An example of a long-lived and wildly successful marketing scheme is the station wagon with oversize tires and a four-wheel drive transmission, repackaged as the Sport Utility Vehicle. The only significant difference between these and the cars our parents drove is the mental image planted in our heads by marketing. And the real beauty is that you get to pick from two images:
- People envy you for having enough disposable income and leisure time to use your car for sport, skiing in the mountains or driving down the middle of your favorite trout stream to do a little fly-fishing.
- People envy you for owning such a utilitarian vehicle, one befitting a rugged individualist who hauls tools and supplies to job sites (the Marlboro Man).
The glue that binds all this together, of course, is status-seeking behavior -- a genetic propensity for most social primates.
Another wildly successful recent marketing scheme is the word biodiesel. Bio is the Greek root for life: biosphere, biodiversity, and biology. Let's see how well this image of preserving life holds up against the reality of biodiesel.
You take a habitat filled with biodiversity, a forest (temperate/tropical) or grassland (Cerrado/Conservation Reserve), bulldoze and burn all vegetation, plow up the soil, sterilize it with herbicides and insecticides, and finally plant a single genetically modified crop on it. You now have a large flat expanse of land devoid of all life save a single species -- as I have said before, a mall parking lot plus one. The process used to produce the crop is by any definition industrial.
Doing this to produce food is one thing; doing it to feed our cars borders on immoral.
A new subculture has recently sprung up based around biodiesel use. It is a badge of honor (a status symbol) to own a car that runs on biodiesel in this circle, just as a Prius is in other circles. Devotees believe they are sticking it to the man (oil companies). Never mind that oil companies (or companies that look very much like them) will eventually own all biofuel production. As with the SUV, it is based on false marketing from industry televangelists, propagated by believers devoid of critical thought.
Time to cut through the marketing crap and give this fuel a more accurate label: Industrial agrodiesel. We need a new bumper sticker: "Biodiesel: feeding the planet to our cars." And no, I'm not a shill for the bumper sticker oligarchy.
I realize that such a sticker would do a disservice to those dedicated environmentalists using recycled grease, and I apologize for any collateral damage. The "mom and pop locally produced" image is false for 98% of all biodiesel used in the States. The stock comes from thousands of miles away. Unless you are one of the environmentalists out there using recycled grease, you are an industrial agrodiesel poseur. The "smells like french fries or popcorn" mantra is also a load started by the biodiesel industry.
I walked out of a store last night into a cloud of smoke and looked around for the biodiesel sticker. It was on a white van. Earlier in the day I was heading up Stone Way on my hybrid bike following a biodiesel stickered pickup truck. Because my bike was able to keep up with it in traffic, it felt like I had a hose hooked from his tail pipe to my face. I just hope he appreciates the fact that the moist pink lungs of bikers are helping to filter his soot out of the air. The soot from incinerated biomass irritates my eyes and lungs just like wood smoke does. Personally, I'm tired of riding my bike in the wake of these smokers driven by people with their hearts (but not their heads) in the right place.
As data continues to roll in, this fuel (made primarily from soybeans here in the States) has lost all but one of its purported advantages. It produces less air pollution than regular diesel (but not gasoline) for all but two pollutants. However, this one advantage is dwarfed by disadvantages. The last and biggest to fall was its carbon neutrality. This fuel has gone from being touted as carbon neutral, to adding 22 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere for every 100 pounds released at the tail pipe (78%, according to the Department of Agriculture report with the picture of a bus with a soybean motif painted on it), to adding 59 pounds of CO2 for every 100 pounds released (41% if you accept the highly biodiesel-positive study from the University of Minnesota), and finally to being far worse than fossil fuels in the latest peer reviewed study, found in Science.
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Two new documentaries—‘Crude’ and ‘Fuel’—examine two sides of our petroleum problem
Comments
View as Threaded
Billhook Posted 8:27 pm
26 Aug 2007
then what exactly does immoral mean ?
