The Wildfuels Alternative

Environmental Science and Technology has a special feature on the water demands of expanded biofuels production. This is another one of those elephants in the room (possibly the biggest of them all) that industry and politicians refuse to see.

The Water Footprint of Biofuels: A Drink or Drive Issue?

The report focuses not only on water use, but also on water quality.
It also makes the debate tangible by asking, "Are We Ready for Fifty Gallons of Water per Mile Driven?".

According to Ethanol Producer magazine, the CEO of BBI Mike Bryan expresses shock that the public is actually paying attention to indirect 'push back' issues related to agrofuels:

FEW: Ethanol industry must ‘take back the message’ about ethanol

Bryan misses the point at least twice in the following quote:

"Someone worked to create an image that is false: (that ethanol is a major cause for increased food prices and for deforestation in other countries)."

The first misconception is that there is a very recent conscious attempt to discredit an industry, rather than a longer-term careful consideration of the issues by scientists and other scholars. Scholars that were marginalized and therefore initially ignored by those on the biofuels bandwagon.

The second misconception is that the major concern is current increased food prices and current deforestation. Of course, these are concerns. But the big concern is what WILL happen if mandates demand a multifold increase in biofuels production. Current unintended ill-effects are minuscule compared to what MUST happen under projected increases in agrofuels crops.

Biofuels digest has summarized several reports that imply biofuels have not caused extreme Amazonian deforestation:

Amazon deforestation dropping, despite land use change predicted by ILUC?

Again, they are missing the point. Current biofuels production is tiny in relation to petroleum production, and represents a very small sliver of global agricultural output. We would not yet expect massive deforestation.
The relevant issue here is what WILL happen if we follow the renewable fuel standards, or any other mandates for biofuels use. If we do, we would largely replace petroleum with biomass derived fuels, and the global agricultural sector would no longer be primarily involved with fiber, food, and fodder. It would be hard to believe that a manyfold increase in agrofuel production would have no indirect land use effects.

I have previously blogged about the probable negative effects of the Renewable Fuel Standards. Now UPI is reporting that there may be delays in implementing the standard:

EPA delaying biofuels rule, experts say

At first glance, the delay seems like good news for the environment. The report, however, points out some interesting subtleties of what the delay might mean. Some experts who are not big ethanol producers have some concerns. The article does tend to perpetuate the myth that 'all is fine and dandy with cellulosic ethanol'.

Minnesota's Collin Peterson (whom I have written about before) and my home state's Frank Lucas are introducing legislation to bypass the EPA ruling on indirect land use effects of agrofuels on greenhouse gas emissions. This may be good news for King Corn, but it is not a good move for global climate, nor for the idea (which is getting to be a myth) that the new Congress will listen to the voice of Science.

Lawmakers try to ease regulation on biofuel's environmental effect

Michael Grunwald of TIME wrote an excellent article on how the EPA's recent indirect land use decision was rigged in favor of the ethanol industry:

Stress-Testing Biofuels: How the Game Was Rigged

It is interesting to note that the majority of the media is reporting that the EPA ruling is viewed as devastating to the biofuels industry.

Yet another case where listening to ecologists earlier on would have helped demystify (and diminish) environmental impacts of agrofuels:

Grassley: Land issue didn’t seem ‘big deal’

David Malakoff wrote a strong article on the potential adverse effects of biofuels on biodiversity for Conservation Magazine. Here, it is excerpted in The Guardian:

Could we end up trampling biodiversity in the name of biofuels?

The BBC and other news outlets are reporting on an experiment by Andrew Hector and colleagues, as published in Science.

Fertilisers 'reducing diversity'

Readers of this blog may already be tired by my stressing what is common knowledge amongst vegetation scientists, yet under-appreciated by most others involved with land management and biofuels: Harvesting grasslands tends to increase native biodiversity, and fertilization tends to decrease it.

The experiment in question examines why. In particular, it reveals that shading by productive overstory plants is directly responsible for reducing the diversity.

The experiment (using supplemental lighting) is clever and well-implemented. The results, I think most vegetation scientists would agree, are completely unsurprising. I find it quite refreshing to see results completely in line with expectation - it means that we are right!

Now the hard part. We need to find a way to convince those outside of the discipline that such basic, well-understood natural forces can be harnessed to produce biofuels systems that simultaneously promote biodiversity and produce fuel.

--Mike Palmer

Collin Peterson, Chair of the US House agriculture committee, has drawn a non-negotiable line in the sand.

Peterson cries foul on EPA ethanol proposal, vows not to support climate change bill

Many in the scientific community were hoping that the new congress would be interested in listening to scientific opinion, and in seriously tackling climate change. This sort of willful putting-your-hands-over-your ears might have been expected in the past, but is truly shocking now. Can we really afford to hold the climate hostage in defense of unsustainable Minnesota corn ethanol?

