rense.com


Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
The Most Carbon-Intensive Fuel On Earth
 
By George Monbiot
3-21-6 
 
Over the past two years I have made an uncomfortable discovery. Like  most environmentalists, I have been as blind to the constraints affecting our energy supply as my opponents have been to climate change. I now realise that I have entertained a belief in magic.
 
In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44x10 to the  18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary  productivity of the planet's current biota."(1) In plain English, this means that  every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals.
 
The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy - and the extraordinary power densities it gives us - with ambient energy is the  stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back. But substitutes are being sought everywhere. They are being promoted today  at the climate talks in Montreal, by states - such as ours - which seek to avoid the hard decisions climate change demands. And at least one of  them is worse than the fossil fuel burning it replaces.
 
The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as I have ever been sent by the supporters of the Iraq war. The biodiesel missionaries, I discovered,  are as vociferous in their denial as the executives of Exxon. I am now  prepared to admit that my previous column was wrong. But they're not going to like  it. I was wrong because I underestimated the fuel's destructive impact.
 
Before I go any further, I should make it clear that turning used chip  fat into motor fuel is a good thing. The people slithering around all day in vats of filth are perfoming a service to society. But there is enough  waste cooking oil in the UK to meet one 380th of our demand for road transport fuel(2). Beyond that, the trouble begins.
 
When I wrote about it last year, I thought that the biggest problem  caused by biodiesel was that it set up a competition for land(3). Arable land  that would otherwise have been used to grow food would instead be used to  grow fuel. But now I find that something even worse is happening. The  biodiesel industry has accidentally invented the world's most carbon-intensive  fuel.
 
In promoting biodiesel - as the European Union, the British and US governments and thousands of environmental campaigners do - you might imagine that you are creating a market for old chip fat, or rapeseed  oil, or oil from algae grown in desert ponds. In reality you are creating a  market for the most destructive crop on earth.
 
Last week, the chairman of Malaysia's Federal Land Development Authority announced that he was about to build a new biodiesel plant(4). His was  the ninth such decision in four months. Four new refineries are being built  in Peninsula Malaysia, one in Sarawak and two in Rotterdam(5). Two foreign consortia - one German, one American - are setting up rival plants in Singapore(6). All of them will be making biodiesel from the same  source: oil from palm trees.
 
"The demand for biodiesel," the Malaysian Star reports, "will come from  the European Community.... This fresh demand...would, at the very least,  take up most of Malaysia's crude palm oil inventories"(7). Why? Because it's  cheaper than biodiesel made from any other crop.
 
In September, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impacts  of palm oil production. "Between 1985 and 2000," it found, "the  development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia"(8). In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest has been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6  million hectares is scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5m in Indonesia.
 
Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung  Puting National Park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters. The orang-utan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos,  tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could  go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from  their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist(9). The forest fires which every so often smother the region in  smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being  turned into a gigantic vegetable oil field.
 
Before oil palms, which are small and scrubby, are planted, vast forest trees, containing a much greater store of carbon, must be felled and  burnt. Having used up the drier lands, the plantations are now moving into the swamp forests, which grow on peat. When they've cut the trees, the  planters drain the ground. As the peat dries it oxidises, releasing even more  carbon dioxide than the trees. In terms of its impact on both the local and  global environments, palm biodiesel is more destructive than crude oil from Nigeria.
 
The British government understands this. In the report it published last month, when it announced that it will obey the European Union and ensure that 5.75% of our transport fuel comes from plants by 2010, it admitted  that "the main environmental risks are likely to be those concerning any  large expansion in biofuel feedstock production, and particularly in Brazil  (for sugar cane) and South East Asia (for palm oil plantations)."(10) It suggested that the best means of dealing with the problem was to prevent environmentally destructive fuels from being imported. The government  asked its consultants whether a ban would infringe world trade rules. The  answer was yes: "mandatory environmental criteria...would greatly increase the  risk of international legal challenge to the policy as a whole"(11). So it dropped the idea of banning imports, and called for "some form of  voluntary scheme" instead(12). Knowing that the creation of this market will lead  to a massive surge in imports of palm oil, knowing that there is nothing meaningful it can do to prevent them, and knowing that they will  accelarate rather than ameliorate climate change, the government has decided to go ahead anyway.
 
