Stop the biofuel madness

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

It is said that there is not enough land on which to grow food, and this is, more than likely true, and yet land is being taken out of food production at the same time to satisfy our “need” for gasoline and diesel in the form of bio-ethanol and bio-diesel. If you think that this, somehow, does not compute I have to concur with you. It does not.

We must have gone totally insane to put fuel before food, whether it is corn (maize) being grown for biofuel or miscanthus, or whatever.

Somehow it would appear that automotive fuels have greater priority to those that claim to be our “leaders” than food security. Can we really not think beyond the motorcar and are we going to put driving before food? It would appear that those “leaders” most certainly do.

We can neither eat our gars nor the fuel on which they run, whether made from mineral oil or from plants and we must make the choice and make this clear to those that pretend to be our rulers.

Furthermore, aside from using valuable farm land, or in the case of palm oil for bio-diesel destroying the rainforests of Asia, biofuels will do nothing whatsoever to reduce carbon emissions and pollution, it is just a change from fossil fuel to another one to be burned in combustion engines.

Additionally, bio-diesel particle emissions, the ones held responsible for the increase in asthma, have been found to be several times greater than those from fossil suel diesel.

We are jumping from the proverbial frying pan right into the fire, and losing out as regards to farming areas at the same time. Has everyone gone insane?

It would, however, appear that everything is being done to maintain the motoring madness instead of getting people out of their cars and onto or into alternative means of getting about.

The British capital London has been told to cut air pollution by 2020 or face hefty fines and the cutting of pollution, whether in London or elsewhere, is not going to happen if we keep on motoring as we do right now and, as far as diesels are concerned, it will only get worse with bio-diesel. Time to wake up!

It is good to see though that many young people in the early part of the second decade of the twenty-first century are going car-less and are walking, cycling or using public transport instead. This is, to a degree, due to the ever increasing cost of running a motorcar as with tax and all that aside from the purchase price but also because they begin, and it is but a beginning only, so far, to understand that motoring is not a sustainable way.

There are still too many people who are not comprehending this, as yet, and firmly believe that mineral oil derived fuels and others will continue to make personal private motoring, which many see as a (human) right even by now it seems, possible.

This is, however, an illusion conjured up to them by those – unfortunately – in power with their snouts firmly embedded in the trough of the oil and motor industry.

You can't eat your car, or roads, neither most bio-fuel crops. We have to understand that we either can drive and by this very action destroy the Planet or change our ways and eat. Both at the same time soon will no longer be possible.

And here we are coming back to the issue of the way ever since World War Two the car has been put on a pedestal and we have separated ourselves not only further from Nature but also, as far as where we live further from our places of work and thus have become dependent and reliant on the car to get from home – often many tens of miles away – to work and back.

With mineral oil, if I may call it that, running out all over the place cheap and plentiful petroleum products are about coming to an end and no amount of tinkering, such as with hydraulic fracturing – fracking – for shale oil and shale gas is going to make any difference in that quarter. It is just going to prolong the agony and the destruction of ecosystems.

We must transition now to a oil-free future, and that included one free of biofuels, which still pollute and possibly even much more, to one without the internal combustion engine. And even methane produced by anaerobic digestion be best reserved for use in our electricity generating plants and for cooking and heating than for use in motor vehicles.

It is time – high time indeed – that it was realized that the time of personal motoring is over, is history and that the motorcar is and will have been but a blip in the history of mankind. The future is car-less, at least internal combustion engine car-less. And the sooner this was being realized the better and the futility of biofuels (and fracking) be abandoned.

© 2013

UN launches biofuels report

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Responding to a report launched on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization on the impacts of biofuels on food security, Friends of the Earth's Biofuels Campaigner Kenneth Richter said: “This is a stark reminder that Europe's biofuel targets are driving up food prices and increasing hunger among the world's poorest people.

“The biofuels industry is lobbying hard against new proposals before the European Parliament to limit the use of food crops for biofuels.

"MEPs must not bow to industry pressure - they must end the use of food for fuel.”

The report, written by the UN's High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security, confirms that the production of biofuel from crops has a significant and direct impact on food prices and food availability:

• "When crops are used for biofuels, the first direct impact is to reduce food and feed availability. This induces an increase in prices and a reduction of food demand by the poor."

• "Everything else being equal, the introduction of a rigid biofuel demand does affect food commodity prices. This observation holds in each context, even in the context of prices going down for other reasons than biofuels."

• "In the last few years (since 2004) of short-term commodity food price increase, biofuels did play an important role."

• "All crops compete for the same land or water, labor, capital, inputs and investment and there are no current magic non-food crops that can ensure more harmonious biofuel production on marginal lands. Therefore, non-food/feedcrops should be assessed with the same rigor as food/feedcrops for their direct and indirect food security impacts."

Biofuels, of whatever kind, are not the answer. What is required is a rethinking of the way we do things and the way we travel. In addition to that studies have shown that bio-diesel, for instance, has a higher output of particulate matter than has diesel derived from fossil oil. Those minute particles released into the atmosphere are the causal agents of asthma and other respiratory problems.

The problem is, however, that the powers-that-be wish to maintain the status quo of motoring for all as event he mere suggestion of it in public would put the cat among the pigeons, proverbial speaking, and lose them votes.

There is a possibility of one option for bio-diesel, though it again would mean that most people would have to give up the use of their private motorcars, and that is the use of gasoline made from hemp, as was intended for the first cars made by Henry Ford. He also built an entire car body from hemp fiber plastic.

Hemp, though, while an almost miracle crop, could never sustain the current level of motoring around the world and the only way we can progress and keep the Planet safe and healthy is by returning to other modes of personal transportation, which does not include the car.

For governments to even suggest this at this present moment in time, however, would be political suicide as the people have gotten so used to personal motoring that they will vote for anyone – regardless – who will promise them the continuation of this. And with regardless I mean here also that they are quite prepared to let the Planet go to hell in a hand basket, so to speak, for their short-term motoring freedom.

It has already been established that the growing of crops for biofuels is causing hunger in many areas and food shortages in general, as well as shortages on other levels, such as water but the people in the developed world do not care enough. Their only interest is the continuation of the status quo as regards to motoring and other ways of life.

Vast stretches of tropical rainforests are being destroyed wholesale for the growing of oil palms for palm oil for the creation of biofuels and also palm oil for use in cosmetics and other products. And other areas are being destroyed too for the growing of other crops for biofuel production; areas that could, even though claimed to be “marginal” lands, for the growing of foods.

When it comes to growing of certain foods too we have a problem such as when in Kenya “French” beans are being grown for consumption in the UK and other parts of the EU. The growing of those, and other crops, which are not part of the diet of the local population, is water intensive and occupies land that those countries, where hunger is a daily problem for many, could much better use in order to grow food for their people.