In today's biofuels digest, Jim Lane advocates "tuning out" to the debate of indirect effects of biofuels production:

Drop In, Tune Out, Turn On: new thinking for new days in bioenergy

A quote follows. This argument is fundamentally bizarre. The issues are completely ignored, but are deflected by name calling, and 'guilt by association'. He does not mention the large number of scientists who have raised concerns about sodbusting, land clearing, nitrous oxide emissions, and biodiversity loss. By 'scientists', I mean scientists who actually study climate, soil science, landscape ecology, and vegetation science. I don't mean the land-grant agronomist, geneticist, or industrial microbiologist (who are all great scientists, but have little qualifications for discussing mass landscape conversion).

The debate is not about genetic modification. "Tuning out" is precisely the wrong thing to do at this critical stage. Although the earth has displayed remarkable resilience to past mistakes, there may come a tipping point. Just because there are uncertainties about the tipping point is no excuse to 'tune out'.

One telling phrase below is "cultivated on otherwise useless land or ocean." No serious student of earth systems would use such a phrase. The greenhouse consequences of converting 'useless' land and oceans to biomass production are far from trivial.

I worry a bit that even advocates of indirect land use criteria are 'tuning out'. The greenhouse currency under consideration is mostly a contrast between a mature petroleum energy base, and a mature biofuels energy base. But the biggest greenhouse (and biodiversity) impact may come from the initial land clearing and soil turning of the 'useless land'. In addition to the steady-state comparison, we MUST contrast the conversion costs with the benefits (and costs) of mothballing the fossil fuel infrastructure. This sort of accounting has not been seriously considered, and of course there would be serious resistance by the biofuels apologists, who have 'tuned out'.

I also worry that the debate is too corn-centric. Switchgrass and Miscanthus are still praised by biofuels advocates and most environmentalists alike. However, the obvious has been ignored: these relatively untarnished species will be replacing existing 'useless' vegetation. This will be at a strong environmental cost. It may be easy for urban armchair advocates to 'tune out', but those of us who live around 'useless land' will simply be unable to 'tune out'.

Tune Out: The great debate over land use change, greenhouse gas emissions and the wisdom of the ethanol tariff and alt-fuel subsidies, is a debate about yesterday. The protagonists - such as Friends of the Earth, the Environmental Working Group and the Grocery Manufacturers Association on the one hand, and Growth Energy, the Renewable Fuels Association and the National Biodiesel Board on the other hand - are committing the cardinal sin of a commander in the field, the sin of fighting the last war.

The battle over biofuels is a proxy fight in the Cold War over corn and genetic modification of the food supply, more than a debate about fuel. The waving of the red flag of Third World poverty is a canard: far more calories are diverted to fat bellies in the North than are diverted to ethanol distilleries; it’s not even a close race. The best thing Westerners can do to provide more food at affordable prices for hungry people in the South is to, borrowing a phrase from the cows at Chick-Fil-A, “Eat more chicken,”, or even better, eat less highly-processed foods altogether.

Not all debates go away if ignored, but the debate over renewable fuel emissions and land use change is an exception. In the future, which is less far away than most people think, fuels will be generated from waste or cultivated on otherwise useless land or ocean, diverting nary a drop of water from our freshwater aquifers, and will cause less indirect land use change than throwing an unwanted serving of broccoli in the garbage.

Meanwhile, our attention has been diverted from the development and support of advancing and advanced fuels by this Grand Inquisition into the purity of existing alternatives to fossil fuels. The whole process has the theatrical elements of the Salem witch hunt: it’s a continuation of corn politics by other means.

Tune out the debate, and move on.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has posted the text of the open letter on Biofuels and indirect land use change. The letter can be viewed here, along with its signatories.

An Open Letter from Leading Scientists and Economists

This letter was apparently decisive in having indirect effects of biofuels considered.

Alpha Galileo reports that increasing European biofuels targets will harm biodiversity:

Is Biofuel Policy Harming European Biodiversity?

Bibliographic information:

Is biofuel policy harming biodiversity in Europe? by Jeannette Eggers, Katja Tröltzsch, Alessandra Falcucci, Luigi Maiorano, Peter H. Verburg, Erik Framstad, Gerald Louette, Dirk Maes, Szabolcs Nagy, Wim Ozinga and Ben Delbaere. GCB Bioenergy 1, 2009, pp. 18-34, doi 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01002.x

And the reaction is predictable.

Reaction to CARB approval of the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard

The Environment Agency of the UK has taken a stand on the sustainability of biofuels:

Biomass energy 'could be harmful'

Particularly interesting and encouraging is a quote from Tony Grayling, head of climate change and sustainable development at the Environment Agency:

"Biomass is a limited resource, and we must make sure it is not wasted on inefficient generators that do not take advantage of the emissions savings to be made from combined heat and power," he said.

