No Surprise Here
Two new studies published in the current edition of the respected journal Science confirms what many of us suspected: biofuels as a replacement for fossil fuels are not going to help reduce greenhouse gases. From an article in today's NY Times:
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.
The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.
The studies make it clear that land use, something that had pretty much been ignored, is a significant part of the equation. While it's not hard to see how clearing a rain forest would have an impact, most people, especially those in government, have always just assumed that grassland was useless unless plowed under. The scientists have made it clear that even "scrubland" plays an important role in absorbing the carbon-based greenhouse gases.
The costs of production and transportation of the fuels are two more factors that are conveniently ignored by governments, especially those in the hip-pockets of multinational agricorporations. The emphasis on a single crop (for example, corn) will cause further deterioration of land already in agricultural use, which means that artificial soil correctives (fertilizers) will be required. The funneling of corn into the new "market" means that less corn will be available for direct human consumption and for animal feed, raising the costs for food.
Although it is tempting to think that we will find the single "silver bullet" that will solve the climate change problems, that doesn't seem forseeable. Yet governments, especially the US, make it sound like a simple answer is, well, just around the corner. What is needed is a strategy that starts with the idea of decreasing the use of energy generated in any manner.
Increasing CAFE standards is important, but getting people out of cars and into public transportation as much as possible is even more important. Buying locally produced food and goods would reduce all of the transportation costs, including the environmental. While eating fresh strawberries in December is a luxury, it's also one that degrades the environment, something that should not be tolerated.
At least for the present, investment in multiple non-carbon-based fuel sources is still necessary. Solar, wind, wave, and, yes, even biofuels produced by agricultural waste products, will all have a role to play. However, the side effects also have to be considered in the same fashion as the studies on corn-based biofuels.
But then, you all knew that. So, I suspect, do governments and even the multinational corporations like Archer Daniel Midlands and Cargill. It's just that it's hard for those entities to think beyond the current bottom line. I guess it's up to us to educate them, even if it means that harsh tactics such as elections and boycotts have to be used.
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.
The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.
The studies make it clear that land use, something that had pretty much been ignored, is a significant part of the equation. While it's not hard to see how clearing a rain forest would have an impact, most people, especially those in government, have always just assumed that grassland was useless unless plowed under. The scientists have made it clear that even "scrubland" plays an important role in absorbing the carbon-based greenhouse gases.
The costs of production and transportation of the fuels are two more factors that are conveniently ignored by governments, especially those in the hip-pockets of multinational agricorporations. The emphasis on a single crop (for example, corn) will cause further deterioration of land already in agricultural use, which means that artificial soil correctives (fertilizers) will be required. The funneling of corn into the new "market" means that less corn will be available for direct human consumption and for animal feed, raising the costs for food.
Although it is tempting to think that we will find the single "silver bullet" that will solve the climate change problems, that doesn't seem forseeable. Yet governments, especially the US, make it sound like a simple answer is, well, just around the corner. What is needed is a strategy that starts with the idea of decreasing the use of energy generated in any manner.
Increasing CAFE standards is important, but getting people out of cars and into public transportation as much as possible is even more important. Buying locally produced food and goods would reduce all of the transportation costs, including the environmental. While eating fresh strawberries in December is a luxury, it's also one that degrades the environment, something that should not be tolerated.
At least for the present, investment in multiple non-carbon-based fuel sources is still necessary. Solar, wind, wave, and, yes, even biofuels produced by agricultural waste products, will all have a role to play. However, the side effects also have to be considered in the same fashion as the studies on corn-based biofuels.
But then, you all knew that. So, I suspect, do governments and even the multinational corporations like Archer Daniel Midlands and Cargill. It's just that it's hard for those entities to think beyond the current bottom line. I guess it's up to us to educate them, even if it means that harsh tactics such as elections and boycotts have to be used.
Labels: Ethanol, Global Warming
posted by Diane at 4:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home