Biofuel or biofool?
By Desiree Chevalier
Lance Writer
March 11, 2009
Gas prices have simmered a bit, but in anticipation of the decline in the economy, you have wisely purchased a fine pair of overalls and begun toiling away growing corn to use for ethanol fuel.
Maybe you’ve converted your Cutlass to run on used vegetable oil that you steal from local restaurants, or you’re brainstorming on how to power your home through the sheer beany goodness of soy. But before you buy that “I heart biofuel” bumper sticker (they have bumper stickers for everything right?) you may want to rethink your stance on some of these eco-friendly sounding alternatives; sometimes savings in greenhouse gas emissions are countered by other drawbacks such as rising food prices and the destruction of native habitats.
As more people become conscious of the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, business moguls are not far behind, hoping to cash in on the trend with new, sophisticated vehicles capable of running on ethanol, a fuel that can be produced from many different types of crops.
Volvo, Saab, Mercedes-Benz and Toyota are among the companies offering ethanol-fuelled models and the burgeoning interest from the public might be considered a victory on behalf of the environment.
However, the environmental “side-effects” that commonly crop up in the production of biofuels are frequently ignored with an emphasis only on net greenhouse gas emissions. Since the major benefit to the environment offered by biofuels is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it’s obvious why biofuel supporters would cite this reduction in their arguments advocating for the switch to ethanol.
Zah et. al. in 2007, for example, found that biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 30 per cent when compared with fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions. This significant reduction has prompted many government officials involved in the development of environmental initiatives to offer farmers subsidies for growing crops that can be used for ethanol production.
The problem with this approach is that the assessment of biofuels commonly overlooks many of the detrimental effects on humans and the environment associated with the production and use of ethanol fuel in lieu of fossil fuels.
For example, some studies have shown that ethanol uses more energy than it produces and that many crops that are grown, such as sugarcane, may drive farmers to destroy tropical forests to make room for more farmland.
The value of the forests as a carbon sink is invaluable; in addition, biodiversity, the local water cycle and the integrity of the local soil all suffer after razing and the development and expansion of agricultural land.
In addition, the fertilizers used to nourish the new crops can alter local ecosystems and release greenhouse gases themselves.
As farmers rush to collect subsidies to grow particular crops the prices of other crops can rise, affecting the availability and affordability of some foods.
There is also a concern that crops that are needed to feed the many suffering in the world’s food crisis are being devoted to biofuel production in ever-greater numbers.
The good news is that production of second-generation biofuels, made from non-food sources like grasses or trees grown on marginal land and biofuels produced from residual products (recycled cooking oils or bio-waste) have a low environmental impact with all the emission reducing benefits of the other biofuels.
|
