion of electric power generation to nuclear plants.

[P-40]

People will continually refuse to consider electric cars / nuclear power

Electric cars are coming, even the plug-in ones. I don't know about nuclear power though; people tend to get scared over that. Then again, our nuke plant here is about to undergo expansion...but it took the threat of a lot of new coal plants to get it.

[hedgetrimmer]

They're a fraud all right, but not for the reasons given in the article. They're a fraud because they're designed to transfer wealth (mandatory ethanol usage) from the general public to the ethanol producers and farmers at an increased dependence on foreign oil.

Guess who will be on the receiving end of the wealth transfer? Jeb Bush (Interamerican Ethanol Council founder, Florida FTAA founder) and the Fraudster-in-Chief, his brother George.

[Red Badger]

Yes, it is, but it's a start. Everyone uses cooking oils at home, and I'd love to be able to put our old used grease and oils to work in our fuel tanks, all across the nation. Plastic jugs,bottles, bags and old TV/radio/appliance cases can be made into diesel fuel. We literally throw potential fuel away. ethanol is a big green scam............

[thackney]

very detailed report, thanks for posting

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/IMG/pdf/biofuels_subsidies_us.pdf

Bump

[saganite]

This whole ethanol scam is based on a massive govt subsidy to encourage the growth of corn. That has many effects including market distortions which are reflected in the increasing price of other foodstuffs including feed corn for food animals and price increases in corn used in the production of food. You won't feel those price increases nearly as much as those who don't earn as much.

Any conservative who says he supports the ethanol boondoggle either hasn't done his research or simply doesn't believe in the Capitalist market's ability to resolve these issues in the most efficient manner. If you believe the govt can more efficiently manage our energy market than the market place then you will also believe Hillary's assertion that we need govt health care.

[from occupied ga]

Guess who will be on the receiving end of the wealth transfer? Jeb Bush (Interamerican Ethanol Council founder, Florida FTAA founder) and the Fraudster-in-Chief, his brother George.

Now that's a real surprise. < /sarcasm>

[HeadOn]

That's an interesting statement. Is that a guess, or do you have a source? If it's true, I'd like to file that one away for future use.

[GunRunner]

There's simply not enough arable land for this plan to work. It is not a workable solution in the long term.

This reminds me of the 19th century rhetorical argument about the lack of leather to make enough buggy whips for all the carriages we're going to need. There's more than one way to produce biofuels, and if we would concentrate on finding better production methods rather than lining the pockets of the Arabs, we would find a way.

I don't understand how people can call biofuel unworkable but praise President Bush for support a hydrogen powered car.

[Uncledave]

Saying we need to give them up is also a false choice.

I'm not saying we need to give it up. I'm saying we should give it up for the reasons stated: Poor use of land, ethical considerations of burning food, questionable energy benefits on the input/output equation, etc..

[thackney]

We literally throw potential fuel away.

I suspect in the future, perhaps very far into the future, we will mine long abandoned trash dumps for the resources buried there.