Just in time for April Fool’s Day comes news of the latest scam in the biofuels industry. As we report today, cargo loads of biofuel are being shipped from Europe to the US where they are topped up, allowing traders to claim a subsidy from Washington, and then shipped back. Despite the dateline, this is no prank - it accounts for up to 10% of all biofuel exports from America to Europe - even though it makes a mockery of the notion of a green fuel.
The attraction of biofuels is obvious: they offer a simple solution to one of the thorniest problems of our times. If the fossil fuels we use, especially for transport, emit too much carbon then, runs the thinking, swap to low-carbon fuels made from potato or rapeseed. Clean and cheap, biofuels are a godsend for governments facing stiff targets on reducing carbon use. And so they set quotas or introduce subsidies to encourage take-up of this miracle fuel. From today, 2.5% of all petrol and diesel sold in the UK must be made from biofuels. And the EU plans to raise that to 5.75% by 2010.
The problem with biofuels is equally obvious: they are a simplistic solution to a problem too big to be tackled with mere shortcuts. They take up land and crops that might otherwise go towards feeding people, which is a big reason food prices have shot up. They typically require nitrogen fertilisers, which causes the soil to emit nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas. Biofuels also require ploughing, harvesting, and processing - all of which use energy, often supplied by burning fossil fuels. For a supposedly clean energy source, biofuels are often surprisingly mucky; some may not help tackle global warming but make it worse.
Not all biofuels are alike, and a new, improved generation might be produced within a few years. But rather than go easy on using biofuels in the meantime, politicians are treating them as a convenience fuel.
David Toke of Birmingham University points to research published by the government department for business (the former DTI) which suggests that the UK should invest in biofuels on the continent, rather than develop its own domestic sources of renewable energy. After all, the UK is so far behind its EU targets on green energy, it might as well buy in the shortfall. Instead of Britain developing wave power, the government consultants propose, it can pay eastern Europe to develop biofuels - and so chop down their own forests.
This is breathtaking cynicism. Put this Whitehall proposal together with the private-sector trading scam and a picture emerges of biofuels being used as a cop-out. Despite all the talk of using sustainable fuels, both government and industry act as unsustainably as ever.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
I disagree. I believe cannabis hemp for biofuel is a solution for sustaining farms. If cannabis hemp was legalized communities would have an alternative fuel source, a new industry, where non-profits could co-op and create a sustainable network.
I believe that those who oppose biofuel are those for nuclear power, afterall…”Green” was what sold nuclear power decads ago.
Let me get this straight: The Eu sells a tanker load of Bio-diesel to their co-conspirators in the US, who top up what’s lost in transit to venting, then sell the biofuels BACK to the company they just bought it from, and dodge paying the taxes.
This on the same day that the oil company execs are playing semantic dodgeball with the Senate, saying that oil company profits are in line with other industries, and that the oil company tax breaks are justified.
GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK!
The oil is running out, Peak OIl has shown it’s nasty face. The oil companies have known this day is coming for at least 30 years.
Transport truckers in the US are paying $1000 to fill their rigs, and are about to go on a nationwide strike. If they do that, food shipments will grind to a halt, and the cities that need to be fed will have empty shelves within three days, maybe less if there is a panic buying binge.
Welcome to the dying days of the empire.
The oil companies are spending a lot of money to discredit the environmental benefits of biofuels. This (unnamed) author points out that in the production of biofuels, some fossil fuels may be burned. Well. of course, but at least it is much less that burning fossil fuels as a primary fuel source. Also, the argument that biofuels are taking food away from people sounds like classic Exxon Mobile spin. If every available piece of land was used for producing food, the price of food would indeed fall. As a result, the population of the Earth would explode even further. I am all for feeding hungry people, but I am not for increasing the number of hungry people to the point where no one on Earth has a decent standard of living.
