Say No to Biofuels

EPA does "fuzzy math" in its Corn Ethanol pollution calculations

The Network for New Energy Choices quotes a new report by Earth Track and Friends of the Earth stating biofuels are being propped up by the Obama administration with our tax dollars to the tune of $420 billion from 2008 through 2022.  States NNEC,

The proposed rule includes an accounting gimmick that would discount ethanol’s greenhouse gas emissions over a 100-year timeframe, a window that both undercounts the actual volume of emissions and puts off emission reductions too far into the future.  Under this century-long option proposed by the EPA, corn ethanol’s emissions would be lower than gasoline, but not until 100 years from now.  That’s a strange proposal from an administration that is spending tremendous amounts of political capital to make greenhouse gas emission reductions a priority.

Does anyone really think we have 100 years to dally before we address climate change?

Michael Pollan: Competition for arable land will continue to skyrocket

An interview of foodie Michael Pollan by Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, indicates that Pollan believes rightly that competition for arable land will skyrocket in the next few years.  Add to this the competition for arable land to be used for cellulosic biofuels, and you see a disaster in the making.  This is especially so in the global south, where indigenous rainforests will be razed to create monocultures of tree plantations for use as fuel for transportation in wealthy countries.  Pollan is the author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma".

U.S. Cotton growers dethrone king cotton for biofuel grist

A story in the New York Times about how "cultural cotton" is now giving way to soybean and maize due to plummeting cotton prices and soaring corn and soy prices.  Interestingly, the article admits that the agro-industrial monoculture of cotton has a history of misery and injustice:

Not everyone is likely to feel nostalgia for a crop long associated with abject work conditions and low wages. Though a source of wealth, cotton was also a source of back-breaking work for slaves and sharecroppers, and later for poor farm laborers.

An expert in the article states, "Globalization has dethroned King Cotton without question, not only in Mississippi, but throughout the South and the United States,” said O. A. Cleveland, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at Mississippi State. "  In the words of the great Carlo Petrini, founder of the Slow Food movement, misery is what takes place when crop selection based on pure profitability is placed ahead of tastes and local tradition.  After all, prior to cotton, soy and corn, there probably were a host of now-extinct and gone-forever native crops that fed plenty of people without enslaving anyone. 

Biofuels companies now sucking the juices out of New York wineries!

According to a wine industry magazine called Wine Spectator, biofuels companies in upstate New York have convinced wineries to "donate" the very valuable remains of the winemaking process called Pomace to them so that they can produce biodiesel.  They are also producing food-grade grapeseed oil.  However, the article is worded such that this seems like an "environmentally friendly" alternative when nothing could be further from the truth! The article states,

"As wineries consider ways to squeeze that last dollar out of their grapes, they're looking to what's left after they squeeze the juice out of them—the grape pomace, or mass of skins, pulp and seeds leftover from the winemaking process. Traditionally, wineries have composted and returned the pomace to the vineyard, but at least one recycling facility in the Finger Lakes in upstate New York has found a new environmentally friendly solution."

PErhaps the vintners should have talked to a few soil scientists before they considers "squeezing" that last dollar out of their grapes! 

According to Recycle Works!, a program of San Mateo County, California, ten good reasons to compost include:

10 good reasons why you should compost:

1. Yard and food waste make up 30% of the waste stream. Composting your kitchen and yard trimmings helps divert that waste from the landfill, waterways and water treatment facilities.
2. You will significantly reduce pest problems–and your use of pesticides.
3. Healthy plants from healthy soil look better, produce better and have a much greater ability to fight off pests and diseases.
4. Adding organic materials to the soil improves moisture retention.
5. Adding decomposed organic material to the soil feeds beneficial organisms.
6. Compost amends both sandy and clay soils.
7. Compost provides a balanced, slow–release source of nutrients that helps the soil hold nutrients long enough for plants to use them.
8. Composting saves money–you avoid the cost of buying soil conditioners, bagged manure etc.
9. Feeding your plants well will improve your own diet. Plants grown in depleted soils have a reduced nutrient content.
10. Home composting is a valuable tool in educating children about nature and the cycle of life.

This is a great example of how the biofuels industry is brainwashing various communities into making poor environmental choices for a quick dollar and it is an outrage.

Scientists to Pols: EPA must accurately account for total lifecycle emissions in final rule

Seems like these days the EPA is doing a little bit better at carrying out their mission with science instead of politics.  The EPA is working on draft rules for emissions control.  With regard to biofuels, the rule estimates emissions by including measures for heat-trapping based on a biofuel's entire lifecycle, from cultivation to fuel production to vehicle exhaust.