"By 2030, biomass fuels will need to be produced using good practice simply to keep up with the average carbon intensity of the electricity grid."

He added: "The government should ensure that good practice is rewarded and that biomass production and use that does more harm than good to the environment does not benefit from public support."

--Mike

The very important but widely ignored consequences of agrofuels-enhanced nitrous oxides emissions is finally getting some press outside of scientific journals. Indeed, we now have this from the Economist:

Farming biofuels produces nitrous oxide. This is bad for climate change

The Scientific Committee has released its report on the environmental consequences of biofuels:

Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use
Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22-25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany. R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu, editors. 2009

This is a timely, careful, and thoroughly scholarly work on the actual and potential consequences of agrofuel expansion. It deserves to serve as a standard reference, and must not be ignored by policy makers considering incentives for the ethanol industry.

The Scientific Committee has released its report on the environmental consequences of biofuels:

Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use
Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22-25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany. R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu, editors. 2009

This is a timely, careful, and thoroughly scholarly work on the actual and potential consequences of agrofuel expansion. It deserves to serve as a standard reference, and must not be ignored by policy makers considering incentives for the ethanol industry.

Despite all of the interest in cellulosic biofuels, biomethane seems to be sorely neglected. A new study from Ireland stresses the benefits of using biomethane from established stands of grass:

Murphy, J. D. and N. M. Power (2009). "An argument for using biomethane generated from grass as a biofuel in Ireland." Biomass & Bioenergy 33(3): 504-512.

The Biofuels Directive proposes 5.75% of transport fuel (by energy) to be replaced by biofuel in the year 2010. This equates to 11.3 PJ in Ireland, which equates to 538 million litres of ethanol or 323 million litres of biodiesel. However, if using biodiesel produced through bioesterification of rapeseed oil, then 6.3% of Irish agricultural land is required to produce 5.75% of transport fuel. Furthermore this equates to 70% of arable land. Using ethanol produced from wheat, 3.9% of Irish agricultural land is required to produce 5.75% of transport fuel. Ethanol produces less energy from a crop, than the energy in the biogas generated when the crop is digested. The ethanol production process uses up to 60% of the produced energy in the final ethanol product. It is shown for compressed biomethane generated from silage that the total parasitic demand of the process is of the order of 25%. Grass/silage is a crop that Irish farmers are familiar with, over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass. Grass does not require rotation, it does not require annual ploughing (releasing NO.), and it sequesters carbon into the soil. Digesting silage, scrubbing the biogas to biomethane, and compressing and utilizing it as a transport fuel, is suggested to be the optimum biofuel for Ireland. The 2010 biofuels target can be met with 1.6% of agricultural land; this is four times less land than required using rapeseed. A conservative economic analysis would suggest a lower cost than ethanol produced from wheat. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

With very few changes in words, the following passage can hold for much of North America. Just replace "Irish" with "American", and change the numbers accordingly.

" Grass/silage is a crop that Irish farmers are familiar with, over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass. Grass does not require rotation, it does not require annual ploughing (releasing NO.), and it sequesters carbon into the soil. Digesting silage, scrubbing the biogas to biomethane, and compressing and utilizing it as a transport fuel, is suggested to be the optimum biofuel for Ireland."

A new paper in Conservation Biology stresses the climatic and biodiversity consequences of biofuels expansion:

Danielsen, F., H. Beukema, N. D. Burgess, F. Parish, C. A. Bruhl, P. F. Donald, D. Murdiyarso, B. Phalan, L. Reijnders, M. Struebig and E. B. Fitzherbert (2009). "Biofuel Plantations on Forested Lands: Double Jeopardy for Biodiversity and Climate." Conservation Biology 23(2): 348-358.

The growing demand for biofuels is promoting the expansion of a number of agricultural commodities, including oil palm (Elaeis guineensis). Oil-palm plantations cover over 13 million ha, primarily in Southeast Asia, where they have directly or indirectly replaced tropical rainforest. We explored the impact of the spread of oil-palm plantations on greenhouse gas emission and biodiversity. We assessed changes in carbon stocks with changing land use and compared this with the amount of fossil-fuel carbon emission avoided through its replacement by biofuel carbon. We estimated it would take between 75 and 93 years for the carbon emissions saved through use of biofuel to compensate for the carbon lost through forest conversion, depending on how the forest was cleared. If the original habitat was peatland, carbon balance would take more than 600 years. Conversely, planting oil palms on degraded grassland would lead to a net removal of carbon within 10 years. These estimates have associated uncertainty, but their magnitude and relative proportions seem credible. We carried out a meta-analysis of published faunal studies that compared forest with oil palm. We found that plantations supported species-poor communities containing few forest species. Because no published data on flora were available, we present results from our sampling of plants in oil palm and forest plots in Indonesia. Although the species richness of pteridophytes was higher in plantations, they held few forest species. Trees, lianas, epiphytic orchids, and indigenous palms were wholly absent from oil-palm plantations. The majority of individual plants and animals in oil-palm plantations belonged to a small number of generalist species of low conservation concern. As countries strive to meet obligations to reduce carbon emissions under one international agreement (Kyoto Protocol), they may not only fail to meet their obligations under another (Convention on Biological Diversity) but may actually hasten global climate change. Reducing deforestation is likely to represent a more effective climate-change mitigation strategy than converting forest for biofuel production, and it may help nations meet their international commitments to reduce biodiversity loss.