I have no problem with taking surplus crops from far away places if they are indeed surplus but am dead against cash crop produce grown for the markets in the developed world which being foods that the local people do not eat.

It is high time that the world rethought its priorities and fuel and cash crops are not priorities.

When it comes to fuel for motor vehicles it is time that we rethought personal motoring and while it has given people the freedom to live far away from their jobs and commute this has done no one any real favors. On the contrary.

© 2013

The UN's report 'Biofuels and food security' can be found here.

Carluccio's restaurant chain to recycle waste oil

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Italian restaurant chain Carluccio's has announced plans to convert its waste cooking oil into bio-diesel and thereby slashing the organisation's annual carbon emissions by up to 90%.

Carluccio's made the statement last week after finalising an agreement with leading bio-fuel producer Convert2Green to manage the conversion process.

Although no details were given as to when the partnership would commence, it is understood that Cheshire-based Convert2Green will collect waste oil from the eatery's 54 UK outlets and recycle it into high quality bio-fuel. That in turn will be used to fuel delivery trucks, which is where the emissions savings are made.

Steve Kaddish, Carluccio's development manager, said the move was just a part of the business' overall sustainability strategy, stating that the chain "takes our recycling, waste management and carbon savings very seriously."

Mr Kaddish explained: “Waste oil collection is a way for us to take positive steps and by making changes to the way we behave as a business; we are aiming to improve both the social and environmental impact of our operations.

“Our aim in the first twelve months is to save 92.7 tonnes of carbon through recycling our waste oil - a big step in our overall aim to recycle in the region of 78 per cent of all our waste.”

Andy Webb, director of Convert2Green added that restaurants in the UK are increasingly looking toward more sustainable practices. He said: “Restaurants produce thousands of litres of waste cooking oil per annum which might otherwise go to landfill or be exported, and may even cause environmental problems.

“By recycling with Convert2Green, the used cooking oil will be refined into bio-fuel here in the UK for use in road transport and for the generation of renewable and sustainable energy, thereby saving even more carbon emissions.”

While it must be said that converting waste cooking oil into bio-diesel is a great idea and much, much better than using virgin oils, be this palm oil, or whatever, to produce that fuel, we are still trying to keep the status quo as to the infernal combustion engine. We must get away from that thing though.

The other problem with bio-diesel is that the particle emission are at least the same if not worse. On the other hand, conversion also should not be needed if the vehicles would have their engines adjusted properly. Most diesel engines could, really, burn a multitude of oils.

Our love affair with the infernal combustion engine, whether it burns gasoline, diesel or even “natural” gas, is something that we must reconsider and we must do this rather pronto.

There is simply no way that we can produce all the crops for bio-fuels, as that would either mean fuel or food, in the end, and neither can we get enough waste cooking oil from which to make bio-diesel.

A serious rethink is required and the bicycle – in it various forms – and other human-powered vehicles – must be brought back into the equation.

Using waste cooking oil for bio-fuels is a great idea and a way of disposing safely of the oils it is NOT the answer.

© 2011

Sugarcane ethanol already meets California low carbon fuel standard, says Brazilian Sugarcane Association

Industry comments submitted to California Air Resources Board underscore sugarcane ethanol's recognized carbon reduction levels

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Sugarcane ethanol's carbon intensity is even lower than initially calculated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), according to comments submitted today by the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA).

CARB is scheduled to vote on the first-of-its-kind Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) on April 23-24. The objective of the LCFS is to reduce by 10% the carbon intensity of all transportation fuels in California by 2020.

What we must remember though is that the comments are from an industry body and, as far as I am concerned, much of what comes out of bodies of that kind is not necessarily the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

"Sugarcane ethanol has a verifiable reduction in greenhouse gases of 90% compared to gasoline. Sugarcane ethanol will easily meet the LCFS, not just in 2020 but today," said Marcos Jank, President & CEO of the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA), following submittal of a 25-page letter to the California regulator.

As part of broader climate change regulations, CARB is calculating the carbon intensity of all fuels used in the state. It has determined that the carbon intensity of gasoline is about 95 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule (gCO2/MJ), meaning that gasoline must reduce its carbon intensity to 86 gCO2/MJ by 2020 to meet the LCFS.

Additives such as biofuels will help gasoline meet the 10% reduction target, since some biofuels, like sugarcane ethanol, have much lower carbon intensity than gasoline. While preliminary CARB calculations indicate that sugarcane ethanol has a carbon intensity of 27 gCO2/MJ, the submission by UNICA points out that CARB failed to account for basic elements of sugarcane production and ethanol processing that directly affect that result. These include expanding mechanization of the cane harvest, increasing cogeneration and significant, ongoing reduction of pre-harvest field burnings.

"Any realistic evaluation of carbon emissions from sugarcane farming in Brazil must reflect the strict policies being implemented and action already taken to phase out sugarcane burning, increase mechanical harvesting and expand cogeneration output," said Joel Velasco, UNICA Chief Representative in North America. "Time and again, analysts have confirmed that sugarcane ethanol achieves about a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to yesterday's gasoline. And that's not even comparing with tomorrow's gasoline, which will certainly come from more carbon intensive sources."

The letter of Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) also addresses the controversial calculations resulting from so-called indirect land use change impacts from sugarcane expansion. The letter supports numerous comments from stakeholders and mentions specifically a letter by 111 Ph.D. Scientists which states that the science used to determine such impacts is quite limited, highly uncertain and open to misuse, through selective enforcement of such impacts. It urges CARB to revisit the methodologies utilized in land use change modeling.

"If CARB is determined to push forward with ILUC quantifications, we are asking that the best available data and research be considered before rushing to conclusions. If they want to project indirect land use changes in the future, they must start by accurately representing the dynamics of Brazilian agriculture today. We are confident that a thorough and scientific analysis will conclude that indirect land use change from sugarcane cultivation in Brazil is marginal at best, as we endeavor to demonstrate in our letter," said Velasco, who will be in Sacramento for the CARB vote on the LCFS next week.

To download UNICA's letter to the California Air Resources Board, use the following link: http://www.unica.com.br/download.asp?mmdCode=50F82F75-EA2D-4BB6-8832-B81C15EFFD8E

The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) represents the top producers of sugar and ethanol in the country's South-Central region, especially the state of Sao Paulo, which accounts for about 50% of the country's sugarcane harvest and 60% of total ethanol production. UNICA develops position papers, statistics and specific research in support of Brazil's sugar, ethanol and bioelectricity sectors. In 2008, Brazil produced an estimated 565 million metric tons of sugarcane, which yielded 31.3 million tons of sugar and 25.7 billion liters (6.8 billion gallons) of ethanol.