At other times it happily defies the European Union. But what the EU  wants and what the government wants are the same. "It is essential that we  balance the increasing demand for travel," the government's report says, "with  our goals for protecting the environment"(13). Until recently, we had a  policy of reducing the demand for travel. Now, though no announcement has been made, that policy has gone. Like the Tories in the early 1990s, the  Labour administration seeks to accommodate demand, however high it rises.  Figures obtained last week by the campaigning group Road Block show that for the widening of the M1 alone the government will pay £3.6 billion - more  than it is spending on its entire climate change programme(14). Instead of attempting to reduce demand, it is trying to alter supply. It is  prepared to sacrifice the South East Asian rainforests in order to be seen to do something, and to allow motorists to feel better about themselves.
 
All this illustrates the futility of the technofixes now being pursued  in Montreal. Trying to meet a rising demand for fuel is madness, wherever  the fuel might come from. The hard decisions have been avoided, and another portion of the biosphere is going up in smoke.
 
www.monbiot.com
 
References
 
1. Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption Of Ancient Solar Energy. Climatic Change 61: 31-44.
 
2. The British Association for Biofuels and Oils estimates the volume at 100,000 tonnes a year. BABFO , no date. Memorandum to the Royal  Commission on Environmental Pollution. http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/press_release/ royal_commission_on_environmenta.htm
 
3. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
 
4. Tamimi Omar, 1st December 2005. Felda to set up largest biodiesel  plant. The Edge Daily. http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp? id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_e 5d7c0d9-cb73c03a-df4bfc00-d453633e
 
5. See e.g. Zaidi Isham Ismail, 7th November 2005. IOI to go it alone on first biodiesel plant. http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BT/Monday/Frontpage/ 20051107000223/Art icle/; No author, 25th November 2005. GHope nine-month profit hits  RM841mil. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/11/25/business/ 12693859& sec=business; No author, 26th November 2005. GHope to invest RM40mil for biodiesel plant in Netherlands. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/11/26/business/ 12704187& sec=business; No author, 23rd November 2005. Malaysia IOI Eyes Green  Energy Expansion in Europe. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33622/story.htm
 
6. Loh Kim Chin, 26th October 2005. Singapore to host two biodiesel  plants, investments total over S$80m. Channel NewsAsia.
 
7. C.S. Tan, 6th October 2005. All Plantation Stocks Rally. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/10/6/business/ 12243819&s ec=business
 
8. Friends of the Earth et al, September 2005. The Oil for Ape Scandal:  how palm oil is threatening orang-utan survival. Research report. www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/oil_for_ape_full.pdf
 
9. ibid.
 
10. Department for Transport, November 2005. Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) feasibility report. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/ dft_roads_610 329-01.hcsp#P18_263
 
11. E4Tech, ECCM and Imperial College, London, June 2005. Feasibility  Study on Certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Final  Report.
 
12. Department for Transport, ibid.
 
13. ibid.
 
 
Comments
craig reece wrote:
 
Hi Gray,
 
At the risk of destroying your wish that we could all just get along,   I have to say that I agree that the law of unintended consequences   would seem to be at play here, and that he's right about oil palm. It   is indeed very high yielding - something on the order of 655 gallons   per acre, as contrasted with soy at 49 and Canola at 130 (and  Jatropha  at 208-500) but it is apparently causing widespread  destruction of  tropical rain forests.
 
Algae can yield up to 15,000 gallons/acre, so one hopes that it will   someday be replacing oil palm, soy and Canola.
 
Craig
 
Craig Reece http://www.PlantDrive.com
 
 
THEN
 
John Faunce wrote:
 
Why does this occur as "a load of crap"? Seems relavent to "our " cause. Perhaps Rudolph Diesel's vision for meeting 3rd world energy needs is  being realized; and the the vision was not fully developed. Remember nuclear power. Its proponents stated that the cost of putting energy use meters  on homes could not be justified as the cost of power would be so low.  Certainly we could take a look at our responsibility in promoting this "great"  source (veg.oil) of energy.
 