Biofuels Digest has a perceptive commentary on overeating as a cause of indirect land use change:

Fat vs Fuel: Biofuels Digest special report on Indirect Land Use Change and biofuels emissions: first in a series

However, as with most commentaries on 'food vs. fuel', the debate largely misses the point. The main problem is agricultural intensification, no matter the cause. When land is treated as a commodity, it matters little whether the crop goes to food or fat or fuel or toilet paper. The land is lost to performing ecosystem services. The net result is that climate and biodiversity suffer. The real tradeoff is "food and fuel vs. the biosphere".

Yet another agrofuel crop is facing serious problems due to lack of foresight:

The Blunder Crop: a Biofuels Digest special report on jatropha biofuels development

So far, there have been scathing criticisms of corn, poplar, sugar cane, oil palm, and jatropha as agrofuel crops. Are switchgrass and miscanthus next?

A number of news outlets are reporting Shell Oil's decision to stop investing in wind and solar power, putting all of its development resources into agrofuels:

Shell To Stop Investments in Wind, Solar, hydrogen

This should come as no surprise, given that transportation fuels are the tails wagging the dog of the energy economy. However, it does come as a great disappointment and a sign that Shell is not considering the big picture of global climate change and biodiversity.

UNESCO reports on some of the serious strains that biofuel demand are creating for the global water supply.

This summary is available via farming UK:

Global water shortage could involve us all.

Energy Justice has a harsh but well-researched critique on the environmental impacts of cellulosic ethanol:

Fact Sheet: Cellulosic Ethanol

Biofuels Digest is reporting on an letter that looks like a grass-roots effort by scientists to urge California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to ignore 'bias' in renewable fuel standards. The basic (but flawed, according to many) argument is that indirect effects of agricultural expansion should not be considered when implementing standards.

110 scientists call on Gov. Schwarzenegger to eliminate bias in Low Carbon Fuel Standard

The letter is here

It is interesting to look at the names. The majority are industry or federal scientists with vested interest in accelerating agrofuels investments and development. Of the academics, the vast majority are molecular geneticists, agronomists, agricultural engineers, and allied professions. These are people who are likely to get research funding and other support from commodity groups or the agrofuel industry.

There are NO names that are clearly professionals in the field of climate science, ecology, land use, and socioeconomics. In other words, there is no clear representation of the disciplines that are the most qualified to make an informed scientific judgment on this critically important issue.

The future of the climate is at stake, and it is crucial that policy makers listen to the scientists with relevant expertise.

--Mike Palmer

Yet another official doesn't quite seem to get the 'indirect effects' argument.

Iowa Ag Secretary worried about unfriendly ethanol rule from EPA

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey makes a very familiar case: because there are uncertainties in the numbers, we shouldn't let unintended consequences of agrofuels expansion worry us. Isn't this what the petroleum industry has been arguing for a long time?

--Mike Palmer

Here is a sobering report on the potential adverse effects of biofuels on the biosphere:

Unintended Environmental Consequences of a Global Biofuels Program

Jerry M. Melillo, Angelo C. Gurgel, David W. Kicklighter, John M. Reilly, Timothy W. Cronin, Benjamin S. Felzer, Sergey Paltsev, C. Adam Schlosser, Andrei P. Sokolov, and X. Wang

These findings should come as no surprise to ecologists, but certainly run against the modern push for agrofuels:

Cropland diversity reduces nitrogen pollution

This is another clear reason to seriously consider wildfuels.

Yet another reason why clearing 'marginal lands' for biofuels may be a huge mistake:

One-fifth of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by threatened forests

A long article by Donald Stotts in Oklahoma State University's research magazine, Vanguard, showcases OSU's switchgrass agrofuel research. The article is reprinted here:

EPSCoR funding playing vital role in OSU biofuels research

For the first time since the OSU Biofuels Center was established, there is no attempt to stress the environmental 'benefits' of agrofuels. The word 'sustainable' is used frequently, but the clear implication is that the word implies 'economically viable' instead of ecologically viable. Except for this unfortunate but increasing misuse of terminology, it is refreshing to see an article on agrofuels that does not claim an unproven environmental benefit to cellulosic technologies.
--Mike Palmer

AFP and other news distributors are reporting on a recent study by Holly Gibbs of Stanford:

Biofuels may speed up, not slow global warming: study

The main concern is the clearing of tropical forests for agrofuels.

