RSS
Home
Bashing biofuels to make them better
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Biofuels on America's farms, has fallen under heavy criticim; Chu pledges help.
Recent developments in the biofuel story have given no guarantee that a biofuel industry will be set up in time to help the building environmental crisis (in fact many new reports say biofuels are making it worse); nor will it be able support a new direction for America’s handling of oil rich nations any time soon. Any kind of fuel production affects many areas of our global society; in America, both petroleum and biofuel development affect governmental policies regarding agriculture, energy, global warming mitigation, national security issues, rural poverty intervention through job-creation, and emission regulations. There may be many unintended consequences from jumping the ‘bash biofuels’ bandwagon, the least of which is continued support for petrodictators; the recent reports issued by many environmental and food groups, however, on face value, seem to make recommendations that will improve the viability of the biofuel industry in the long-run…if it survives.
Only a few years back, biofuels were everyone’s darling; it claimed to be domestically produced, from a sustainable feedstock, created fewer emissions when burned, and could be used to combat global poverty and global warming. Ethanol jumped to the forefront of American energy policy. What happened; where did all those good vibrations go. In light of the many recent critical reports, many of us find ourselves asking, ‘was the biofuel industry really misrepresented this badly?’.
Recently, the Sierra Club and the Worldwatch Institute released a report called “Smart Choices for Biofuels”, which tried to address some of the issues that have been raised with biofuels since the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) began allowing for the ratcheting up of ethanol production. The report makes recommendations and offers a good synopsis of the issues with the fuel to date.
Anyone who has been following biofuels over the course of the past two years has witnessed a meteoric rise of an industry and its subsequent crash. Corn ethanol companies that sold for $20-40 per share in 2006 are now selling for pennies; dozens of start-ups were on the brink of bankruptcy at the beginning of 2008, and many more have since filed for Chapter 11 protection (1.5 billion gallons worth). The industry seems to be reeling from an intense build-out phase coupled with falling-off demand; the story is eerily similar to what is happening in the solar industry today.
While the problems in the ethanol industry really all center on first generation technology, advanced and cellulosic biofuels have suffered alongside them. Corn, or crop-based ethanol (conventional biofuel) was essentially developed as a path toward American energy independence. It was developed as a way to allow farmers from America’s Heartland to supply our nation with a sustainable fuel production process instead of leaving our nation to be dependent upon Middle Eastern, South American, and N. African oligarchs and despots.
Raising ethanol blends, though, should be delayed in favor of continuing support of oppressive regimes that produce oil; this is what many groups opposing the production of ethanol would have us believe. Is this reasonable/rational/logical? According to Friends of the Earth, Biofuels Mandate Campaign, in addition to increasing overall greenhouse gas emissions, for corn ethanol “it has been estimated that for each gallon of ethanol produced, four gallons of water are needed. Corn also requires large quantities of nitrogen fertilizer, which causes severe adverse impacts on water quality and biodiversity when leeched from corn fields”. Advanced and cellulosic ethanol have worked successfully to address these areas, and as a result are recommended in many of the reports critical of ethanol production.
Friends of the Earth, and other environmental groups like them (Sierra Club, Worldwatch, GreenPeace, Environmental Working Group), as well as a growing coalition of livestock and grocery groups have all banded together to oppose the ramping-up of ethanol. While they advocate advanced and cellulosic ethanol sometime in the future, they essentially reccomend scaling back ethanol production in the present. This gives credence to the idea that America can afford to continue to participate in 'one of the largest transfers of wealth in history' through the purchase of petroleum from nations in opposition to American ideals. The EPA has recently stated that it wants to increase the ethanol blend percentage in U.S. gasoline from 10% to +12% and then to 15%. This increase in ethanol use, critics claim, will result in the absolute destruction of the environment or will make food and commodity prices so expensive that Americans simply will not be able to afford buying anything anymore. Some organizations call for the absolute abandonment of ethanol production, others stipulate that corn ethanol should be scaled back while advanced and cellulosic ethanol production is given a larger percentage of the pie.
The claims made by the Sierra Club and the Worldwatch Institute in their report are widely seen as valid. They are, however, part of a process that may be used to delay biofuel production and ultimately drive the final nail into the coffin of a dying industry. The report breaks down recommendations into four areas:
- Developing sustainability standards. EPA sets lifecycle emissions standards; higher performing feedstocks and lower carbon content fuel will help lower lifecycle emissions.
- Advancing biofuels production and new technologies. Cut incentives to corn ethanol; instead provide additional support for advanced and cellulosic ethanol. Cut off funding for coal-fired ethanol refineries.
- Creating green jobs through biofuels. In the case of ethanol, small may be better; many local refiners producing small amounts of ethanol may speed up deployment and create more valuable local jobs.
- Promoting policy coherence across energy sectors. Balancing our limited biofuel feedstock between the transportation, electricity, and heat sectors; what combination will create the greatest net improvements for society.
Check out the full report the Sierra Club and the Worldwatch Institute. (click the icon below)
In the report, it states, “experiences of recent years have demonstrated the dangers of pushing blindly for increased biofuel production without considering the unintended consequences”. Producing biofuel may have unintended consequences, especially if inefficient feedstocks are used, but maintaining our current energy policy has already produced tangible unintended consequences including Chavez’s dictatorship, Iran’s defiance, Russia’s recent rogue nature, and Saudi Arabia’s fundamentalism. The suggestions and recommendations being made by some of these environmental groups neglect the costs of continuing to rely on petroleum. These suggestions, at the same time, are valid and will most probably improve the ethanol industry’s viability going forward; but the flurry of reports are helping to create a 'bandwagon effect' that further beats down a dying industry and ultimately puts more money in the hands of dictators, despots, and oligarchs. By continuing to rely on petroleum from nations with poor human rights records when a domestic alternative is available, America loses more of its identity.
In Peace magazine, John Bacher makes the point (a while back) that “nationalizations have neither increased social benefits nor reduced the environmental damage of oil extraction. In Latin America, ecologists and native people even prefer American oil corporations over those owned by their own national governments” because, essentially, they have to answer to environmental groups. The point being made here is twofold: First, oil extraction, production, and consumption are damaging to the environment; and second, by constantly delaying domestic biofuel production, America is supporting environmental destruction in other parts of the world.
The criticism of the biofuel industry is an important step in the process of developing a sustainable domestic source for fuel, but should not be used to kill off an industry that addresses several aspects of American policy. Domestic biofuels allow for development in rural areas through an increase in agricultural activity; domestic biofuels address certain national security issues, namely the transfer of wealth from free nations to those with poor human rights records; they have the potential to lower emissions; and they are part of developing a sustainable domestic energy market. Producing ethanol on a commercial scale may create unintended consequences, but so does continuing to rely on foreign nations to supply America with its fuel.
Related Articles:
Comments
