We are sure as you can be that we are experiencing effects of global warming. Observed temperatures are in line or ahead of predictions from the Greenhouse Effect. We have been told many times that the main cause of that is emissions from burning fossil fuels. Clearly this is a problem that needs to be met head-on by replacing fossil fuels with renewables. Or does it?
It seems to make sense. If the problem is emissions from fossil fuels then it clearly makes sense to tackle the problem by reducing fossil fuel usage. Therefore it make great sense to go and turn sugar beet and grains into ethanol to fuel cars. Get 50% of our fuel from renewables and the problem is solved.
But what if the problem is something different? Different but similar too. If we state the real problem along the lines of “we are emitting too much carbon and other greenhouse gasses” then we can think about the problem differently. We can ask the questions:
- Does using biofuel in cars reduce carbon and other greenhouse emissions compared to burning fossil fuels?
- Should we be using food crops to make biofuels instead of food?
- Are there better ways to deal with greenhouse gas emissions?
The first is not easy to answer but the answer is quite clear. JUST the burning of biofuels compared to fossil fuels produces about the same amount of carbon directly from the car. The biofuel has come from carbon that has been”captured” by biological means (photosynthesis and other ways). BUT the problem is that all the other emissions created by making the biofuel add up to the same or more total carbon emissions.
The real cost of Biofuels
We need to understand that the real cost of buiofuels is poverty and starvation. What happens when land is devoted to biofuel? 3 things are important to note.
- Price pressures force the sale of biofuel crops at low prices
- Subsistence farming land is replaced with plantations and the food source lost
- Food surpluses form wealthy countries are consumed for biofuel
Each of these things result in bad outcomes for the poor. You only need to look at the effects of clearing traditional lands in East Timor, Malaysia and Indonesia for biofuel crops.
Apart from cultural devastation, the most marked result is LOWER living standards and starvation for the local people while global corporations gain moderate profits from exploiting the land. See here for a report on this subject.
The cost of biofuel is much more than what you pay at the petrol station.
How can this be? To grow and harvest the sugarbeet or wheat often produces more greenhouse gasses than the emissions from burning them. transport and other things involved in the production cycle are more expensive and in turn produce more emissions. In some circumstances, you produce 3-5 times the nett amount of greenhouse warming by using biofuels.
If you also clear jungle to produce the biofuel (like in Indonesia for Palm Oil) then you are making it even worse. If you then use manufactured herbicides and fertilisers it is worse again.
So what is the real benefit of biofuel? Ultimately, it is a way to replace fossil fuels for running cars. It may be the only way we can keep running internal combustion vehicles in the future and therefore it is in the interests of oil companies to promote the use of ethanol and bio-diesel to maintain the status quo.
Even if it is important to make biofuel the question of whether to use food crops such as wheat, corn and sugarbeet for biofuel is an important ethical one. I would go with food for people over food crops for biofuel.
Are we really cornered and forced to make biofuels? It would seem like that from the way that Governments subsidised the production of biofuels in the 1990s and early 2000s. In fact there are many better things that can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Here is a list of them:
- Reduce the consumption of electricity in peak times. Limit air conditioning and some high energy consuming activities to times when electricity is plentiful.
- Burn less coal to make electricity. Gas is more efficient and less polluting overall as well as being relatively abundant. Large volumes of gas are allowed to escape into the atmosphere unburned, adding to greenhouse problems directly
- Make better use of “waste” heat from power generation for winter heating (particularly suited to gas fired power generation.
- Reduce the use of manufactured fertilisers and herbicides. To make these creates a large amount of greenhouse emissions and they break down into compounds that are some of the worst greenhouse gasses.
- Use the abundant solar, geothermal, wind and ocean renewable energy for electricity generation
- User better agriculture and forestry methods to keep more carbon in soils, making land more productive and also dramatically reducing carbon in the atmosphere
- Stop mass clearing of jungle and rainforests for agriculture and timber
I will write further articles on these areas in the coming weeks.
The answer is quite simple. Biofuels are not the solution to global warming. They are part of the problem. We may well need biofuels in the future but we are better off doing many other things rather than putting food production into biofuels.
See: Oil Crunch