Furthermore, lots of crops are used to feed livestock, not people, which is a very inefficient process. Lots of food is used to feed domestic animals. Enormous quantities of food are wasted thrown in the trash every day in wealthy nations. Why is it only a problem if the food is used for a fuel which is not perfect, but is far superior to oil?
Corn is not the best choice for fuel, however, other possibilities exist and have yet to be implemented like switchgrass.
The process for manufacture of biofuels is so simple, that individuals can readily make their own fuel. Naturally the oil companies are trying to interfere.
This article is correct in many contexts, including the following:
Recently enacted US energy legislation “to reduce dependence on imported oil” provides corporate welfare for ethanol production and nuclear powerplant construction and operation. Ethanol is produced in the US heartland and shipped to the coasts, using lots of oil in the process, and little imported oil is used to generate power in the US. This legislation will therfore not result in any reduction of dependence on imported oil.
The legislation ignored all forms of renewable energy or replacing oil burning vehicles with electric vehicles, things that would reduce dependence on imported oil.
andersdl: ethanol is produced in the heartland, and used in the heartland as well as the coasts. It has to travel, but it doesn’t have to travel as far as Venezuelan oil or Middle East oil. I am not sure what you mean by saying that little imported oil is used in the US. A full two thirds of oil used in the US is imported. Also, biofuel does qualify as renewable energy.
if rooftops were converted to vegetable gardens and green lawns and roadsides were converted into fields of hemp; our fiber, nutritional and building material needs could be met in an efficient decentralized manner relatively quickly.
the answer to our energy crisis lies in reduced consumption while switching to renewable sources of electricity (not nuclear power).
i agree w/ the author that biofuels (at least as they exist in the status quo) are not a viable solution. i’m currently living in iowa and the price of corn and soybeans is going through the roof, for a variety of reasons including federal subsidies and an increased demand for biofuels. the farmers are not willingly shifting away from the mono-crops. the government and corporate entities are destroying the smaller rural communities in america.
the higher the cost of corn/soy the more inclined the farmer is to ignore smaller, environmentally sound, healthier cash crops like organic produce. ironically, as it becomes more expensive to raise livestock (b/c of increased grain/transport costs), there may be more open marginal land available for natural restoration or alternative agriculture (switch grass, permaculture).
the increased cost of corn/wheat/soybeans will be transfered to the consumer and the poorest in our country will suffer the most, when they have to stretch out that food stamp card an extra 3-4 days or scrounge for change to buy bread. of course increased transport costs are already putting pressures on the price of these commodities.
electric trains could provide the mechanism for trans-continental transport….
—————————
jstevens is correct
there is allot of waste in america and livestock/the dependence on meat is a huge drain on our resources and on the resources of countries in the developing world (china,india,mexico,brazil) who are mimicking our taste for flesh while deforesting the land to meet new demand. meanwhile 850 million people on earth suffer from malnutrition.
…..peace…..
Climate change is here, threatening the food sources, so what do the BIG THINKERS decide?
lets just turn more of our food and arable land over to produce fuel..
now i don’t claim to be a BIG THINKER, but that is the most ludicrous idea ever conceived.
But what do you expect from those that gave us the current situation to begin with
climate change is upon us, and that is why biofuels should be implemented as PART of the solution.
If one means by biofuels such things as ethanol than yes its a scam.
Are there fuel sources within the biotechnology sector? yes. I’m particularly interested in the production of biodiesel and gasoline from algae.
Otherwise I believe it becomes fuel vs food scenerio and I can’t think of any reason why I’d go down that road.
jstevens: The amount of fuel burned is not minimal. The emissions of carbon dioxide are not better. The turnover of ground produces still more CO2. Look at the earth by Googleearth and notice how much of the land is taken over by agriculture. There is no spare capacity. Yes, feeding animals in inefficient but two wrongs don’t make a right. biofuels do not help reduce global warming. Biofuels is an excuse to keep burning oil and will allow for continued generation of CO2. Electricity makes a lot more sense but would begin to bite into oil consumption by threatening to replace it while biofuels are just an additive. biofuels are another way for oil companies to make money. Will a gallon of a mix be cheaper? I don’t think so. Anything that breaks down carbon compounds (alcohol) produces CO2 and makes warming worse.
