Wednesday, May 09, 2007

The case of biofuels

One of the themes of this blog will be that we must think holistically about the world's problems, that they are all interconnected, and that if we think about them separately, the world system as a whole may suffer. Exhibit number one is the case of biofuels. As discussed in an article from the British newspaper the Guardian, entitled "Global Rush To Energy Crops Threatens To Bring Food Shortages and Increase Poverty, Says UN", the poor and the ecosystems of the world could easily be greatly harmed by the rush to biofuels. According to the article, already 1/3 of the corn crop of the U.S. is goin to ethanol production, which by the way requires an enormous amount of fossil fuels, and in particular natural gas, for its production.

By trying to solve the global warming and "energy security" problems, the problems of poverty -- and agriculture -- and deforestation are being made worse. Even more tragically, carbon emissions may be increased, since deforestation for palm oil production in Indonesia has made that country the third greatest generator of greenhouse gases on the planet, as the peat bogs are burned in that country (China and the U.S. are first and second -- not clear who is first at this point).

Another problem that could be "solved" by biofuels is the problem of peak oil, of the slow decline of output of oil globally. So peak oil solutions must also look at poverty and deforestation problems that could result from so-called "solutions".

The basic problem is this: something like 98% of fuel for transportation, at least in the U.S., derives from oil. In particular, cars and trucks use about 70% of our oil. Since, God forbid, nobody wants to move away from the use of cars and trucks, as gasoline becomes more expensive, oil-addicted societies like the U.S. won't care how they get their fuel. They'll fight wars for it, they'll let people starve to get it, they'll destroy what's left of the forests if it means that they can maintain the suburbs and highways. This is why it is essential to 1) propose programs for real renewables, solar, wind, geothermal, microhydro, but not biofuels; 2) Create rail systems that can use the electricity, because electric cars won't be able to replace the fast, heavy, long-distance automobiles we have now; 3) recreate town and city centers so that people can walk or use trains, instead of driving for shopping, seeing friends and relatives, going to school, to work, to think, to love, to do frickin' every-frickin' thing.

This three-pronged approach solves the peak oil problem, the climate change problem, saves forests, and if applied planet-wide, would develop poor countries without destroying them ecologically. The last piece in this puzzle is replacing the "Green Revolution" of dumping huge amounts of fossil fuels on agricultural land with intensive/permaculture/local/organic agriculture, so that poor people and rich people can eat decently.

For a good guide to the ills of biofuels, see "Peak Soil: Why biofuels are not sustainable and a threat to America's National Security". For a good discussion of a national rail policy, also at DailyKos, see "ENERGIZE AMERICA: The High Speed Passenger Rail Act, Draft 1 ". Harvey Wasserman and James Howard Kunstler are two high-profile intellectuals that understand the importance of trains replacing cars.

Labels: , , , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger David said...

What exactly do you mean by geothermal, microhydro fuels? How do you propose creating political pressure and motivation among politicians, especially given the current commercially motivated political climate? Have any of the current political candidates seriously addressed any of these issues?

10:46 AM  
Blogger Colin Wright said...

A good place to learn about renewables and the hugh potential of geothermal is the recent report by the American Solar Energy Society -- www.ases.org

9:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home