My personal beef with all biofuels is that the production of most if much more intensive than anything else, that it requires large amounts of water – which is scarce in many of the growing regions – and also lots of fertilizers and pesticides, etc. In addition to that, and this is one of the biggest concerns of mine, is that it takes good farmland out of food production and could, by this very act, cause food shortages. Furthermore there are findings that in fact show that the emissions from biofuels, are more harmful than in fact those from oil derives fuels, and while we must get away from burning fossil fuels we should not exchange one evil for an even greater one. Think!

© 2009
<>

Biofuels sinful, Muslim cleric says

by Michael Smith

And the learned cleric did not make this statement because the growing of the crops whence biofuels are made from and the fact that the growing of such crops could cause hunger around the world. Nay, but because many biofuels are alcohol and alcohol is prohibited by the Koran.

The adaptation of biofuels could therefore be limited in Muslim communities after an Islamic scholar called for religious groups to study whether biofuels might violate the ban on alcohol in Islam.

Sheik Mohamed al-Najimi of the Saudi Islamic Jurisprudence Academy told the the Saudi newspaper Shams that the Prophet Mohammed prohibited all dealings with alcohol – which would include buying, selling, transporting, drinking, serving and manufacturing.

Ethanol is derived from ethyl alcohol, which al-Najimi said would fall into the prohibited category. In the process to make ethanol, sugar or starch from plants is converted into ethyl alcohol through yeast fermentation.

Biofuel "is basically made up of alcohol," he said.

Al-Najimi said his opinion on biofuels should not be considered a fatwa, or a legal pronouncement in Islam, but should prompt Islamic leaders to study the issue.

Al-Najimi said he thinks a ban on biofuels should extend beyond predominately Muslim countries to include Saudi and Muslim youth studying abroad who ride in vehicles using biofuel. Many Western and Eastern governments have established mandates for biofuel to be blended in petroleum based fuel in increasing percentages.

What the learned Sheik does not seem to understand is that the Prophet was speaking of alcoholl for the purpose of drinking when he prohibited all dealings with alcohol – which apparently includes the buying, selling, transporting, serving and manufacturing.

Personally I doubt the Prophet was referring to the use in fuel or as, for instance, a medical disinfectant.

However, I have my own reservations as to biofuels, as the reader will know from previous articles and this has nothing to do with the fact that some biofuels are alcohol. It has, on the other hand, everything to do with the fact that the growing of those plants for biofuels occupies lands that are better used for food production.

We must, as I have said before, get away from the notion of biofuels for the running of cars and trucks and find better and cleaner ways and ways that do not put an additional strain on the environment.

© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>

Biofuels, biofuels and biofuels again

by Michael Smith

I must say the whole issue of biofuel, biodiesel, and such like is beginning to get on my nerves for we are not making things one iota better if we keep burning this or that other fuel in the infernal combustion engines of our cars and trucks, not one little one. It is still releasing pollution, including CO2 and other such gases, into the air and the atmosphere in the end.

In addition to that those fuels are, predominately, made from this or that food crop or, of they are not than they use land that could be and should be used for the production of food.

We must find other ways of transportation and we must get away from the infernal combustion engine, unless we get back to the fuel the car was supposed to be run on, namely methane gas. That's right, sewer gas.

On the other hand we must find a cleaner way of getting about, aside from, I mean, walking and cycling and using horses and buggy. Not that there is anything wrong with those methods of transportation, none whatsoever in fact.

When it comes to so-called biofuels I do not care whether this is ethanol or biodiesel; both still pollute and, according to some studies, they in fact are worse than the oil-based fuels that they are meant to replace. They are not as green as the credentials that are often given them. We don't even want to talk about as to whether they are ethically pure.

If it is just the fact that we are running out of oil, the so-called black gold, and wish to replace it with something that can be grown rather then that is one thing. But this is not the way that we should approach this. We must use the opportunity of peak oil to find new ways of powering cars and trucks and the methods, it would appear, are there already and have, in fact, been thus for decades if not longer even. The only problem was and still is that the oil lobby is stopping the proper development of those.

According to what I have read and therefore understand good old Henry Ford designed the Model T not for oil-based fuels but for methane, originally, in the same was as the first electricity generating plants were designed to be run on the same gas.
However, oil became plentiful and therefor cheap cheap and thus the switch was made too run cars and trucks and oil-based fuels such as diesel and gasoline. The lobby is still strong and is now going over to other oils for the manufacture of fuels with which to power the motor vehicles. They have the refineries and all they look at doing is to change the setup, so at least it appears to me. They just switch to the new kind of oil and other substances which to turn into fuel for the ICE. The same lobby will control the biofuels, of that we can be sure, and this may just mean that other kinds of propulsion is being suppressed yet again.

As far as biofuels, whether ethanol from sugarcane or other crops, or biodiesel from palm oil (oh dear) or other plants, are concerned all I am seeing is trouble ahead and this because not only is the world running out of the Black Gold, the oil, but we are also running short of food and of land on which to grow the same. But the biofuel industry is advocating the growing of crops, including food crops, for the making of biofuels, as in the case of maize (corn, for our Transatlantic cousins). This just does NOT compute. Food must be the priority and water; both of which are being sacrificed in the rush to keep the ICEs going.

A thorough rethink is required as to how we wish to transport things about and ourselves and while cars and trucks will still be needed we must find another means of propulsion. Electric cars is one answer and electric motorbikes, scooters and such and delivery vans. When is comes to the 18-wheelers then we may have to look at the use of methane in internal combustion engines, as I do not think that there are – at least not as yet – electrical motors powerful enough to shift the likes of tonnages that they carry.

Nautical transportation – to a great degree – maybe – could go back under sail and with today's modern technology it should be quite easy to do just that. We may have to look at another way of packing the cargo though as containers on deck might not work.

We have the technology to get away from the ICE – at least to the greatest extent – and get about with clean vehicles. Biofuels are not the answer, at least as far as what I can see, as the production of same could cause many hundreds of thousands if not millions to suffer serious hunger around the world and even in our own countries of the developed world. Food must be the priority not fuel for cars.

I rest my case.

© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>

Biofuels cannot be called sustainable, at least not in British Advert

Advertising Standards Authority upholds George Monbiot’s complaint and rules that biofuels can only be declared “sustainable” if clear policies are in place to limit impact on food production and deforestation

by Michael Smith

A complaint by environmental journalist George Monbiot that advertisements in the national press by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) misrepresented biofuels as “sustainable” has been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently.

The ASA ruled that large text at the bottom of the adverts stating referring to biofuels as a “sustainable answer to OPEC's oil” was misleading, and banned the ads from appearing again in their current form.

The Renewable Fuels Association, on the other hand, said it believed biofuels met the Oxford English Dictionary definition of sustainable as “able to be sustained” and “avoiding depletion of natural resources” and argued that the feedstocks commonly used for biofuel production, such as grains, vegetable oils and sugar cane, were renewable, plant-based resources which could be grown and harvested or collected each year.