Electric power generation converts motion into flowing electrons. Any use of biofuels, whatever the bio fuel will cause CO2.
land that can be used to grow food should never be used to feed cars. people will go on and on about carbon and renewable and all that but try telling that to the indigenous farmers of Indonesia, who were run off their land to make way for palm oil- to be served to cars. Or those in Colombia, same thing. Or Mexicans who can’t make tortillas because corn has been priced beyond their means. Oh and did i mention cutting down rainforests to grow agrofuels? cd readers seem to be as ignorant as the suits in the boardrooms about what the whole earth is like. Try to remember that most of the people on this planet are hungry. And don’t even think about putting corn in your cars.
I agree that corn is a poor fuel source. I find it abhorrent that the rain-forests are being cut down to grow crops. (It is important to note that not all of deforestation is fuel related.) However, there is a huge advantage to the use of the right biofuels as a temporary measure because a burning plant only releases the amount of carbon that is has absorbed, in stark contrast to fossil fuels in which millions of years worth of stored carbon is released into the atmosphere.
the United States gives a certain amount of its food away to starving countries. There is no reason to believe that if we took biofuels out of the equation, we would give any more away. Climate change is a huge contributor to human misery and dwindling food supplies. If biofuels can be used to alleviate climate change, the benefits would far outweigh any benefits of paltry US food donations.
What is the real effect of aid to Third World Countries? Some of it goes to feed the needy. Some of it is siphoned off by warlords and sold for weaponry.
I wonder if the real effect is that more people are born into poverty and misery. Any real act of kindness for starving people must include controlling the birth rate along with donating food.
By the way, I don’t have any statistics, but I would guess that as a nation, we throw more food into the trash can than we convert into fuel.
All my life I have heard “Britain can’t feed itself”. If the Brits have to import food, why would they divert part of their food production to biofuel? I have to agree with the study the author finds so cynical. I’m sure there is waste material in Britain that could be used, but not much else. A lot of the country is better suited to grazing than planting.
Politicians or those in government responsible for biofuel funding should demand a thorough input / output and environmental impact study before they spend a nickel of taxpayer money on a subsidy. The biggest biofuel, ethanol from corn, is a total loser except (possibly) as an oxygenated gasoline additive. It should never have been started and probably would go away right after the subsidies stop.
“I believe cannabis hemp for biofuel is a solution for sustaining farms.”
And the tobacco execs believed that nicotine was not addictive. That phrase “I believe” always makes my radar ping. You believe. Some other guys believes different. Where are we then?
What I want to know is this: given the known efficiency with which chlorphyll captures energy from sunlight, is it even possible, in theory, for any plant-based solution to subsitute for oil? Oil is millions of years of algae growth - plantings of hemp mean we have to pay as we go.
I could care less about unscrupulous biofuel traders. Contrary to the above article, the real scam is that biofuels are no “cleaner” than fossil fuels. Carbon emissions are equivalent and driving around in your biofueled car will do no more to stop global warming than prayer.
Most plants average no more than about 3% efficiency over the course of a year in temperate climates converting solar energy to stored chemical energy. Under optimum conditions they may approach about 6% efficiency but those conditions rarely exist in nature. When you subtract the biofuel energy loss from unused plant matter (generally roots, proteins, waste matter, etc.), energy consumption for planting, fertilizers, irrigation, harvesting, and processing, your overall efficiency is usually no more than 1 to 2% of solar energy converted to usable chemical energy.
Most current solar energy systems, whether photovoltaic or solar thermal, average around 10 to 20% efficiency with advanced systems in research now running 30 to 40% efficiency in converting solar energy into electrical energy. Unlike plants, solar energy systems can work well in temperatures below freezing as long as the sun is shining, and they have low maintenance.