The Biodiesel alliance has issued a set of principles for sustainability of biodiesel.

Guiding Principles for Biodiesel Sustainability

The principles follow:

1. Biodiesel production shall follow all applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which it is produced.

2. Biodiesel projects shall be developed and operated under appropriate, transparent, and participatory processes that involve all relevant stakeholders.

3. Biodiesel shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as compared to fossil fuels. Producers shall strive to continuously improve that reduction.

4. Biodiesel production shall support human rights and labor rights, and shall ensure safe and decent working conditions.

5. Biodiesel production shall contribute to the social and economic development of local communities.

6. Biodiesel production shall strive to improve food security.

7. Throughout the supply chain, the biodiesel industry shall implement management systems that maintain and strive to improve biodiversity, areas of High Conservation Value, and the quality of natural resources such as soil, air, and water.

8. Biodiesel production shall respect natural resource rights, such as land and water rights.

9. All participants throughout biodiesel supply chain shall be dedicated to the ideal of continuous improvement. Members shall, through ongoing efforts, make advancements in the economic, social and environmental performance of the industry.

The principles are a set of 'ideals', and not described as standards or goals. So far, there is no clear indication that the group has been very 'idealistic'. In particular, I have not seen any movement or discussion on principle #7.

--Mike Palmer

In one of his first moves, US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has announced new funding for biofuels research:

USDA, DOE Announce Up to $25 Million in Funding for Biomass Research and Development Initiative

For the most part, this is a continuation of business as usual. There is more megafunding for crop development and conversion technologies.

To quote from the announcement

This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) covers three technical areas: biomass feedstocks development; cellulosic biofuels and biobased products; and biofuels development analysis, including strategic guidance, analyses of the energy and environmental impact of biofuels production, and an assessment of the potential for biomass feedstock production on federal lands.

There is a promising hint that ecological effects will be considered (though low on the list). However, I think the general public is not aware that our public lands are being considered for biofuels feedstocks.

There is an interesting irony here: an administration that criticizes oil leases on public land is seriously considering the possibility of plowing up the same public lands for agriculture.

A new report in Science indicates the large effect biomass (largely biofuel) burning has, relative to fossil fuels, in generating the 'brown cloud' problem of carbonaceous aerosols in southeast Asia:

Brown Clouds over South Asia: Biomass or Fossil Fuel Combustion?
Örjan Gustafsson,Martin Kruså,Zdenek Zencak,Rebecca J. Sheesley,Lennart Granat, Erik Engström, P. S. Praveen, P. S. P. Rao, Caroline Leck, Henning Rodhe

Daniel Starling of the Kansas City Tribune has a well-articulated commentary on the environmental consequences of President Obama's positions on agrofuels:

Our Clean Energy Future Should Minimize Ethanol

***spoiler alert****
The concluding sentence is:

As the debate over energy independence and alternative fuels rages, President Obama should take a second look at the alleged benefits of expanded ethanol use and give more resources to real alternative energy solutions that are both environmentally sound and fiscally sustainable.

Bernard Keane of crikey.com reports on the politics of greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels in NSW, Australia:

Ethanol: Not really all that green

To the US reader, the kinds of politics described here will be quite familiar: a brew of conflict involving pledges of politicians, environmental interests, big agriculture, industry, and mandates. However, what is not commonplace in the US is that the environmental costs of biofuels are taking central stage as part of the public discourse.

--Mike Palmer

An interesting coalition of nonprofit groups is expressing concern about cellulosic biofuels. This is, to my knowledge, the first time cellulosic fuels (which the press has viewed as the ideal solution to agrofuels woes, once the technological problems are solved) are specifically targetted:

2nd Gen Biofuels are a Dangerous "Green" Bubble

I have heard a sentiment that environmental concerns over biofuels are a first-world, academic luxury. However, even a casual read of the global literature proves this perception to be false. A case in point is a recent commentary by Imelda Maidir from Indonesia:

Rethinking biofuel policies

A quote from the commentary:

Environmental concerns may be a valid reason for tax exemption, but whether the environmental effects would be positive is highly questionable, especially as the transition toward fast-growing sources has not been taken into considerations.

The conversion of natural ecosystems for the production of biofuel is not limited to the establishment of new feedstock farms and plantations. Rising global demand for biofuel production would send a strong market signal to increase production, leading to the clamorous clearing of land for non-feedstock commodities.

Displacement of existing agricultural production, as a result of biofuel demand is accelerating land-use change and, if left unchecked, will reduce biodiversity and may even cause increased GHG emissions.