 
THEN
 
Gretchen Zimmermann wrote:
 
I think we need to take Monbidiot seriously. Granted his aggressive  language makes the message hard to take, but it is an important  message. I wish I could be convinced that it is a load of crap.
 
In my position as fuel buyer and email answerer at BioFuel Oasis I'm  seeing lots of email from Malaysia offering us palm oil biodiesel. I  also got to see the frantic interest in biodiesel that popped up in the  weeks after Katrina, mostly from people looking for cheaper fuel.  A  lot of people who don't give a damn about the environment are jumping  on this band wagon in the hopes of making  a bunch of money. What is  going to stop them from selling irresponsibly produced fuel? What is  going to stop somebody who needs to get to work to feed his family from  using it?
 
The scarcity of the quality recycled fuel we thought we'd be selling at  this stage is depressing. As fuel buyer I'm feeling the pressure of  growing demand to get more fuel cheaper. From a purely business  perspective we should be brokering rail cars of virgin GMO soy  biodiesel to meet that demand. We're resisting that temptation at the  Oasis and always on the lookout for  better sources, but there are lots  of Eel rivers and World Energies out there who don't care
 
I fear that in focusing on the virtues of biodiesel we've forgotten to  spread the message of how important conservation is. I'm seeing a lot  of new customers come in all enthused and happy about switching to  biodiesel. It gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling but I fear that many of  them are not doing much else to change their lifestyles to reduce their  footprint. I sometimes wonder if using biodiesel gives people an  exaggerated sense of  accomplishment that allows them to forget or  ignore other more important lifestyle changes.
 
I'm surprised by the number of people who ask me when biodiesel will  get cheaper. We'll see little fluctuations in the price but in reality,  as the petroleum supply dwindles, everything can only get more  expensive. Increased demand for biodiesel will raise, not lower the  price because supply will not be able to keep up. The fact that many of  our customers don't understand this shows me that we've failed to get  the truly important messages across. I  plan  to post something about  the need for conservation on our web site, once I edit out the gloom  and get approval from my fellow devas.
 
Craig, you weren't at the sustainable biodiesel summit in San Diego.  Shane Tyson gave a very convincing presentation about why algae is not  a viable feedstock for biodiesel. The variety of algae that produces  high yields of oil is genetically engineered. It does not compete well  with native species of algae so constant tending is required to keep it  from being killed off. It is no doubt possible to engineer a more  robust oil producing algae variety, but that would be the worst kind of  GMO imaginable. It would be disastrous if it got into the environment,  edged out native algae species, and the critters at the bottom of the  food chain fond it undigestible.
 
Consider that it took Earth millions of years to compress plant matter  from ancient rainforests into crude oil. We've used about half of these  reserves in about 100 years, and our consumption is increasing  exponentially. We're not going to come close to replacing current  consumption with biological matter of any kind. Monbidiot's quote that  every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals supports  that.  Of course that is not a reason not to use responsibly produced  biodiesel (and ethanol), but it is a clear reminder that our primary  focus needs to be on conservation.
 
The problem is the momentum of the rate we (Eathlings) are using  energy. Even as there is a movement to reduce our usage in some places,  consumption is growing at an alarming rate in India and China. No to  mention GM's unclear-on-the-concept promotion of corn ethanol to fuel  their oversized flex fuel trucks. I don't see anything from stopping  people from framing every arable acre of land on the planet in a  desperate attempt to meet demand.
 
______
 
Thanks for reading all of that. I am perplexed as the next. These are  age old problems that I have seen for the better part of my adult life.  Great ideas, great things, get hi-jacked by greedy capitalists for  there own money grubbing purposes without any consideration for the  long term/indirect costs of their actions. As far as I can tell, it's  the same short sightedness that the big oil companies have displayed  for 100 years.
 
This is a good example of why I am more interested in researching power  solutions for BRC other than simply using Biodiesel in the generators.  And this is why we need to put our heads together and come up with a  plan that has us cutting back on our power usage in BRC and conserving.
 
Thanks & Peace,
 
Blue
 

Disclaimer






MainPage
http://www.rense.com


This Site Served by TheHostPros