The present solar energy systems are costly, but it is difficult for me to see the long-term value of biofuels when solar power typically produces 5 to 20 times the energy per acre.
I will say again… PERMACULTURE
http://www.permacultureactivist.net/DesignCourse/PcSyllabus.htm#2
No one’s even mentioned the amount of water ethanol plants require. Here in central Illinois the direction of flow of the aquifer has actually reversed because of the quantity of water sucked up by ethanol plants. It may not seem like a problem now, but water’s going to be a much hotter commodity in the future.
I sure would like to see a piece on Common Dreams that talks about the potential for sustainably produced biofuels on a local level.
What do you say, Common Dreams? Can we stop running all the pieces bashing biofuels and try to run one that doesn’t consistently sneer at them? Can we drop the skepticism for a moment and see how it could work if we wanted it to?
Folks at Common Dreams, you know where to reach me, I’m sure.
For more info, go to
permaculture.com
Lizard wrote:
“Anything that breaks down carbon compounds (alcohol) produces CO2 and makes warming worse.”
“Any use of biofuels, whatever the bio fuel will cause CO2.”
Incorrect. Biofuels are not fossil fuels. Use of fossil fuels removes carbon from geologic reservoirs and transmits it to the atmosphere as “new” CO2. Biofuels recycle carbon that is already in the soil-atmosphere-ocean system. Biofuels per se do not increase CO2 levels because the CO2 produced is recycled.
It is true that fossil fuels may be utilized in the production of biofuels, but the biofuels themselves are not fossil fuels.
Also, a large proportion electric power is produced using fossil fuels. Electric power is a product of energy sources, not an energy source in itself.
To call biofuels a “scam” is misleading. Humans have been using biofuels (e.g. wood for fires) for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Our species would not exist without the use of biofuels.
A little secret. Ethanol subsidies are “legal” agricultural subsidies. This is similar to the politicians in the EU banning and vetoing GM crops already approved by their regulatory agencies. We could import ethanol from Brazil, produced with sugarcane, cheaper than we produce it in the US from corn if tarifs were lifted. This is pure economics to get around rules on agricultural subsidies to combat other clever schemes by other countries.
It saddens me that this editorial stigmatizes the fuel rather than chasing the real culprits using bad business practices for a great product.
Here is a third party review of the book that blows away all of the anti-alcohol propaganda published in major media. I wish Common Dreams would hire someone to do another independent review… over time this knowledge WILL get out and overcome misinformation that trashes alcohol fuel.
The Forbidden Fuel
Alcohol Can Be a Gas by Dave Blume, published by the
International Institute for Ecological Agriculture, 2007, 630 pages, $59 hardcover.
In the forward written for this book in 1983, when the project was first started, R. Buckminster Fuller writes that it is possible to harvest enough energy to sustainably meet humanity’s needs through solar sources while completely phasing out all fossil fuels and atomic energy. Many know Bucky Fuller for his work on geodesic domes. Few are aware that he was also in charge of alternative energy research for the U.S. military during WWII, and held ethanol fuel in great esteem. The author was inspired and mentored by Fuller in the 1980’s, and it could be said that this book is the culmination of Fuller’s work in this field.
The intent of the 600+ pages of Alcohol Can Be a Gas is to act as a complete tool kit to revolutionize our transportation fuel system, from the grassroots up. It combines sweeping vision with intricate ecological and mechanical detail, starting with a thorough history of the use of alcohol as a fuel for internal combustion engines.
The Model T car was designed as a flex-fuel vehicle, and got 34 MPG on alcohol until prohibition put an end to small-scale ethanol production. “There’s a lot that goes on in the world of energy that you never see on the 11 o’clock news” writes the author. “The control of a country’s energy is the ultimate control of its people.”
