Biofuel dilemma

Are biofuels bad?

By

PlentyMag.com

Fri, Feb 01 2008 at 12:00 AM

Related Topics:

Biofuels, Biodiesel

(Photo: blmurch/Flickr)

Two papers in the journal Science last week weighed in on the biofuels debate (that would be the raging debate about whether they're a good thing for the environment and society). In a nutshell, the studies conclude that using biofuels instead of gas won’t necessarily reduce greenhouse gases — and may actually increase emissions in some cases.

From the article penned by Timothy Searchinger and others:

Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%.

And Joseph Fargione and colleagues found:

Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a ‘biofuel carbon debt’ by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions these biofuels provide by displacing fossil fuels.

Don’t fret, though. The take-home lesson here is not that all biofuels are bad — it’s that not all biofuels are equal. Environmentally responsible biofuels might come from biomass waste (like beer by-products!) or feedstock (preferably, Fargione et al say, diverse mixtures of native grassland perennials — they’re good for wildlife and the environment) grown on abandoned, degraded agricultural land.

Instead of rushing headlong into biofuels, we’d like to see legislators step up and outlaw the use of productive cropland to grow biofuel feedstock. And, since we’ve got a wish-list going, if government incentives are going to be given, we’d like to see those go to folks who use a waste product or degraded land.

What do you think? If you need some time to mull it over, why not sip some ale while you do so? After all, there’s nothing wrong with doing your part to generate some biomass waste.

Story by Alisa Opar. This article originally appeared in Plenty in February 2008. The story was added to MNN.com in July 2009.

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comment: 1

Guest Jul 17 2009 at 6:56 AM

Does anyone find it funny that when O'bama announced higher CAFE standards (average MPG vehicles must meet) most of the auto industry applauded it? these are the same people who fought putting seat belts in cars. The reason is that our government is in lock step with their handlers (lobbyists). Automakers have a loophole from which to pass through which is known as "flex fuel vehicles" what the government has decreed in their simple minds is that E85 capable vehicles MPG is given credit for only

.... More

the 15% gasoline contained in E85. Therefore a Hummer that is rated at 11 mpg that is E85 capable (regardless of whether they use it or not) is rated on the amount of gasoline (15%) used to travel the 10 miles. To reach the multiplier you divide 100% E85 by 15 (gasoline) and you get a multiplier of 6.66% (Ironic eh?) so that gas guzzler is shown as getting 67 mpg allowing the automakers to pretend fuel efficency.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

MNN - Mother Nature Network

By

Related Topics:

You might also like:

Join the conversation

ADD YOUR COMMENT

TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON

NEWSLETTER