What the RFA, obviously, does not take into consideration but what the ASA did is the fact that many of those operations of growing the base crop for biofuels cause irreparable damage to the world's environment and to fragile ecosystems. Their hair splitting as to the definition of sustainable and sustainability in the Oxford dictionary also is, in my view, less than helpful.

Instead the RFA went on to say there was considerable evidence to suggest biofuels were not primary contributors to the global food crisis and that it was also not correct to suggest that biofuels were responsible for an expansion of agricultural land into wildlife habitat and the loss of biodiversity.

This evidence is, obviously, from the industry itself in the same way as someone wanted to persuade – for lack of another word – the Green (Living) Review that biofuels were fine and had no impact on the food resources. That particular correspondent also was from the industry.

The organisation cited research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the US Department of Agriculture, which showed that there was significant global capacity to expand agricultural land use without jeopardising land use for forest or other sensitive environmental ecosystems.

The advertising standards authority accepted these arguments but countered that the UK government's Gallagher Review considered biofuel production would result in net greenhouse emissions and loss of biodiversity through habitat destruction in the period to 2020 unless improved policies were put in place to ensure biofuel production targeted idle or marginal land.

The EU is currently working on the development of such land use policies, but the ASA concluded that until they are in place and fully adopted the impact of increased demand for energy crops on deforestation and food production meant it is misleading to refer to them as sustainable.

The other side of biofuels, especially as regards to bio-diesel, is that it is reckoned to be more polluting than the oil-based fuels they are supposed to replace, and this also with regards to the emission of so-called greenhouse gases. And still they are trying to persuade us all that this is the better option.

I must say it is beginning to appear that we are trading the fossil oil lobby for the biofuels lobby and the latter seems to be as bad as the former, if not even getting worse than that.

The problem is that the biofuels lobby, from a variety of sides, is doing a great job at greenwashing and browbeating of people, trying to make everyone believe that they have the environment at heart and are working to ease climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth as far as most of them are concerned. They have a vested interested and that interest is money, at least as far as the big companies are concerned and let's face it, the big petrochemical companies are jumping on the bandwagon and are very vociferous. There is money to be made here and lots of it, and the governments are giving grants for biofuels left, right and center. Nice work if you can get it.

It is my belief that we should look at a completely different alternative to the ICE, the infernal combustion engine, and therefore could do away with the need for such fuels and this ongoing discussion on this matter as to harm or not harm done by biofuels.

Bio-diesel produced from waste cooking oil in one thing or cars run on gas produced from waste, but to actually grow crops that are to be turned into a diesel or a gasoline replacement on land that would be much better used for the growing of foods is not only not sustainable but it is a crime.

Many of the crops that are grown for turning into biofuels in fact are food crops, such as maize, for instance, or sugar cane as well, and sugar cane is being grown in land stolen from the rainforests, the latter which we need so urgently to keep the climate balanced.

The first motorcars were not designed to be run on gasoline, for instance, but on methane gas, and we sure have lots of that.

© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>

Biofuels Caused Food Prices to Soar 75% World Bank says

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

According to a report by the World Bank the run for biofuels in the developed world has caused food prices to increase by 75% worldwide.

Anyone who had the idea that biofuels, like ethanol or bio-diesel, made from corn, soy, or rapeseed are going to solve our energy problems, better think again.

Even if biofuels alleviate the energy headaches of the West, at the moment their cultivation has left populations around the globe starving.

The Guardian newspaper of Britain got hold of a secret World Bank report that found the U.S. and the EU are directly responsible for the current critical shortage of rice and other grains around the world, forcing food prices up by 75 percent by diverting grain away from food cultivation and into biofuels.

The Bush administration had the World Bank report suppressed and, no doubt, neither the British government not the European Union are going to be very happy about the fact that it is now in the public domain.

Already food riots have broken out this year in Mexico, Indonesia, Morocco, Guinea, Mauritania, Senegal, Yeman, Uzbekistan, Haiti, Egypt, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, India, and Somalia.

To recap let's put the food/fuel issue in perspective – it takes more than the amount of maize that is required to feed the average African FOR A YEAR to make enough fuel to fill ONE SINGLE AMERICAN MOTOR VEHICLE TANK JUST ONE TIME.

This is not something that can be called sustainable but sustainable they want to call it. This is greenwashing at its highest. We must not and cannot look to those fuels to “save” us. We must get away from the use of the infernal combustion engine, once and for all.

The EU and the UK government must get away from their silly notion of a sustainable fuel policy using biofuels. It does not work and is not sustainable.

While the use of wood for electricity generating plants is one thing that must be considered biofuels, whether ethanol or biodiel, unless the latter is from waste cooking oils or other such waste oils, should be abandoned now, once and for all. In the countries of South-East Asia the cultivation of palm oil for biodiesel is destroying valuable habitat and making the Orangutan homeless and by doing so in fact killing the species in the wild. All this just so that some in the developed world can continue their love affair with the gas guzzling motor cars and trucks. We must rethink and reevaluate our ways and our impact on the environment and also our impact on others that share this planet with us, whether other human beings or animals, fish, birds and plants.

© M Smith (Veshengro), August 2008
<>

Biofuels fail to meet standards

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Environmental groups have called for the targets for biofuels to be scrapped after data published by the Renewable Fuels Agency showed that less than twenty percent of all biofuels that are currently on sale in the Britain are meeting environmental standards.

The British Government's Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) aims to increase biofuels to five percent of all fuel sold by 2010-11, while the EU is expected to agree a target of ten percent by 2020.

The Renewable Fuels Agency's first monthly report, published recently, and which covers the first month of the RTFO from April 15 to May 14, showed that just nineteen percent of biofuels have met environmental standards, compared to a thirty percent target for the year.

The market was dominated by imports, but retailers had no idea of the country of origin or of the feedstock used for nearly half of the fuels they sold.

All one can say to that is “what a shambles”.

Friends of the Earth's biofuels campaigner, Asad Rehman, said: "The shocking admission that we are unable to identify the origin of nearly half the biofuels used in the UK means that the Government cannot assure the British people that the biofuels in their petrol tanks have not destroyed rainforests.

"That less than a fifth of the biofuels used fail to meet even minimal environmental standards adds further weight to Friends of the Earth's view that they are a phoney solution to climate change.

"The Government must put the RTFO on hold and vote against EU biofuels targets."

To this one can but add that this is not a sustainable way and we, therefore, must get away from such biofuels, especially as it has been shown that the use of agrofuels is causing the current food crisis and will but make matters worse if we continue down that road.

Last month, the Renewable Fuels Agency's review of biofuels, led by Professor Ed Gallagher, concluded that biofuels could harm biodiversity, cause greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to rising food prices, if not more safeguards be put in place.