On the heels of California's low carbon fuel standard that accounts for indirect land use emissions in the production of biofuels, The Union of Concerned Scientists issued a letter on April 21, 2009  (pdf) signed by 179 prominent scientists and economists urging the state to accurately account for biofuel emissions. "Failure to include a major source of pollution, like indirect land use emissions," the letter stated, "will distort the carbon market, suppress investment in truly low carbon fuels, and ultimately result in higher emissions."

"The EPA is doing the right thing by looking at all the pollution from biofuels," said Eli Hopson, a Washington representative with UCS's Clean Vehicle Program. "But we can't wait 100 years to begin to address climate change. We need better biofuels that deliver climate benefits within 20 years to help us meet emissions reduction goals."

Madagascar Natives: "Save us from big corporate agriculture!"

Slow Food International's March 2009 newsletter has a heartfelt plea from natives of Madagascar to save them from the scourge of yet another palm oil plantation.  Palm's use has taken off for two reasons, the substitution of palm oil for partially hydrogenated soybean oil (PHSO) in the effort to remove trans fats from foods in the U.S., AND production of biodiesel for the EU. 

"The South Korean multinational Daewoo Logistic has obtained the right to lease land—for 99 years, or two generations!—covering 1.3 million hectares, or half of all the arable land in Madagascar. It plans to produce corn and palm oil. The Koreans state that if the contract is successful, they will build roads, schools, hospitals etc, but the other side of the coin is the prospect of impoverishment and social destabilization. Thousands of small farmers will be transformed into wage earners tending intensive monocultures and food shortfalls will be aggravated since harvests are intended for export."

If you would like to help avert this deal please sign their petition.

Cellulosic technology will produce patented "frankentrees"

A very user-friendly pamphlet by the Global Justice Ecology Project has succinctly pointed out the dangers of genetically engineered trees for use as cellulosic biomass:

Biotechnology industries are now working to develop GE trees that will grow more
rapidly, produce less lignin (the material that provides rigid structure), or grow in
poor conditions.  Trees are long-lived and undergo various metabolic changes during their lifespan. Controlling the expression of genes is therefore more difficult than in annual crops.  Additionally, trees spread their pollen and seeds very widely, often hundreds of miles.  Cross contamination between GE trees and native forest varieties is both inevitable and irreversible, and the consequences could be disastrous to forest ecosystems.  Replacing native forests with monoculture plantations of GE trees will result in biological deserts devoid of wildlife.

Global Justice Ecology Project's "Fuel for thought"

 A COUNTERPUNCH article from last February by Dr. Rachel Smolker and Brian Tokar of the Global Justice Ecology Project succinctly brings home the negative points about cellulosic biofuels:

• Agrofuels worsen poverty and climate change

• Agrofuels demand cannot be met sustainably

• Agrofuels are not renewable

Solutions are:

• Conservation,

• Wind,

• Solar,

• less fossil fuels.

Royal Dutch Shell's cellulosic "Pipe" dream

Business Week's interview of Royal Dutch Shell's CEO Jeroen van der Veer reveals the chances they are taking in the development of cellulosic biofuels.  Of course, instead of focusing on conservation, van der Veer talks about how they are feverishly buying up cellulosic biofuels companies and "ruthlessly" developing this "risky technology" because of "...the fact that there is an ever-growing global demand for energy..." 

Below is an excerpt:

Virent, of course, plans to use its catalysts to make renewable gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. So are all of these technologies going to pan out?

We have to be very ruthless. Our biofuels activities are typically at the R&D stage, or in small scale pilots--a good way to think of them is that they are exploration ventures. With these ventures we take a milestone approach. If they pass the milestones, we carry on. If they don't, we stop. If we are very lucky, we will have more options that pass milestones than we can commercialize. Then we will sell some. But the pipeline has to have more in it than we can commercialize, because these advanced technologies are risky.

Friends of the Earth: Monsanto's CEO Hugh Grant wins biggest biofool contest!

On the heels of the Union of Concerned Scientists's "Failure to Yield" report about GMO crops not delivering as promised, Friends of the Earth and Rainforest Action Network's Biggest Biofools Contest reports the winner as none other than the CEO of Monsanto, a genetic engineering corporation.

