New directions needed for biofuels….

Today’s post: Weds, 2-13-2008

I. First, here’s the news article that prompted this post.:

“Biofuels Study Heats Up Global-Warming Debate Jennifer LeClaire, newsfactor.com
Mon Feb 11, 11:17 AM ET

A new study is heating up the global-warming debate. The report by The Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota concludes that converting land for biofuel crops results in major carbon emissions that make global warming worse. The study will be published in Science later this month.

The researchers ask: Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peatlands outweigh the carbon you save by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels? They say no, but as with other environmental issues there are many who disagree.

Paying Back the Carbon Debt

The study found that land conversions for corn or sugarcane (ethanol), or palms or soybeans (biodiesel) release 17 to 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels.

The carbon, which is stored in the original plants and soil, is released as carbon dioxide, a process that may take decades. This "carbon debt" must be paid before the biofuels produced on the land can begin to lower greenhouse gas levels and ease global warming, the researchers said.

The conversion of peatlands into palm-oil plantations in Indonesia ran up the greatest carbon debt and would require 423 years to pay off. The next worst was the production of soybeans in the Amazon, which would not pay for itself in renewable soy biodiesel for 319 years.

"We don't have proper incentives in place because landowners are rewarded for producing palm oil and other products, but not rewarded for carbon management," said Stephen Polasky, a University of Minnesota applied economics professor and an author of the study. "This creates incentives for excessive land clearing and can result in large increases in carbon emissions."

A Plausible Theory

As a researcher who has written several papers on biofuels, Kenneth Mulder, a professor and college farm director at Green Mountain College, views the findings as entirely plausible.

"We know that from strictly an energy perspective, the biofuels currently in heaviest production do not have a very high rate of return," Mulder said. "When environmental consequences are taken into consideration, they have been shown by several researchers to have a net negative impact on society."

In particular, Mulder said, many acres of marginally productive land that have been serving a vital function sequestering carbon are now being converted to intensive agriculture, resulting in a loss of soil carbon. There is more carbon in the soil than in the atmosphere above it, he added, and the release of this soil carbon has strong implications for climate change.

Not Logical?

Wilfred Candler, author of Global Warming: The Answer, has a different view. Basically, he insisted, the notion that making ethanol will cause forest destruction is not logical. It could be that it would raise the price of corn or palm oil, he said, and people eat less chicken, or use less palm oil for cooking.

"It is probably right that cases can be found -- Malaysia comes to mind -- where serious amounts of forest are being cut down or burned to make way for palm-oil plantations, where the palm oil is intended to be used to make biofuels," Candler said. "They might even be building processing plants in the new plantations. This might appear to be pretty clear cause and effect, but if biofuel was prohibited, there is no assurance that the forest would not have been cut down. Would you believe coffee, coconut or even palm oil for soap?"

II. I see several implications of this study.

1. We need to minimize our reliance on biofuels while still eliminating fossil fuels & maximize other ways to power transport that use technologies such as battery power using solar generated electricity.

It also likely makes sense to use telecommuting & locally bought foods etc as much as we can to minimize the use of fuels for transport in those ways.

This makes all electric cars like the Tesla & plug-in hybrids with roof top solar cells an extremely good idea. It also puts a premium on improved battery technology.

It also may make electric powered mass transit more desirable.

2. We need to maximize our biofuels that are created from sources that do NOT require new fields to be planted & to create ways to grow crops for biofuels that do NOT create this problem.

We also need to be able to prevent the conversion of rain forests & other existing plants to uses that do not remove as much carbon dioxide from the air.

It also puts a premium on developing ways to generate biofuels from compost, agricultural waste, & harvesting already existing plants like grasses that can simply be mowed periodically.

One way to do this may pay double benefits.

a) Grain fed cattle & poultry are considerably more likely to promote disease than grass or pasture fed. Grain fed animals produce more fat than grass or pasture fed; their fat has MUCH less omega 3 oils & more omega 6 oils & saturated fat than grass or pasture fed; & they need more herbicides, pesticides, & antibiotics than grass or pasture fed.

It may make excellent sense to eat less meat; stopping eating it fro from grain fed cattle & poultry; & eat the meat we do eat from grass or pasture fed only.

That way, the grain that is now being fed to beef cattle & poultry can – or the switch grass, or biodiesel crops that could be grown on the same land can -- go to biofuels only.

b) Similarly, high fructose corn syrup is making people fat & sick with diseases like type II diabetes that it has been implicated as causing. That costs our economy to treat these diseases that could be prevented by eliminating high fructose corn syrup. And, that corn – or the switch grass, or biodiesel crops that could be grown on the same land – can go only to biofuels.

3. This also puts a premium on getting biofuels from algae that is grown in tanks on non-arable land.

It’s abundantly clear that ALL our liquid fuels need to come from biofuels as soon as possible.

But we also need to keep the near term carbon emissions from doing so as close to zero as we can possibly manage.

Here are some of the ideas & implications that have occurred to me.