Escience News reports on a new study that critically evaluates yield estimates of agrofuel crops:

Nations that sow food crops for biofuels may reap less than previously thought

The authors of the study, Matt Johnston and Tracey Holloway of the University of Wisconsin, estimate that yields have been overestimated by twofold or even more. The consequences of the error are tremendous, as it relates directly to the amount of land that "needs" to be cleared for agrofuels.
--Mike Palmer

I found a copy of the (allegedly deceptive) RFA advertisement as described in the preceding post:

OPEC RAKES IN BILLIONS, BUT BLAMES BIOFUELS… CONFUSED?

An advertisement by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) claiming that biofuels were sustainable has been banned from publication in the Guardian:

Biofuels ad banned by ASA after George Monbiot complaint

Apparently, the RFA is using what is now a familiar tactic of using a purely economic, and not environmental, definition of sustainability - yet of passing it off as if it was an environmental definition. Guardian columnist George Monbiot called them on the deception, and the result is the banning of the advertisement.

John Kemp of Reuters has an insightful commentary on the future of biofuels in the new administration:

Obama's biofuel challenge: John Kemp

Unfortunately, he perpetuates a misunderstanding:

There is only one problem: the United States is not producing any second-generation non-corn ethanol in significant quantities at the moment. So a whole new industry will have to be brought into existence within less than four years and become one of the largest industries in the United States within the next 10 years.

There is a widespread feeling amongst the press and policy makers (and increasingly, the public) that once we 'solve' the technological cellulosic hurdle, we will have the perfect cure for our transportation fuel woes. Unfortunately, this view is profoundly naive: there will still be unintended (but not unanticipated!) negative environmental consequences of converting landscapes worldwide to production of agrofuels.
Wildfuels are an attractive alternative for solving environmental problems, but they run so counter to the agricultural mindset that a serious discussion is unlikely to reach the table.
--Mike Palmer

An opinion piece by Ron Leng in Science Alert (a publication from Australia and New Zealand) stresses the unsustainability of biofuels, for reasons that have been blogged previously in this forum. However, an interesting twist in this report is that the United States is viewed as leading the rest of the world (and in particular, Australia) down the wrong path.

Ethanol as a biofuel - immoral, costly and stupid

Note that the blog now has a new name, in order to avoid the confusion over HILD vs. LIHD. Of course, the blog will continue to discuss that distinction. But the purpose of the blog is to highlight the concerns over destruction of native habitats for the purpose of planting agrofuels, and to point out alternatives to the conventional thinking that agribusiness knows best.

Here is a new paper demonstrating the beneficial effects of diverse grasslands for pollinators. It leads support to the idea that diverse grasslands employed for biofuels would support multiple ecosystem services.

Ebeling, A., A. M. Klein, J. Schumacher, W. W. Weisser and T. Tscharntke (2008). "How does plant richness affect pollinator richness and temporal stability of flower visits?" Oikos 117(12): 1808-1815.
Pollinators play a key role in the reproduction of most plant species, and pollinator and plant diversity are often related. We studied an experimental gradient of plant species richness for a better understanding of plant-pollinator community interactions and their temporal variability, because in non-experimental field surveys plant richness is often confounded with gradients in management, soil fertility, and community composition. We observed pollinator species richness and frequency of visits six times in 73 plots over two years, and used advanced statistical analysis to account for the high number of zeroes that often occur in count data of rare species. The frequency of pollinator visits increased linearly with both the blossom cover and the number of flowering plant species, which was closely related to the total number of plant species, whereas the number of pollinator species followed a saturation curve. The presence of particularly attractive plant species was only important for the frequency of flower visits, but not to the richness of pollinators. Plant species richness, blossom cover, and the presence of attractive plant species enhanced the temporal stability in the frequency of pollinator visits. In conclusion, grasslands with high plant diversity enhance and stabilize frequent and diverse flower visitations, which should sustain effective pollination and plant reproduction.

In short, the answer is no.

Waiting for Godot in the switchgrass
Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol
Posted by Tom Philpott at 10:18 AM on 31 Dec 2008

The media have already described a new paper in PNAS that demonstrates yet another unintended consequence of corn biofuel production:

Landis, D. A., M. M. Gardiner, W. van der Werf and S. M. Swinton (2008). "Increasing corn for biofuel production reduces biocontrol services in agricultural landscapes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(51): 20552-20557.
Increased demand for corn grain as an ethanol feedstock is altering U.S. agricultural landscapes and the ecosystem services they provide. From 2006 to 2007, corn acreage increased 19% nationally, resulting in reduced crop diversity in many areas. Biological control of insects is an ecosystem service that is strongly influenced by local landscape structure. Here, we estimate the value of natural biological control of the soybean aphid, a major pest in agricultural landscapes, and the economic impacts of reduced biocontrol caused by increased corn production in 4 U.S. states (Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). For producers who use an integrated pest management strategy including insecticides as needed, natural suppression of soybean aphid in soybean is worth an average of $33 ha. At 2007-2008 prices these services are worth at least $239 million y in these 4 states. Recent biofuel-driven growth in corn planting results in lower landscape diversity, altering the supply of aphid natural enemies to soybean fields and reducing biocontrol services by 24%. This loss of biocontrol services cost soybean producers in these states an estimated $58 million y in reduced yield and increased pesticide use. For producers who rely solely on biological control, the value of lost services is much greater. These findings from a single pest in 1 crop suggest that the value of biocontrol services to the U.S. economy may be underestimated. Furthermore, we suggest that development of cellulosic ethanol production processes that use a variety of feedstocks could foster increased diversity in agricultural landscapes and enhance arthropod-mediated ecosystem services.

The article gives some support to the idea of using diverse wildfuels as part of the solution:

"Mixed prairie communities could be used as a low-input high-diversity biofuel crop (28), contributing to flowering plant diversity and supporting a variety of pollinator and natural enemy arthropods (32). The vital services these arthropods provide to other crops may make such multispecies biofuel crops especially beneficial components of agricultural landscapes."

(note: reference #28 is the famous Tilman et al. 2006 paper in Science, and reference #32 is now in press, and is by some of the same authors as the current paper).

---Mike Palmer

In my recent posting, I assumed that agrofuels was a well-recognized term. This may not be the case. I found an interesting discussion of agrofuels on the web page of GRAIN:

We believe that the prefix bio, which comes from the Greek word for “life”, is entirely inappropriate for such anti-life devastation. So, following the lead of non-governmental organisations and social movements in Latin America, we shall not be talking about biofuels and green energy. Agrofuels is a much better term, we believe, to express what is really happening: agribusiness producing fuel from plants to sustain a wasteful, destructive and unjust global economy.

I have found that the distinction between HILD and LIHD fuels does not capture many of the most important points that need to be made concerning biofuel alternatives. For example, it has been my premise that wild, low-diversity grasslands systems can serve as a promising low-input feedstock with numerous environmental benefits. Similarly, I have heard a number of people promoting genetic modification of multiple species creating a'dream combination' high-yielding polyculture plantations. Also, the HILD vs. LIHD dichotomy implies that diversity promotes productivity - an interesting ecological premise does not promise to be universally applicable.

Thus, I propose a new dichotomy: wildfuels vs. agrofuels. Agrofuels are almost everthing we have been hearing about in the media: maize, switchgrass, oilpalms, etc.: Things that are intentionally planted for the sake of being harvested. Wildfuels (I do not know whether I am hereby coining term) consists of spontaneously growing vegetation (it may or may not be diverse; it may or may not be native) which can be harvested. It can consist of oldfields, native meadows, successional forests, roadsides, etc. Its harvest is not necessarily benign (e.g. you would not want to level a redwood forest) but I posit, as readers of this blog know, that there will be numerous systems which would benefit tremendously from such harvest (especially systems that have evolved under regimes of chronic biomass removal).

So let us give wildfuels serious consideration!

--Mike

We constantly must remind ourselves that the environmental consequences of biofuels are not merely of academic concern. A recent article from the BBC describes the effects of oilpalms in rural Colombia:

Afro-Colombians fight biodiesel producers

The report includes an interview with Jose Caceido, a displaced steward of the land:

The changes make it harder for the Afro-Colombians to ever recover their former way of life, observes Mr Caceido. "Once palm oil is planted we cannot hunt anymore because the animals have fled," he says. "There is no more birdsong because the forests have been cut down. The soil hardens for lack of shade. Rivers dry up. Nothing else grows except palm."

Although the details will be different, biofuels plantations of all sorts (including switchgrass, a supposedly benign 'cellulosic' crop) will have environmental impacts that will be felt by rural people almost everywhere.

Tom Philpott has a commentary that is contrary to what most of the media is reporting about the 'environmental friendliness' of the nomination of Steven Chu for Secretary of Energy:

Chu-ing the fat of the land?
New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable

Even many of the corn ethanol supporters view corn as a transitional crop, so Philpott seems right on the mark. He does fall into the common thinking "cellulosic ethanol good, corn ethanol bad". My critique of Chu goes deeper: there is no clear evidence that he is considering the full environmental impacts of cellulosic biofuels. We need an energy strategy from our leaders, not a runaway energy bandwagon.

--Mike Palmer

Dan Simberloff has a perceptive piece in Weed Science on the concerns of invasion biologists:

Simberloff, D. (2008). "Invasion Biologists and the Biofuels Boom: Cassandras or Colleagues?" Weed Science 56(6): 867-872.