As stated above, I think that we must stop playing with agrofuels and look for better alternatives.

© M Smith (Veshengro), August 2008
<>

European Union backs slowly away from crop-based biofuels

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

EU ministers for energy and the environment have revised their targets for renewable energy in the face of abundant new evidence that increased production of agrofuels is partly responsible for the worldwide increase of food prices.

The EU has had a declared objective of increasing the share of crop derived biofuels used in transport by 10 percent by 2010. This objective was announced during the spring of 2007, as part of the European Commission (EC) plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. The European Commission is the executive arm of the EU.

Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are thought to be the main cause of global warming, and thus of climate change.

Please note that it says “are thought to be”, which means, as I keep saying, that this is not a proven fact, though we are, more often than not, presented with it as a fact. The story most of us hear again and again is that “greenhouse cases cause climate change”. Still no acceptance of the possibility, even of the possibility, that the climate change, which is a fact, is a cyclic phenomenon of the Earth and that we can do nothing to stop it. This “are thought to be” is not just my words; in fact the writers for the Eu seem to be using the same words.

German deputy minister for technology and energy Jochen Homann said after a EU ministers meeting earlier this month that the EU had "discovered" that the EC directives speak of "renewable sources", not just agrofuels.

Oh, the EU has “discovered”, much like the British government that “discovered” that one can use canals for freight transport – what the hell did they think they were designed and built for – and that one can burn wood (for energy) – something even the Neanderthals could have told them, that the directives of the European Commission, the governing body of the EU, speaks of “renewable sources” and not just (food) crop based biofuels.

Agrofuels are distilled from maize, sugarcane, soy and other crops, and were until recently considered a carbon-free combustible that could be used in automobiles without producing greenhouse gas emissions.

Recent studies and findings though seem to suggest that biofuels from such crops as mentioned above may cause more harmful emissions in fact than oil based fuels in the current ICE vehicles.

In a declaration to the press after the meeting in St. Cloud on the outskirts of Paris, French minister for the environment and energy Jean-Louis Borloo said agrofuels "are only one alternative, among others."

Numerous EU documents speak of increasing the share of agrofuels in transport.

Article 3 of an EC directive of 2003 (also known as the biofuels directive) asks member states to ensure "5.75 percent agrofuels" in fuel used for transport. The same year the French government – of which Borloo was deputy minister for urban development first, and minister for labour and social affairs later – approved a plan to increase the share of agrofuels to seven percent by 2010.

Another European directive, approved by the Council of the European Union in March 2007 establishes "a 10 percent binding minimum target to be achieved by all member states for the share of biofuels in overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption by 2020, to be introduced in a cost-efficient way."

Now, after the correction in St. Cloud, the EU might change its official views on agrofuels, once considered the ideal solution to feed the growing demand for transport fuel while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The EU about-face on this comes, as I indicated above already, after new scientific suggests that the ecological footprint of biofuels from crops is not as green as once thought. New evidence has also underlined the responsibility of agrofuels for the food scarcity crisis.

As I have said in a previous article, it would have hardly needed a study of any kind to realize that the use of food crops for the production of biofuels would push up the demand and with it the prices, leading to a scarcity, especially as commodity brokers play with the grains.

A World Bank paper says production of agrofuels is responsible for 75 percent of the increase in the price of food. The confidential report leaked to the media says higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for only 15 percent of the increase.

The figure contradicts claims by the U.S. government that agrofuels have contributed less than three percent to food price increases.

The Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 produced jointly by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of 30 wealthy nations, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says "the pressure (on food prices) can be either direct, through growing demand and changes in consumption patterns as incomes rise, or indirect as alternative uses of food crops, such as inputs for fuels, have led to higher domestic prices."

For the EU, the OECD-FAO report says that "this growth in biofuel markets translates into strongly increased demand for feedstock products." The document says the "use of wheat (for agrofuel production) in particular is set to increase twelve-fold and to reach some 18 million tonnes by 2016.

"Growth in the use of oilseeds (largely rapeseed) and maize is less dramatic, but would still reach 21 million tonnes and 5.2 million tonnes by 2016 respectively," the paper adds.

Yet another study, by the Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency (EPEA, based in Hamburg, Germany), says agrofuels "create much more (ecological) problems than they will solve, including deforestation, increase in greenhouse gas emissions, requirements for land that does not exist to achieve positive environmental effects, enhanced food insecurity, creation of more poverty, increased soil degradation, decreased biodiversity, (and) accelerated depletion of natural resources."

Borloo says "over the years, agrofuels were the one and only (ecological) truth; now, we are about to change our minds at the highest speed. What we considered the solution a couple of months ago is now in disgrace."

With all this evidence before us why are the governments, whether the British, or the EU as a whole, still advocating the stupid notion of fuels from crops? If we are really serious about reducing emission – I will not call them “greenhouse gases” - then we must get away from the vehicles with internal combustion engines that burn fuels, whether oil-based or whatever-based.

© M Smith (Veshengro), August 2008
<>

No link between biofuels and food prices, leading biofuel industry figure claims

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Biofuel production has almost no impact on food supplies and Government must stop hiding behind the tabloid "food or fuel" debate, says Graham Hilton, leading figure in the biofuels industry.

Graham Hilton, chair of the Renewable Transport Fuels Working Group and managing director of The Energy Crops Company, accused the Government of panicking in the face of public criticism of biofuels.

It is obvious, surely, that Mr, Hilton has absolutely no vested interests here in stating such clap-trap.

Reacting to the publication of the Gallagher Review, he said the report contradicted Defra's own conclusions about the impact on the food production industry.

"Defra have confirmed that biofuels have virtually no impact on the cost of food," he said.

"The real reasons behind the rise in the cost of food are lack of investment, an increase in the fuel costs of agriculture and severe weather impacts such as drought and floods."

He said the biofuels industry is working hard to ensure it is responsible and sustainable - claiming other industries are lagging far behind their efforts.

"Government should stop hiding behind tabloids and have the courage to encourage an industry that has done more than anybody to put the safeguards in place and to make a real contribution," Mr Hilton added.

Mr Hilton has an axe to grind for sure and he would claim that the biofuels industry has no impact on food prices seeing as he is – one – the very chairperson of the Renewable Transport Fuels Working Group and – two – and this is much more important probably – the managing director of The Energy Crops Company. Therefore, I am sure that no one could accuse him of having a vested interest now and being biased towards the biofuels industry, could they. Hell, they could.

The problem appears to be that the biofuels industry is going to be the next oil industry with the same kind of attitudes. It is they – like Mr. Hilton, who hide behind “green” credentials while all they are really interested in is in the bottom line and how much profit they can make out of it, regardless whether it drives the cost of food through the roof and whether people suffer. Not their concern. The environment is, so they say.

