Posted on 01/14/2008 11:23:51 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
January 14, 2008
Biofuels 'do more harm than good to environment' says Royal Society
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter of The Times
Biofuels will cause more harm than good to the environment unless strict controls are imposed on how they are grown, the Royal Society has cautioned.
While they have the potential to help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change, biofuels will devastate forests and other habitats unless controlled, scientists said.
The Royal Society report of a 14-month inquiry was published as the European Union announced that its targets for biofuels are to be re-examined because of fears of their impact on the environment. Stavros Dimas, its Environment Commissioner, said that the environmental consequences of boosting biofuel production and the effects on poor communities were bigger than originally thought.
The misgivings followed increasing anxiety about forests being cut down and savanna and other habitats being dug up to make room for biofuel crops. Communities living on the lands often had little say in the decisions and there is rising concern about the competition for agricultural land between biofuels and crops to feed the expanding world population.
Scientists questioned strongly the EU target of deriving 10 per cent of petrol and diesel needs from renewable sources by 2020 and said curbing carbon dioxide emissions would be achieved more easily by restoring and protecting forests. The quantity of carbon dioxide absorbed by forests over 30 years would be “considerably greater” than the emissions avoided by using biofuels, a study published last year in the journal Science concluded.
The Royal Society report, Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges, called on the Government to switch emphasis from the quantity of biofuels produced to the effect such a reduction had on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. John Pickett, of Rothamsted Research, who chaired the inquiry, said too little was known about the benefits and costs of each biofuel crop.
The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), being introduced in April, requires suppliers to ensure that 5 per cent of all fuel sold in Britain comes from renewable sources. The Royal Society report demanded that it take account of how effective the fuel was at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Professor Pickett said that it was essential for the entire supply chain to be included in such an assessment for each type of biofuel, taking into account everything from the fertilisers used to grow them to the fossil fuel they replace in vehicles. “Unless certification is applied to the production of all biofuels and is a system used by all countries we will merely displace rather than remedy the potentially negative effects of these fuels,” he said.
He cited US maize grown to produce ethanol as being of questionable value because it struggles to achieve a 10 per cent greenhouse gas cut, whereas some ethanol crops in Brazil can achieve 80 per cent reductions.
The report recognised biofuels as having a potentially important role to play in tackling climate change because 20 per cent of manmade carbon dioxide emissions are caused by transport, a figure that rises to 25 per cent in Britain. Without cuts in transport emissions, the report said, the UK would be unable to meet its target of a 60 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
Professor Pickett said: “In designing policies and incentives to encourage investment in and the use of biofuels it is important to remember that one biofuel is not the same as another.
“The greenhouse gas savings of each depends on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used. So indiscriminately increasing the amount of biofuels we are using may not automatically lead to the best reductions in emissions.”
Graham Wynne, of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said: “Today's report by the Royal Society makes it clear that these targets could fuel climate change, destroy forests and threaten livelihoods in developing countries. Our Government must take a lead in stopping this madness.”
The Department for Transport said that the impact of each biofuel on tackling climate change was to be taken into account within two years. “The Government is determined to support sustainable biofuels and we aim to move towards mandatory standards for greenhouse gas savings by 2010, with targets for wider sustainability by 2011,” it said.
If forests are replaced with fields of corn or switchgrass, isn’t this just an aesthetic difference. Those crops would do just as much or more for their imaginary environmental bogeyman as trees would.
Enviro-wackos don’t really care about studies like this one. It won’t slow them down. If they really cared about the environment, they’d be pushing hard for more nuclear power plants. But they don’t, because they don’t care about the environment. They just want to cripple the West.
What was the quote, ‘No nation can long survive burning its own food supply’?
Yep, the enviro-wackos strike out once again.
Beware of unintended consequences.
They left out the CO@ reduction when the plant is grown.
A growing plant extracts and synthacises CO2 to sugar. When transformed to oil and burned, there is still a net reduction because all the plant is not consumed as fuel and it is impossible to emit more carbon than removed from the air.
[While they have the potential to help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change, biofuels will devastate forests and other habitats unless controlled, scientists said. ]
driving climate change my rosy red asrse!
Not really. In the US, it causes loss of songbird habitat which along with the loss of the birds causes an increase in insect pests which they eat. In SE Asia loss of forests results in the Orangutan population becoming nearly extinct except for small preserves. In general, natural resource extraction and use in third world countries does not not recognize environmental consequences which is why many native species are disappearing and may become extinct.
The US is responsible for more than a small part of this situation because we have essentially outlawed natural resource development and now are placing unnecessary restrictions on production and use of fuel. However demand remains high for end-products leading to a shift to overseas suppliers with the resulting environmental destruction. Of course the enviro-whackos react to this by further limiting our choices in the US instead of opening lands and loosening regulation so that we can develop our abundant natural resources.
Bio fuels made from grain are a poor choice.
If switch grass grown on marginal cropland could be used, it might make sense.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Instead of planting switchgrass, let’s plant environmentalists... six feet under.
Then we can drill ANWR, drill offshore and build nuke plants.
You have to differentiate. Biofuels made from, say, chicken fat, deprive no one of anything other than having to throw-away chicken fat. Companies like Safe Renewables create chicken fat fuel and then sell it to power companies in Texas. Maybe other places, too.
You mean the chicken fat used in feeds and pet foods? What a perfect way to drive up the price of those products.
This starts from the false premise that “climate change” is happening for the worse and that we cause it. It may be fine to create different, less polluting fuels; but to do so to reduce “climate change” is rediculous. The whole thing needs challenging, not just what they do because of it. If we buy into their scam in any way, we lose.
Add Iowans to that list of envirowackos who won’t like this.
They think they are doing the Lords work by cranking out corn which is subsidized to the hilt (and doubling the cost of everything else in the grocery store in every other state around the country) and costing consumers the same price as Saudi crude - curiously.
The idea of using switchgrass instead of corn or sugar cane seems more promising and far, far, far less damaging (since there is no use for switchgrass beyond grazing thus the lack of competition for its production) and the environmental damage from growing it are way lower than corn or cane. Maybe the ‘greens’ can get behind something which is ACTUALLY beneficial to the planet AND the economy instead of choosing things which are bad for both.
The new "environmentalists" are a bane to both the economy and the environment. But hey, at least they can swagger around with a morally superior attitude, think of themselves as enlightened, and get well funded for their efforts.
Enviro-wackos will solve the problem by keeping down the human population.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.