"With thousands of votes cast, this year's Biggest Biofool is Hugh Grant, CEO of Monsanto. Grant has been a long-time supporter of biofuels, insisting, despite evidence to the contrary, that biofuels are good for the environment. In fact, biofuels production contributes to deforestation, biodiversity loss, water and air pollution, and increased greenhouse gas emissions"

Business Week on Biofuels

Business Week has done a good analysis of biofuels to date.  Read about the oligarchy of biotech, chemical, pulp, agriculture, and oil companies involved in the "second generation" biofuels craze:

Biofuels: The Next Generation
As corn-based ethanol hits roadblocks, all eyes are turning to advanced biofuels. These, too, face difficult challenges, but that's not stopping a host of startups

The Biofuel Bubble

Investing in biofuels, as in most cutting-edge tech, can be treacherous. Ask anyone who snapped up stock in VeraSun Energy, a Sioux Falls (S.D.) company that briefly thrived as an...

Cellulosic Biofuels will create a plethora of poachers

A recent Mongabay media report found legions of organized poachers razing the rainforest and killing all the wildlife in order to poach Rosewood.  Now granted, this may not be a good feedstock for cellulosic biofuels, but with the added pressure to come up with enough feedstock to meet biofuels mandates, I am afraid that the poachers of the world will multiply.  And in case you think it's ok that a few species die here and there without affecting the entire planet, just watch PBS Nature's episode entitled "The Loneliest Animals"  to find out why if THEY go, WE might go too.

GMOs: A Flash in the Pan?

GMO Companies want in on the cellulosic biofuels industry

We all know how the GMO companies are rushing to find a way to engineer plants that have weak cellulose.  In other words, they want to figure out a way to make trees that have weaker architecture that won't take as much energy to break down.  This would make cellulosic biofuels cost-effective (in their minds).

There are still some strong proponents of GMOs despite their punitive intellectual property enforcement and their pestiferous costs to the environment, small farmers, and indegenous peoples. 

GMO products not panning out as promised

But not even their technology has proven to be what they have promised.  A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists demonstrates that GMO crops have not delivered what their manufacturers have promised.  Entitled "Failure to Yield", the press release of April 14, 2009 by the Union of Concerned Scientists on this report states that:

"For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.

That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

Another recent Purdue University report finds that some glyphosate herbicides that are supposed to be used in conjunction with GE crop seeds that are resistant to the herbicide, are losing their potency.  In particular, weeds are starting to become resistant to the herbicide.  I quote:

Rotating crops consistently and using various herbicides will slow the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

The premise of paying annually for the seeds and the herbicide was to avoid the "headache" or adding other herbicides and frequent rotations. 

Solutions?

Other more old fashioned, labor-intensive but tried-and-true time-tested approaches such as traditional hybridizing, ggrowing several types of crops, namely organic agriculture techniques and integrated pest management offer more affordable and sustainable agricultural methods and require far less input costs from pesticides, herbicides and GMO seeds.

Conclusion?

The GMO manufacturers better start knocking on some wood!

Cellulosic biofuels: Legislate first, ask questions later

Like its cousin, corn and soy (and sugar for that matter) biofuels, here is an interesting piece by Reuters from last February that listed all of the biofuel plants in the U.S. that are rushing to figure out how to break down cellulose and lignin so they can meet the asinine mandates set by the government.  The technology, by the way, is nowhere NEAR becoming a reality in ten years, let alone ONE.  I quote:

A few companies have opened pilot plants to make cellulosic but no commercial amounts of the fuel are being made. The industry risks failing the U.S. Renewable Fuels Standard, which requires the blending of 100 million gallons of cellulosic into the country's gasoline pool next year.

This is exactly the asinine mentality that led to the global food crisis of 2008, that is, the legislation of mandates before all of the science and public comment has been reviewed.

The FAO says corporate tree plantations are "forest cover"

The cellulosic biofuels industry would have you believe that all trees are alike, and that its quest to produce trees for use as fuel promotes "rainforests" just because they are [destroying rainforest and] planting plantation trees for future use as biofuels. 

In lock-step with the cellulosic ethanol industry, the FAO has accidentally or deliberately classified monoculture tree plantations as "forest cover".  This is extremely misleading, as tree plantations can devastate biodiversity and displace thousands of native peoples.  Often, the native peoples become dependent for work on the plantations, but then lose their jobs. 