But studies have also now found that the use of most biofuels, if not indeed all, rather than reducing any harmful emissions, including the CO2 so tauted as being the responsible agent for Climate Change – remember not so long ago freons were held responsible for the hole in the Ozone layer – will even increase them, and still they all want to go “full steam ahead” with biofuels. Whoa! Someone pull in the reins and stop this runaway ream of horses.

We now have another industry with vested interest that claims to be green and all that even but will be as damaging, if not controlled, as the oil and petroleum industry was and still is, as far as the environment and people are concerned. Let's not even talk about extracting oil from tar sands of Canada, for instance, or coal by removing mountaintops in the Appalachians.

Time for a change... a real change...

© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
<>

OECD report finds that lowering energy consumption is better than biofuels for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Well, now that was obvious, was it not... How much did this study cost?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

According to a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), entitled "Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies", not only is public support of biofuels costly, it also has very little impact on reducing “greenhouse gas” emissions.

All the tax incentives, blending targets and other public support policies in the European Union, the US, and Canada total $25 billion per year but will ultimately result in less than a 1% reduction in emissions from transport by 2015, according to the OECD report.

The benefits of biofuels are very often more than overstated

The OECD said that if Brazil’s ethanol produced from sugar cane cuts greenhouse gas emissions by around 80%, biofuels from feedstocks in the United States, the EU or Canada tend to have a far lower environmental benefit. Biodiesel from vegetable oil cuts greenhouse emissions by around 40-55% and ethanol from corn…generally cuts them by less than 30%.”

The worst offender in this list, biodiesel from palm oil, according to some estimates actually increases greenhouse gas emissions compared to ordinary diesel by 800%, and in addition possibly contributes to Orangutan extinction in the wild.

Lowering energy consumption is by far a better solution than biofuels

In its recommendations, the OECD says that governments should offer more support for second generation biofuel feedstocks that don’t use food crops, but more importantly, policies designed to reduce overall energy consumption should receive more funding.

A study recently has also shown that instead of lowering and reducing CO2 and other emissions biofuels can actually make matters worse. Therefore, we need to look at new sources and also at old ways of transport. Yes, I did say, OLD ways, and this includes especially the bicycle and the horse and mule.

From the report’s policy recommendations,

A priority focus, said the mentioned report, needs to be given to reducing energy consumption. This is especially important in the transport sector where the growth in energy use and related environmental problems is most pronounced. In particular, this includes the gradual move from highly energy intensive modes of transport to less intensive ones, and improvement in fuel efficiency in all transport sectors. Generally the costs of reducing GHG emissions by saving energy are lower than by switching to alternative energy sources, in particular biofuels.

While this is being said by the OECD the UK government still supports the 10 percent target by 2020 but wants the indirect effects of biofuels to be part of the sustainability criteria, and the UK wants a rigorous review of the target in 2013-2014.

Why this continuing support of the 10 percent target? One can only assume that jobs and money is at stake here, and votes and promises of investment here and there.

Essentially, in the report, the OECD is recommending that government embrace the factor that energy efficiency is crucial for combating climate change and for making renewable energy technologies most effective.

A recent World Bank report estimated that, alongside drought and speculation, biofuels derived from crops such as grains, oil seeds and sugar were responsible for up to three quarters of recent hikes in food prices which have hurt the world's poorest.

Global demand for agricultural land would soar by 2020 meaning in future all biofuel demand must come from marginal land, including use of hi-tech fuels derived from waste like straw and wood chips instead of food. Other sources could be, as apparently the Brazilians have pioneered, ethanol from grass clippings. Then there also is good old methane, as a gas, which could be cerated in methane digesters.

We also, as I have already stated, must get away form the overuse, and overuse it indeed is, of the motor car for transportation.

Why does anyone have to use the car to pop round to the corner shop for the newspaper or that packet of cigarettes? Why do the children have to be taken to school by car, seeing the school is only a block away?

Yes, I am a cyclist and do not even own a motorcar. I do not even have a driver's license. So, I know that people might think me biased as regards to the car but that is not the case. It is the needless use that I am against.

I am also against the needless use of other motorized operations when human-powered would do nicely. We must liberate ourselves from the over-reliance on gasoline or diesel powered appliances and vehicles. While there is a case for such appliances and vehicles, etc. at times, there are more often than not occasions where starting up the lawnmower or the car would take longer than doing it in a more old-fashioned way.

We must reduce our energy consumption, and that on a number of levels. The survival of mankind, to a great degree, depends on this. Do we want food or fuel? We must decide.

© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
<>

Review finds that biofuels could CAUSE greenhouse gases

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Biofuels will harm biodiversity and may even cause greenhouse gas emissions, an independent review has concluded, though the review ruled out a moratorium on the use of biofuels in petrol. Why not?

Gallagher review, by the Renewable Fuels Agency's (RFA), into the indirect effects of biofuels, said that the increasing demand is also contributing to rising food prices, which in the short term could have a severe impact on the poor.

As it would appear, this review and study found that biofuels, aside from the environmental impact they will have, and the impact as to food shortages and hunger, could have an impact as regards to greenhouse gases that could be as bad – if not even worse – than gasoline and diesel.

The RFA, however, ruled out a moratorium on biofuels. Instead it called on government to reduce the rate of increase of the UK's biofuels target to just half a percent a year, bringing the target to five percent in 2013 to 2014.

The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), which came into force in April 2008, does require, however, that 2.5% of fuel on forecourts in 2008/2009 have to be biofuels, increasing by 1.25% a year to 5% in 2010/2011.

The review also said that the European Union's target of 10 percent biofuels by 2020 is not justified by scientific evidence but could be possible if conditions are put in place to ensure sustainability.

Presently anyone who does not wear blinkers should realize that this is not sustainable and it is rather questionable as to whether any conditions can be put into place to ensure sustainability. Food crops are being turned into fuel, such as maize (corn) for ethanol, or palm oil for bio-diesel, the latter, while not being a food crop does cause, for lack of a better word, the clearing of forests and also the planting of those palms in favor of food crops. Neither of it is sustainable. So, I do not think that we need a sustainability study on this. It is glaringly obvious.

Why on earth do we want to created fuel for ICE vehicles from food crops or such. We must get away for the overuse of the ICE vehicles and go over to something more sensible.

On the other hand, and it has been tried, diesel engines, especially those so-called multi-fuel diesels can automatically use waste cooking oil without any problems whatsoever. So, why are we playing around with growing foods for bio-diesel when waste cooking oils can be used for this. Maybe, instead of “safely” disposing of cooking oil as, so I understand, is the present practice, we should use all of those oils to turn into fuel and it would not even need much work bar, theoretically, filtering out the bits of food debris in the oil.