Blume has seen his share of the dark underbelly of the big energy conglomerates in his 25+ years working in this field, and carries the scars to prove it. There are six big sections to this tome, each of which could be a book in its own right, comprising 29 chapters. Section I gives the sweeping vision of ethanol set within the context of an ecologically renewed agriculture. The great promise of alternative energy development under President Carter during the first energy crisis is summarized, and what the author dubs ‘MegaOilron’s’ success at squashing it.
Blume dives quickly into the controversies swirling around ethanol as a fuel with a chapter entitled ‘Busting The Myths.’ These myths include: ‘Ethanol’s net energy is negative’ (studies from Brazil show ethanol has a positive net energy ratio of 9.0 when using sugarcane); ‘There isn’t enough land to grow the crops for ethanol’ (highway medians could grow enough ethanol crops to supply 40% of America’s gasoline); Ethanol is an ecological nightmare’ (a permaculture ethanol system vastly improves soil fertility); ‘It’s food vs. fuel’ (cattails grown in wastewater show tremendous promise); and ‘Ethanol fuel does not address global warming’ (the growing of plants, especially if organic, ties up much more CO2 than goes into the ethanol).
Part of the beauty of this book is its ecological sensibility. Blume is an organic farmer and brings 20+ years of bioregional wisdom to his writing. Two chapters contrast the nightmare of America continuing on its present energy course vs. retooling the way we do agriculture and energy along the regenerative principles of Permaculture design. There are sidebars on the restoration of degraded prairie farmland using highly complex fuel crop polycultures, and the practice of swale contour farming to replenish groundwater and topsoil.
His vision for a grassroots ethanol revolution is ambitious but conceivable: “A nationwide switch to organic farming is in order, but it can’t work if we maintain a monoculture-based system, with its present emphasis on corn farming.”
The second big section of Alcohol Can Be a Gas has five chapters laying out the How To’s of alcohol production for fuel, including chapters on feedstocks (everything from algae to buffalo gourd), fermentation technology, distillation, and plant design.
Section III deals with saleable or otherwise useful ‘co-products’ from alcohol production — from livestock and aquaculture feeds to yeast, methane, protein and propagation material for mushroom production. Sections IV, V & VI address the mechanics, regulations and subsidies for using alcohol in engines: “We can put 85% alcohol in our cars now! Really!”
Included are chapters on the business of alcohol, its economic, regulatory and legal considerations and a practical vision of small-scale production that Blume dubs “Community Supported Energy.” Six case studies depict the type of grassroots on-farm ethanol production the author envisions in his revolution.
One of the few criticisms I have of Alcohol Can Be a Gas is that Blume is unabashedly caustic towards the large energy corporations. The book will likely alienate middle Americans who are uninformed about the politics of energy. Instead, it is tailor written for activists who want to put their shoulders to the millstone and do something. Despite its narrow-minded focus on ethanol as The solution to our looming energy crises, this book has the feel of a resource one does not want to be without — the depth of a Whole Earth Catalog hybridized with the humor of a Humanure Handbook.
Those people working on biofuel development would be well advised to study the history of ethanol cooperatives described in this book — honesty, integrity and setting a high ethical standard seem to be crucial to success.
Learn more about this book at: http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/?bid=2&aid=CD1&opt=
But does the world really need so much fuel? Of course not! If the western nations tried really hard, they could reduce the amount of fuel of any kind they use. There would be big economic impacts, sure. but if people ever get serious about saving the planet it must necessarily mean a radical conservation of fuel use. And that must inevitably mean shrinking the global economy. Yeah I know it’s hard- but what’s the alternative? Either we make our planet run sustainably or we continue to chew it up as we are now doing until we have no planet left.
Such cynical , cavalier disregard for the starving poor -wherever they be (incl.in the ‘developed’ world ).
The Third World already faces the spectre of mass starvation as food stocks dwindle - and become prohibitively expensive. Rice, wheat and other ’staples’ are well on their way to becoming luxuries for billions of the desperately poor.
