Not so fast on the biofuels
"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" -- New York Times.
Well, that's inconvenient. It sort of warns against the notion that we've got to "do something" about global warming even if we can't really demonstrate the benefits of the proposed action.
This is bad timing for gubernatorial candidate Bev Perdue, who today issued her plan for "making North Carolina a green energy leader." "I will be committed to achieving the State Biofuels Strategic Plan goal of having 10% of all liquid fuel sold in North Carolina come from biofuels grown and produced here," she promises.
Not to pick on Perdue. She's just running with the conventional wisdom that biofuels are automatically "green." Their production is undeniably good for our agricultural sector, but overall benefits ought to be weighed against costs.
The Times reports:
"In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States' most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urging a reform of biofuels policies. 'We write to call your attention to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will actually exacerbate global warming,' the letter said."
Will North Carolina revise its policy of encouraging greater production of biofuels?
Wind power is sounding better -- and not the kind produced by politicians.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Doug, while in Italy this past summer, the rental cars we used both had small, powerful, efficient, and relatively quiet turbodiesel engines. My understanding is that they haven't been as popular on the US due to negative sentiment about their emissions (which should be minimized by the use of biodiesel, if I'm reading the cited NYT article correctly) and public perception due to past failures of US-produced automobile diesel engines (which I shared until this recent experience).
More exciting is the possibility of reduction of dependence on foreign-sourced, nonrenewable petroleum with the domestic (and hopefully unmonopolized) production of renewable fuels. I share the concerns mentioned in the NYT article about the loss of tropical rainforests for fuel crop production, but that concern is tempered by the sudden increase in value of our local farmlands for soybean/corn production, so that our farmers no longer have to feel that the only future use of their property is to blanket it with McMansions.
Posted on February 8, 2008 8:37 PM
The post above, I suspect, will be typical of responses to this study. People will read it, misread it, and instinctively return to what they "know"--that "renewable" biofuels are superior to petroleum (even if, as they've forgotten by now, the overall greenhouse gas cost--not to mention the actual cost--is higher). It makes sense in precisely the simplistic, wrongheaded way that recycling makes sense: since "clearly" renewable energy sources or reused products are superior to the alternative, then we should support them. Even if they cost more and do more harm to the environment. The messy science/economics that show the latter pale in comparison with the simple, obvious "evidence" in favor of the former.
It's rather like evolution in that respect. Since there's a world, it seems "obvious" that someone must have made it. What's all this talk about DNA, the big bang, natural selection, etc.? Don't bother me with that stuff: I believe in God, and so he must have created the world.
Posted on February 8, 2008 10:39 PM
If we want to cut out dependence on foreign energy sources, why do some politicians want to say no to any further use of coal when we're finding cleaner and more efficient ways to use it all the time? It represents a significant domestic industry. If we can support biofuels, regardless of environmental cost, because it helps our agri-industry, why reject coal?
Posted on February 9, 2008 11:43 AM
Doug:
Current U.S. biofuel policy is a boondoggle. If we were serious about adopting biofuels, we would drop our tariffs on Brazilian ethanol, which is made more efficiently.
For the time being, coal is filthy, and its use should be discouraged. Maybe research will make it cleaner to use, but until then, we should look elsewhere.
Posted on February 9, 2008 9:07 PM