I would love to know the amount, daily, of cooking oils that are “disposed” off in this country's McD's and other such outlets and that could be made use of to fuel vehicles.

Professor Gallagher said: "Our review makes clear that the risks of negative impacts from biofuels are real and significant, but it also lays out a path for a truly sustainable biofuels industry in the future."

Does it? It would be nice if Professor Gallagher would point out where the sustainability lies with bio-fuels. Somewhere along the line I seem to be missing it.

Responding to the review, government announced it will consult on slowing down the rate of increase in the RTFO and will press for the EU's 10% target to be kept under regular review.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said: "We need to proceed more cautiously than previously thought, but we should not give up on the potential for some biofuels to help us tackle climate change now and in the future."

Greenpeace chief scientist Dr. Doug Parr said: "This review sends a stark message - using food crops to fuel our cars risks making climate change worse and increasing food prices for the world's poorest people."

He called on Gordon Brown to promote other green motoring alternatives, such as making our cars more fuel efficient and boosting the number of vehicles powered by clean, renewable electricity.

Like Greenpeace we at the Green (Living) Review also would urge the British government and the European Union as a whole to seriously look at alternatives to the ICE in cars and trucks and to promote alternative transport ways and means.

For local transportation, as the Danes and the Dutch keeping showing us, the bicycle is a great alternative to the motorcar, especially also with regards to the fact that one does not have to find parking spaces and even if one can find them one has to pay for parking in most places.

In the countryside the horse and buggy might even be something to be considered (again), as well as the use of horses in agriculture and in forestry.

Yes, we may need some more people to actually do some physically work again in those and other industries but I doubt that it will kill any of us. In fact it may just about save the health of many of us.

Fuel efficient designs for cars have been around for years and decades only the companies were not permitted to put them into mass production. Why not? Because of vested interest of industry and government.

The chief executive of Ensus, the company which is building Europe's largest biorefinery in North East England, said: "We are very concerned at the suggestion of backtracking on existing commitments under the RTFO.

"We think this is unnecessary when sustainable production can already be achieved."

Well, he would say that, would he not for he has a vested interest in the production of biofuels. What we have to do is go back to the drawing board and rethink what we are doing.

While it might have looked at the beginning as if we had an answer to something there with biofuels it would seem now that we rather do not and therefore we should put on the brakes here for the present and look at more sustainable transport, whether electric vehicles or human-powered vehicles or animal power.

Do we really have to use the motorcar in the way that we do? No, we do not.

Food for thought... so long as we still have food...

© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008

Biofuel policies in OECD countries costly and ineffective, says report

NEWS RELEASE

16/07/2008 - Government support of biofuel production in OECD countries is costly, has a limited impact on reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy security, and has a significant impact on world crop prices, according to a new study of policies to promote greater production and use of biofuel in OECD countries.

OECD’s Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies says biofuels are currently highly dependent on public funding to be viable. In the US, Canada and the European Union government support for the supply and use of biofuels is expected to rise to around USD 25 billion per year by 2015 from about USD 11 billion in 2006.

The report estimates that biofuel support costs between USD 960 to USD 1700 per tonne of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide equivalent) saved.

Support policies include budgetary measures, either as tax concessions or direct
financial support for biofuel producers, retailers or users. Blending or use mandates require that biofuels represent a minimum share of the transport fuel market and result in increased fuel costs to consumers due to the higher production costs of biofuels.

Trade restrictions, mainly in the form of import tariffs, protect the domestic industry from foreign competitors but impose a cost burdon on domestic biofuel users and limit development prospects for alternative suppliers.

The report calls on governments to refocus policies to encourage lower energy consumption, particularly in the transport sector. It also calls for more open markets in biofuels and feedstocks in order to improve efficiency and lower costs. The report recommends a clear focus on alternative fuels that maximise the reduction of fossil fuel useage and greenhouse gas emissions. Further, research to accelerate development of second generation biofuels that do not require commodity feedstocks is suggested.

The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a primary reason for current biofuel policies but the savings are limited. Ethanol from sugar cane - the main feedstock used in Brazil – reduces greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent compared to fossil fuels. But emission reductions are much smaller from biofuels based on feedstocks used in Europe and North America.

Biofuels produced from wheat, sugar beet or vegetable oil rarely provide emission savings of more than 30 to 60 percent while savings from corn (maize) based ethanol are generally less than 30 percent. Overall, the continuation of current biofuel support policies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuel by no more than 0.8 percent by 2015.

The impact of current biofuel policies on world crop prices, largely through increased demand for cereals and vegetable oils, is significant but should not be overestimated.

Current biofuel support measures alone are estimated to increase average wheat prices by about 5 percent, maize by around 7 percent and vegetable oil by about 19 percent over the next 10 years.

Taking into account the 2007 US Energy Independence and Security Act and the proposed EU Directive for Renewable Energy, 13 percent of world coarse grain production and 20 percent of world vegetable oil production could shift to biofuel production in the next 10 years, up from 8 percent and 9 percent in 2007, respectively.

OECD’s Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies can be downloaded here. This is a PDF file.

Source: OECD
<>

Another Inconvenient Truth: Biofuels drive hunger and are not the answer to climate or fuel crises says Oxfam

June 25, 2008 12:01 AM

Today's biofuel policies are not solving the climate or fuel crises but are instead contributing to food insecurity and inflation, hitting poor people hardest, according to a new report by international agency Oxfam.

In today's report "Another Inconvenient Truth", Oxfam calculates that rich country biofuel policies have dragged more than 30 million people into poverty, based on evidence that biofuels have already contributed up to 30% to the global rise in food prices.

Oxfam believes the UK government, which introduced 2.5% of biofuel in all transport fuel last April, should reverse its policy instead of doubling the amount by 2010. The UK government should also press the EU to follow suit, by cancelling plans for a 10% biofuel target by 2020. Oxfam hopes that the conclusions from the 'Gallagher Review'*, due out tomorrow, will add extra pressure on the Government to act.

"It would be shameful if the government decided to plough on ahead regardless of mounting evidence exposing the dangerous short-comings of biofuels," said report author Robert Bailey. "Their biofuels policy is out of sync with its overall ambition to tackle climate change and promote development around the world.

"Rich counties' biofuel policies- including the UK's - is actually helping to accelerate climate change and deepen poverty and hunger. Rich countries' demands for more biofuels in their transport fuels are causing spiralling food inflation."

He continued: "If the fuel value for a crop is more than its food value, then it will be sold for fuel instead. Thanks to generous subsidies and tax breaks, that is exactly what is happening. Grain reserves are now at an all-time low."

Rich countries, including the UK, are supporting their own biofuel production through rapidly increasing targets, subsidies, tax breaks and tariffs. From being hailed as a green initiative, biofuels have been used to protect farming interests, with support ultimately creating a new 'tax on food'.