Modern invasion biology, is a new science, with the holy grail OF being able to predict the trajectory of particular invasions. Although this goal has yet to be achieved, there has been much progress through experimental research and meticulous Study of the scope and mechanisms of existing invasions. Several well-established patterns are relevant to potential biofuel feedstocks: (1) ca. half of all damaging plant invaders were deliberated introduced, not accidental hitchhikers or escapees; (2) some native plants have become invasive; coevolution with native community members was nor proof against unexpected damage; (3) many introduced plants were innocuous for decades or even centuries in their new locations before suddenly exploding across the landscape; lack Of Current observed impact does not guarantee safety; and (4) control or even eradication of widespread invaders is sometimes possible, but it is fit from certain and it is often very expensive. We cannot Count On effectively, managing an introduction gone awry. Because much invasion biology is targeted at developing 0 methods of preventing anthropogenic movement or establishment of species, invasion biologists have occasionally been assailed as obstructionists by various interests who fear their livelihoods will be impeded: the seed and horticulture trades, foresters, the pet industry, fish and game biologists, etc. A Fringe group of philosophers, sociologists, Landscape architects, and others have even taken to calling invasion biology a thinly veiled form of xenophobia. Some biofuels advocates have joined this litany, accusing invasion biologists of playing oil the emotions of all uneducated public by, raising fears of a new kudzu. Invasion biologists need not be cast in this role. In collaboration with agronomists, geneticists, physiologists, and other scientists, they have much to offer in understanding the risks posed by particular feedstocks and developing approaches that would minimize these risks and mitigate unforeseen consequences.

I agree with this view, but I strongly suspect that invasion biologists will not be invited to the table.

I also worry a bit that too much focus is being placed on the invasive potential of biofuels crops. This is indeed a serious concern. But from my perspective, it is orders of magnitude less of a concern than the conversion of wildlands (i.e. the 'marginal agricultural lands') to biofuels crops, and the ensuing emission of greenhouse gasses and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

---Mike Palmer

A new study by Mark Jacobson of Stanford ranks wind, solar and hydro far above

A report from Science Daily:

Wind, Water And Sun Beat Biofuels, Nuclear And Coal For Clean Energy

Some quotes from the report:

"The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most. And some options that have been proposed are just downright awful," Jacobson said. "Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels." He added that ethanol may also emit more global-warming pollutants than fossil fuels, according to the latest scientific studies.

The sad fact is that the land conversion is already underway, and there is so much momentum behind biofuels already, that the environmental degradation is inevitable even if we eventually change our collective minds over the ethanol-based energy sector.

---Mike Palmer

Here is a review on environmental impacts in the UK. The operational phrase that reverberates the most with the main message of this blog is "Compared to replacement of set-aside and permanent unimproved grassland, benefits are less apparent." I read "less apparent" as "possibly nonexistent". --Mike Palmer

Rowe, R. L., N. R. Street and G. Taylor (2009). "Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK." Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 13(1): 260-279.

There is momentum, globally, to increase the use of plant biomass for the production of heat, power and liquid transport fuels. This review assesses the evidence base for potential impacts of large-scale bioenergy crop deployment principally within the UK context, but with wider implications for Europe, the USA and elsewhere. We focus on second generation, dedicated lignocellulosic crops, but where appropriate draw comparison with current first-generation oil and starch crops, often primarily grown for food. For lignocellulosic crops, positive effects on soil properties, biodiversity, energy balance, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, carbon footprint and visual impact are likely, when growth is compared to arable crops. Compared to replacement of set-aside and permanent unimproved grassland, benefits are less apparent. For hydrology, strict guidelines on catchment management must be enforced to ensure detrimental effects do not occur to hydrological resources. The threat of climate change suggests that action will be required to ensure new genotypes are available with high water use efficiency and that catchment-scale management is in place to secure these resources in future. In general, for environmental impacts, less is known about the consequences of large-scale deployment of the C4 grass Miscanthus, compared to short rotation coppice (SRC) willow and poplar, including effects on biodiversity and hydrology and this requires further research. Detailed consideration of GHG mitigation and energy balance for both crop growth and utilization suggest that perennial crops are favoured over annual crops, where energy balances may be poor. Similarly, crops for heat and power generation, especially combined heat and power (CHP), are favoured over the production of liquid biofuels. However, it is recognized that in contrast to heat and power, few alternatives exist for liquid transportation fuels at present and research to improve the efficiency and energy balance of liquid transport fuel production from lignocellulosic sources is a high current priority. Although SRC, and to a lesser extent energy grasses such as Miscanthus, may offer significant benefits for the environment, this potential will only be realized if landscape-scale issues are effectively managed and the whole chain of crop growth and utilization is placed within a regulatory framework where sustainability is a central driver. Land resource in the UK and throughout Europe will limit the contribution that crops can make to biofuel and other renewable targets, providing a strong driver to consider sustainability in a global context. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.