A BBC.com editorial by World Conservation scientist Jeffery McNeely lists some of the lesser-discussed cons of biofuels, including ethanol:
However, biofuels – made by producing ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter – may be a penny wise but pound foolish way of doing so….
-Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving…
-The expansion of biofuels would increase monoculture farming
If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind…
The article describes many of the trade-offs we are going to have to accept in order to continue consuming energy at the rate that we do. There is, and will likely never be, a sure-fire instant technological solution to all of our energy problems. Don’t like fossil fuels? Well, we can try ethanol but what are your feelings on monoculture farming? Are you ready to accept gentically modified plantlife? Because that’s what we’re going to need to get adaquate crops to feed and fuel everything. I kind of like nuclear, but then you have the waste to deal with.
These are not easy choices. It’s a complicated world indeed when reading something as seemingly unrelated as The Omnivore’s Dilemma is necessary to form a halfway educated opinion on energy policy. (Hint: THE CORN! IT WILL KILL US ALL! Except he wrote it with less shrieking panic and exclaimation points. It was an excellent book, though, I highly recommend reading it.)
It’s all very depressing to be sure, but there is some hope: real efforts now to conserve and be more efficient with the CO2 spewing fuels we already have will help buy some time, if there is any left to begin with. Smart policy decisions will help. More funding for research and subsidies for consumers and businesses to switch to more efficient methods for heating, cooling and lighting thier enviornment will help. Individual choices for smaller homes, smaller cars, and less consumption will help. We may not be able to reverse global warming, but we can slow down our behaviors that contribute to it and possibly even plan for its consquences.
Even if we are not fated to smother ourselves in carbon dioxide while warring for the last remaining livable land in the north pole, I doubt it would kill us to cut back on consumption a bit. Imagine how much everyone could relax if we stopped finding self-worth in wasteful status symbols like Hummers. Hell, if you need to show off how much money you have, you can always spend $110 on a Zen alarm clock to show off your yuppie eco-conscious “lifestyle.” Sure, it’s not $30,000-$150,000 for a Hummer plus $100 per tank of gas, but I assume that if you can blow $110 on a clock you’re doing OK. There are also the rich avenues of music, food, or book snobbery if you still need to flaunt. And once you’re not financing that SUV or that McMansion, you might find that you actually have the cash for music, food or book snobbery. But don’t forget to pay the carbon tax if you’re having that shit shipped to your house.
That means there will be fewer abortions
Recently