Meanwhile the ‘Developed world’ goes its merry way. Whizzing about, eating gargantuan meals , generating rivers and mountains of waste etc.
If this isn’t ‘backdoor’ genocide ( that, mercifully enough, sits easy on the conscience ) .
Biofuels increase food prices, hunger and starvation and exacerbate rainforest destruction.
A Jamaican reggae singer wrote this anti-biofuel song!
Be sure to listen to it, it’s worth it!
http://www.biofuelsong.com/music/
Hey - How about the eco-blogger song:
We sit around upon our fat _sses,
spewing volumes of hot gasses.
We punch so happily on the keys,
instead of going out and planting trees.
With 33 countires facing roits and food shortages, the UN chief has now called for a review of biofuels policy.
An obvious thing to do, and another nail in the coffin for biofuels from food crops, which actually do nothing more than create a subsidised market for GM seeds and agricultural chemicals.
Andrew Taynton - We agree. Ethanol subsidies are really “legal” agricultural subsidies that support the entire agricultural sector including machninery makers, seed and fertilizer producers, and farmers. They help offset the “legal” farm subsidies in other countries like the EU that have politicians banning GM crops approved by their scientific regulatory bodies. Its all a cleaver game by developed countries at the expence of 3rd-world countries. When US shipments of grain are turned down by starving africans because they contain GM traits that have been approved by the EPA, FDA and USDA as safe and that the US people have been eating for a decade, because they are afraid of losing future exports to the EU, who is to blaim?
Mr Obvious
I am from a developing country. The EU are banning GM crops based on science ignored by the US FDA. Read “Seeds of Deception” by Jeffrey Smith www.seedsofdeception.com
and “Genetic Roulette” which documents 65 health risks from GM food, accompanied by scientific references.
GM crops are harmful to both human health and the environment.
When GM crops were introduced over ten years ago, Christian Aid and other organisations predicted they would exacerbate hunger not solve it. The chickens have now come home to roost and more recently UN delegates at a conference in Rome heard that organic agriculture which does not use GM seeds or synthetic fertilizers or pesticides could help eliminate starvation and poverty.
On the other hand, research shows that GM soya, the most widely grown GM food crop in the world yields 5-10% less than high yielding non-GM varieties and uses 2 to five times more chemical herbicide. GM crops have been adopted as they are easier to manage on a very large scale.
The myth disseminated by the biotech industry that GM crops would solve hunger may have become firmly established in the public mind, but it was recently exposed as a total farce when Monsanto and Syngenta withdrew from the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), an ambitious four year $ 10 million project to do to hunger and poverty what the International Governmental Panel did for climate change. These two agri-biotech giants pulled out when they could not get their perspectives accepted by the 4000 experts that contributed to the draft IAASTD report. For more information on the IAASTD visit http://www.agassessment.org/
Are you aware that food borne diseases doubled in the US between 1994 and 2002, roughly the time that GM foods were introduced, and it is impossible to monitor what effect GM food is having on the US population because they are not even labelled in your country so how can you tace them and say they have had no harmful effect?
About 100 people died when GM L-Tryptophan was introduced onto the US market, and the USA FDA lied about it, refer www.seedsofdeception.com
Andrew Taynton - I would encourage you to move beyond “best sellers” to understand GM crops. Solving the hunger problem is very complex but higher yielding GM crops with fewer chemical inputs are part of the answer. As far as organic agriculture being a solution, most scientists consider it to be part of the problem. Switching from synthetic fertizer to manure would require dramatic increases in animal production which is a major agricultural cause of greenhouse gases. Use of manure is also associated with food poisoning as improperly processed manure contains harmful micro-organisms. Perhaps the increase in food poisoning relates to the increased trendiness of organic food? The “Tryptophan incident” points out the dangers of suppliments and herbals. What inside information do you have that leads you to believe that the FDA lied? Do you also believe that the US government has aliens in area 52?
Mr. Obvious - you are funny.