The World Rainforest Movement, an international network of citizens' groups of North and South involved in efforts to defend the world's rainforests, has an excellent resource page regarding the dangers of counting plantations as trees.  They also have two publications, one by groups of indegenous women telling about the devastation caused by tree plantations, and another about the dangers of cellulosic biofuel development. 

Happy Bio-Fools Day

The Rainforest Action Network and Friends of the Earth has a "biggest biofools contest" where the candidates are the biggest proponents of biofuels.  Vote Now!  (I voted for Grassley because as a public servant he should know better.)

Cellulosic Ethanol: Second Generation Mirage?

Hello Corn, Goodbye Corn!

Now that biofuels from corn has spelled disaster less than two years after the subsidies and programs promoting them were hurriedly implemented, everyone including the bright minds that devised the corn based biofuels programs are acting like corn is "old hat" and they knew all along this was true (they didn't.) 

Enter "cellulosic", stage left!

Government officials and agribusiness are now pouring mountains of cash and exuberantly touting "second generation" or cellulosic biofuels. Though still considerably undeveloped, it seems like another accident waiting to happen, at least to me. 

Vent, vent:

First of all, why do politicians and businessmen think that inedible trees will not need water to grow and will not encroach on land that is currently used for food as their cultivation grows and expands? Why do they think that using finite resources (water, land) for infinite purposes (driving your car) is not an improbable equation? 

Not seeing the forest for the invasive weeds

But never mind all that. Enter their imagined solution, fuel from weeds. This is called cellulosic biofuel. To that end, the pols and businesspeople have put zillions of dollars into research of energy-rich and inedible weeds that grow quickly and provide ten times more energy than grains like corn. The problem is...they are EXTREMELY hard to break down. 

The Nature Conservancy and a number of other conservation groups are concerned that the cultivation of fast-growing, weed-like plants will create large plots of unwanted, invasive species beyond what we already grapple with. No problem. 

Jungles of goo

The scientists are now genetically engineering plants that have their lignin or hard outer shell weakened. This too, could prove extremely problematic if these low-lignin, er, "weak" plants end up invading healthier trees. Wouldn't our forests turn to jungles of goo if the pollen from these cellulosically- challenged trees spread around accidentally? This spells the death of lots of trees, and the end of whatever biodiversity we have left.  After all, there is a REASON lignin is as resistant to breakdown as it happens to be!

Who needs biomass?

Also, I am amazed at the scientists who calculate that they can continuously remove biomass from forests and agricultural land to use for infinite applications, especially transportation, without completely degrading the soil available and using up all the potable water. 

Invasion of the cellulose-snatchers

There have already been serious encroachments of land upon native peoples and the use of forced labor for the growth of the poisonous Jatropha plant in Burma, palm oil plantations for biodiesel in Colombia,and I am sure, many other places.

Some solutions:

• How about making public transport better and
• find a way to produce zero-emitting cars
• give employers tax breaks for allowing employees to work from home whenever feasible
• Require MUCH higher CAFE standards on existing cars

Global Labor to the World: Global Food Crisis Set to Worsen

The global labor movement has just released a report entitled “A Recipe for Hunger, How the World is Failing on Food”, which finds that financial speculation and massive profit-taking by a few multinational companies has caused massive food inflation. It also implicates trade rules that decrease food security and finally adds that due to the desire of certain governments and corporations policies, the increase in production of biofuels at the expense of food production has reeked major havoc on world hunger and the global food market.

The Global Food Crisis and the Right to Food

In May of 2008, almost at the height of the global food crisis, the Washington Post wrote an extremely well-done series on what was going on with the food crisis. While many businessmen, speculators, scientists, and human rights and humanitarian workers are still reeling from the extraordinary rise and modest fall of food prices, the world is still on guard. At the Madrid Conference of the FAO the leaders of the United Nations reiterated, and expounded upon every human being's right to food.

The U.N. has recognized that the human "right to food" codified in the Covenant on economic, Social and cultural Rights has been trampled upon by the U.S. and European demand and government targets for biofuels.

A broad coalition of religious and civil society groups urge immediate action on the food crisis

In a letter to President Obama, a broad coalition of faith, hunger, international development, human rights, farm and food organizations, including Pax Christi, USA, Food and Water Watch, Food First, the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights, Public Citizen, the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington Office on Latin America, and many others, sent a letter to President Barack Obama demanding an end to Wall Street's bad habit of speculation in the commodities market, lack of transparency with grain futures, etc. They also ask for reconsideration of biofuels. Read Food First's post.