New Trend in Biofuels Has New Risks

NY Times ^ | May 21, 2008 | ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

[neverdem]

ROME — In the past year, as the diversion of food crops like corn and palm to make biofuels has helped to drive up food prices, investors and politicians have begun promoting newer, so-called second-generation biofuels as the next wave of green energy. These, made from non-food crops like reeds and wild grasses, would offer fuel without the risk of taking food off the table, they said.

But now, biologists and botanists are warning that they, too, may bring serious unintended consequences. Most of these newer crops are what scientists label invasive species — that is, weeds — that have an extraordinarily high potential to escape biofuel plantations, overrun adjacent farms and natural land, and create economic and ecological havoc in the process, they now say.

At a United Nations meeting in Bonn, Germany, on Tuesday, scientists from the Global Invasive Species Program, the Nature Conservancy and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, as well as other groups, presented a paper with a warning about invasive species.

“Some of the most commonly recommended species for biofuels production are also major invasive alien species,” the paper says, adding that these crops should be studied more thoroughly before being cultivated in new areas.

Controlling the spread of such plants could prove difficult, the experts said, producing “greater financial losses than gains.” The International Union for Conservation of Nature encapsulated the message like this: “Don’t let invasive biofuel crops attack your country.”

To reach their conclusions, the scientists compared the list of the most popular second-generation biofuels with the list of invasive species and found an alarming degree of overlap. They said little evaluation of risk had occurred before planting.

“With biofuels, there’s always a hurry,” said Geoffrey Howard, an invasive species expert with the International Union for Conservation of Nature...

[SunkenCiv]

In the past year, as the diversion of food crops like corn and palm to make biofuels has helped to drive up food prices...

...everyone woke up from their crazy dream, thankful that the diversion of corn to make biofuels had nothing to do with higher food prices. Then drove to the filling station for some $4 a gallon gas. Thanks neverdem.

so-called second-generation biofuels... made from non-food crops like reeds and wild grasses... may bring serious unintended consequences. Most of these newer crops are what scientists label invasive species -- that is, weeds -- that have an extraordinarily high potential to escape biofuel plantations, overrun adjacent farms and natural land, and create economic and ecological havoc in the process, they now say.

Lucky for us that non-food crops wouldn't compete with food crops for the use of arable land, and, uh, what's that? Oh, never mind...

[Mr. Lucky]

The only “nutrient” removed from corn by distilling it for ethanol is the sugar, all of the other nutrients remain and are fed to livestock...much as spent beet pulp is fed to livestock.

[ModelBreaker]

Depends on whether you’re a diabetic.

Well, of course a diabetic could kill themselves by eating a whole bunch of sugar at once. But I was married to a juvenile diabetic for ten years. They need glucose in their blood just like you and me. That's how they get their energy too. They burn glucose. They just cannot regulate high glucose levels like you and me.

Accordingly, so as long as the diabetic regulated their intake of the sugar relative to their physical exercise, they would live longer on sugar only than they would on nothing.

Sugar is a nutrient. Glucose is where you get 90% + of the energy you use during the day.

[SatinDoll]

No, you are flat out wrong. There are no minerals or vitamins in sugar, it has ZERO nutritive value, which any book on nutrition or food encyclopedia could tell you. (I own both). If sugar were nutritious, then refined sugar and refined white flour would be fed to livestock. It is because the animals would die, just as mice in laboratories have died when fed a straight diet of sugar and white bread.

You are confusing calories, the amount of fuel necessary to provide energy, with the minerals and vitamins our bodies need to survive. Sugar does have calories. Protein, which the body converts into a type of sugar, is more than sufficient to provide energy and contains minerals and vitamins necessary to maintain health.

It’s been a fairly even tempered conversation but this will be my last post.

I never eat sugar, wheat, or gluten or rice. These substances were not a part of our ancestor’s diets. Humans are far and away much healthier without them