Showing posts with label Deforestation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deforestation. Show all posts

Saturday, February 16, 2008

The push for ethanol is having an effect on food prices and availability

Photobucket

Joseph Romm
:

I have an article in Salon on the insanity that is America’s ethanol policy. The new energy bill sets this country on a path to finish the assault on the world food supply begun by the (even lamer) 2005 energy bill. As I explain, our ethanol policy does not help fight global warming, but it does threaten food supplies:

In just the past two years, food prices have jumped 75 percent in real terms…. The Economist points out the amazing statistic that “the demands of America’s ethanol program alone account for over half the world’s unmet need for cereals.”

By law (the 2005 energy bill) we are going to increase corn ethanol production at least 50% over the next few years. And the new energy bill will probably require corn ethanol to triple from current levels!! But current levels are already bringing havoc down on the global food market.

And from Romm's article in Salon: (my bold)
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 -- a rather lame collection of giveaways to the energy industry -- Bush and the Republican Congress tripled the mandated biofuel requirement to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Again, corn ethanol is the only plausible biofuel that can meet the vast majority of that target. Also helping corn ethanol are the huge subsidies the industry gets and a large tariff that keeps out Brazilian ethanol made from sugar -- ironically the one food-based ethanol that is a big reducer of greenhouse gases compared with gasoline.

Unfortunately, most biofuels are not a realistic climate solution for one simple reason: Biofuels from most food crops or from newly deforested lands do not provide a significant net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions -- and some may cause a net increase. Most life-cycle analyses show that corn ethanol has little or no net greenhouse gas benefit compared with gasoline because so much energy is consumed to grow and process the corn.
Exactly.
In fact, recent research, led by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, found that corn ethanol might generate up to 50 percent more greenhouse gases than gasoline, when you account for the extra emissions of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, from increased use of artificial fertilizer. That same study found that the favorite biofuel worldwide, biodiesel from rapeseed, releases up to 70 percent higher total greenhouse gas than regular diesel.

As for developing countries, "Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil," explains Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition. In part because of the burning of forests to clear land for palm oil production, Indonesia has become the world's third-leading producer of carbon emissions!
So... we will starve more of the world as we pollute even more and then sadly admit defeat and come crawling back to petroleum? Or will we be able to stop this insanity and develop less polluting more efficient biofuels? Do we have to go to the edge of the cliff every time before we can pull back and assess? Why does the promise of money erase all common sense?

Update: Blue Girl at Blue Girl, Red State:
Across Africa NGOs and scientists are increasing their calls for a moratorium on new biofuels projects as millions and millions of acres of prime agricultural land in sub-Saharan Africa are switched from food production to biofuel production.

African governments, wooed by the prospect of a "Green Opec" and encouraged by their counterparts in industrialized nations have taken the bait; hook, line and sinker.

The prospect of being a part of a "green revolution," complete with promises of exports, job creation and energy security has seen countries converting prime cropland at breakneck speed - on the least food-secure continent on the face of the earth - has prompted African civil society groups to call for a time-out on further crop-switching for the near term. "We need to protect food security, forests, water, land rights, farmers and indigenous peoples from the aggressive march of agrofuel developments," reads the call for a moratorium.

In reality, the switch to biofuels crops has forced small farmers off the land, led to rising food costs and provided minimal benefits for local populations.

In Mozambique last week food riots erupted as government efforts to control the prices of bread and fuel failed, collapsing under the strain of soaring prices for oil and all food staples - driven in part for demand for biofuels.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Biofuels suck.

Sadly and unfortunately. But it's what I've been saying for months. Ethanol is utterly worthless.

Photobucket
The European Union has announced plans to increase the use of gas and diesel produced from plants. But the critique against biofuels is mounting. Many say they are even more harmful than conventional fossil fuels.

[snip]

"The biofuels route is a dead end," Dr. Andrew Boswell, a Green Party councillor in England and author of a recent study on the harmful effects of biofuels, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "They are going to create great damage to the environment and will also produce dramatic social problems in (tropical countries where many crops for biofuels are grown). There basically isn't any way to make them viable."

The evidence against biofuels marshalled by Boswell and other environmentalists appears quite damning. Advertised as a fuel that only emits the amount of carbon dioxide that the plants absorb while growing -- making it carbon neutral -- it actually has resulted in a profitable industrial sector attractive to countries around the world. Vast swaths of forest have been felled and burned in Argentina and elsewhere for soya plantations. Carbon-rich peat bogs are being drained and rain forests destroyed in Indonesia to make way for extensive palm oil farming.

Because the forests are often torched and the peat rapidly oxidizes, the result is huge amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. Furthermore, healthy peat bogs and forests absorb CO2 -- scientists refer to them as "carbon sinks" -- making their disappearance doubly harmful.

Indeed, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, released in October 2006, estimates that deforestation and other comparable land-use changes account for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions around the world. Biofuels, say activists, accelerate that process.

Solar, tides, nuclear (though I'm not for it, myself), hydrogen (definitely not for it), there are so many other ways of making energy. Ethanol and other biofuels are doing damage to the environment.

Chose some other way.

Why on earth would anyone want to?

Headlines:

NASA: Antarctic Ice Melting Fast, Sea Levels Going Up

Brazilian Amazon Deforestation Rate Accelerates, 1,250 Square Miles Lost In Past 5 Months

Asia To Produce Over 60 Percent Of World's Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2010

Bird Flu In India Has Spread to Nine Districts Of West Bengal


but then:

Scientific Breakthrough Could Allow Humans To Live For Hundreds Of Years

You've got to be kidding, right?

Can you guarantee there will be a world left to live on? That you wouldn't live in poverty for many of those hundreds of years? That you wouldn't live as a 98 year old with Alzheimer's for five hundred years? And how would your health insurance work? Wouldn't the planet get a little ... crowded?

I think I'll pass....