"Rich countries spent up to $15 billion last year supporting their own biofuels while blocking cheaper Brazilian ethanol, which is far less damaging for global food security and the environment. That's the same amount of money that Oxfam says is needed to help poor people cope with the food crisis," said Bailey.

"This is a regressive tax that hits poor people the hardest because their food bills represent a greater share of their income," he said.

The biofuels being grown today are not an effective answer to climate change. Instead, biofuels are taking over agricultural land and forcing farming to expand into lands that are important carbon sinks, like forests and wetlands. This triggers the release of carbon from soil and vegetation that will take decades to repay.

Oxfam estimates that by 2020, as a result of the EU's 10% biofuel target, carbon emissions from changing land use for palm oil could be almost 70 times greater than the annual savings the EU hopes to achieve from biofuels by then.

The report shows that biofuels will not address rich countries' need for fuel security, as has been argued by supporters of biofuels. "Even if the entire world's supply of grains and sugars were converted into ethanol tomorrow - in the process giving us all even less to eat - we would only be able to replace 40% of our petrol and diesel consumption," Bailey said. "Rich country governments should not use biofuels as an excuse to avoid urgent decisions about how to reduce their unfettered demand for petrol and diesel."

In developing countries, Oxfam says that biofuels could provide a sustainable energy alternative for poor people in marginalized areas - but that the potential economic, social and environmental costs can be severe, and countries should proceed with caution. In Mali for example, bioenergy projects provide clean renewable energy sources to poor women and men in rural areas. But, as the main plank of a policy to substitute transport fuel by rich nations, biofuels are failing.

Bailey said: "Biofuels were meant to be an alternative to oil - a secure source of new transport energy. But rich countries have designed their policies too much for the benefit of domestic interest groups. They are making climate change worse, not better, they are stealing crops and land away from food production, and they are destroying millions of livelihoods in the process."

Download the complete report here...
<>

Abandoned farmlands are key to sustainable bioenergy

Biofuels can be a sustainable part of the world's energy future, especially if bioenergy agriculture is developed on currently abandoned or degraded agricultural lands, report scientists from the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University. Using these lands for energy crops, instead of converting existing croplands or clearing new land, avoids competition with food production and preserves carbon-storing forests needed to mitigate climate change. Sustainable bioenergy is likely to satisfy no more than 10% of the demand in the energy-intensive economies of North America, Europe, and Asia. But for some developing countries, notably in Sub-Saharan Africa, the potential exists to supply many times their current energy needs without compromising food supply or destroying forests.

Elliot Campbell, Robert Genova, and Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, with David Lobell of Stanford University, estimated the global extent of abandoned crop and pastureland and calculated their potential for sustainable bioenergy production from historical land-use data, satellite imaging, and ecosystem models. Agricultural areas that have been converted to urban areas or have reverted to forests were not included in the assessment. The results of the study are published in the June 25 online edition of Environmental Science and Technology.

The researchers estimate that globally up to 4.7 million square kilometers (approximately 1.8 million square miles) of abandoned lands could be available for growing energy crops. The potential yield of this land area, equivalent to nearly half the land area of the United States (including Alaska), depends on local soils and climate, as well as on the specific energy crops and cultivation methods in each region. But the researchers estimate that the worldwide harvestable dry biomass could amount to as much as 2.1 billion tons, with a total energy content of about 41 exajoules. While this is a significant amount of energy (one exajoule is a billion billion joules, equivalent to about 170 million barrels of oil), at best it would satisfy only about 8% of worldwide energy demand.

"At the national scale, the bioenergy potential is largest in the United States, Brazil, and Australia," says lead author Campbell. "These countries have the most extensive areas of abandoned crop and pasture lands. Eastern North America has the largest area of abandoned croplands, and the Midwest has the biggest expanse of abandoned pastureland. Even so, if 100% of these lands were used for bioenergy, they would still only yield enough for about 6% of our national energy needs."

The study revealed larger opportunities in other parts of the world. In some African countries, where grassland ecosystems are very productive and current fossil fuel demand is low, biomass could provide up to 37 times the energy currently used.

"Our study shows that there is clearly a potential for developing sustainable bioenergy, and we've been able to identify areas where biomass can be grown for energy, without endangering food security or making climate change worse," says Field, director of the Department of Global Ecology. "But we can't count on bioenergy to be a dominant contributor to the global energy system over the next few decades. Expanding beyond its sustainable limits would threaten food security and have serious environmental impacts."

Source: Carnegie Institution
<>

Moratorium on biofuel 'would lower food prices'

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

A moratorium on grain and oilseed-based biofuels could slash food prices by up to 20% within the next two years, according to leading agricultural researchers.

Leading figures from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) suggest that suspension of production of grain and oilseed-based biofuels this year would reduce corn prices by about 20% and wheat by about 10% in 2009-10.

During a briefing on global food prices organised by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a group of international experts backed such a moratorium.

However, they argued that other crops, such as sugarcane, could still be a valuable source of biofuels.

Joachim von Braun, director general of the IFPRI, told reporters he was not advocating a general moratorium on all biofuels because, as he said, there are biofuels and there are biofuels – there are good biofuels and bad ones.

He added that the waste-based and sugarcane-based biofuel production can be very good and the opportunities of agriculture being an energy producing sector should not be in principle discarded.

His suggestion was backed by Robert Zeigler, director general of the International Rice Research Institute.

"If we are talking about biofuels derived from maize, soybean oil, palm oil, yes I think I would support a moratorium on that," he said, “but if we are talking about biofuels generated from sugarcane or other non-consumable plant products then I would not support a moratorium there."

One can but wonder why we are toying with the idea of food-based, e.g. grain-based, biofuels in the first place. The Brazilians have shown the way for years and years – decades by now, if I am not mistaken, that ethanol can be had from other materials, including, so I understand, grass clippings. Now, if the latter is the case, I am sure that with all the grass clipping on people's lawns being wasted en entire industry could be created.

Multi-fuel engines can quite happily, like the diesel engines designed by and for military vehicles, including the Humvee, burn waste cooking oils without any loss in power and range, and this without the oil even having to be converted in any way. All that needs to happen is the bits filtered out. Why is it not being done.

How can we even contemplate to grow and use food crops for the production of fuel for vehicles while people go hungry and prices go to unaffordable levels? The powers that be apparently can do so without blinking an eyelid.

Palm oil for biofuels is an anathema in the first place as the growing of the palm for said oil is devastating large areas of rainforests, areas that we cannot permit to be lost.

Why, therefore, is nothing done to develop fuels from other sources, properly? Why are people who do their own biofuel being prosecuted at times? It all boils down, yet again, to money and the interests of the big conglomerates and the governments.

M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008