The Wildfuels Alternative

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.