If this crime is not stopped, it seems set to expand its impact,
contributing centrally to America's leading role in imposing
an utterly unprecedented scale of genocide through famine.
With the burgeoning impacts of US-lead climate destabilization,
this is not a matter merely of another six million killed or even of sixty million,
but with the failure of subsistence farming plus aquifer depletion plus crop-diversion,
there are well over six hundred million whose food security is now critically endangered.
Let us be quite clear - unlike sustainable forestry fuels,
the use of Agrifuels is patently genocidal.
A further pivotal lie in their propaganda is that Agrifuels displace fossil fuels' combustion.
They do not.
They merely add marginally to the global liquid fuel supplies.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 10:53 pm
26 Aug 2007
Well, hang on a minute there, biodiversivist. The article you link to, which is on Truthout and references the Science article, also notes that biofuels produced from grasses still look to be a net benefit, carbon-wise.
Here's the reference it provides for that:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn10759 ...
I'm not going to sit here and defend corn or sugar cane, but let's keep the facts straight. Grasses are still good.
Permalink
mihan Posted 12:20 am
27 Aug 2007
Having said that, I'd take a bike-sized version of that sticker...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:29 am
27 Aug 2007
The authors do say that woody biomass like trees and grass have the best potential. One main reason is that you would leave the ecosystem intact as Bill Hook above does with his system. You would sustainably harvest grass and wood from grasslands and forests as opposed to obliterate all life and plant a monocrop. On the other hand, cellulosic fuels are still experimental. We know they can be made, but have not yet found ways to do it affordably.
Mihan,
Google "bumper sticker."
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:32 am
27 Aug 2007
Industrial fuel farming is enabling poverty. When one gallon of oil in the form of chemicals and tractor fuel is used to produce less than one gallon of ethanol or biodiesel to replace that oil, that raises oil consumption. And GHG production. And food prices. And energy prices.
Tax dollars borrowed from China are then used to subsidize each and every gallon of that fuel. Expanding the national debt and pushing interest rates higher.
When food and energy prices rise it puts families that have struggled to buy their own homes out of those homes. Thus enabling poverty.
With wind electricity powering plugin hybrids fuel consumption would drop precipitously, so would the cost of transportation. With wind electric powered grids running geothermal heat pumps for heating and cooling, energy costs would drop too.
Whole new industries creating new jobs would move families back up the economic ladder.
So do we choose to continue fuel farming,gas guzzling, and oil war, enabling poverty, or do we choose eco harmony and prosperity?
Fuel from grass or wood? Or even waste cooking oil? The only one that really pays in terms of energy is recycling the waste cooking oil. And that is maybe enough to power one half of 1% of our gas guzzling?
Meanwhile scarce capital and political influence is diverted from convertion to a renewable electric transportation system and power grid, that would save 90% of fuel consumption and GHG production. And usher in a real economic boom and sustainable jobs that would come with it.
Forget fuel farming, it's another classic diversion scheme. Like the hydrogen economy.
And the war on terror. And the war on drugs. And dimbulb limboob family values.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 12:47 am
27 Aug 2007
That point does get lost in the general public debate.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:54 am
27 Aug 2007
http://www.sustainablebiodieselalliance.com
"The Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting sustainable biodiesel practices through outreach and education. Our goal is to create best practice standards for verifying that all points in biodiesel production are sustainable including the harvesting, production and distribution of biodiesel."
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Billhook Posted 1:56 am
27 Aug 2007
some rather good news on the forest fuels front
is that Methanol,
with its renowned combustion charachteristics,
can be produced from wood very affordably at present simply by an updated FT process -
Where advances are still urgently needed are in the size of production facilities
to be appropriate for village-scale with > 3 miles feedstock haulage,
(and thus maximized local legitimacy and global replicability)
as opposed to the titanicist status quo facilities now used for converting methane to methanol.
The cellulosic route looks to me like an attempt to profit from intellectual property
rather than from sustainable energy supply.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:49 am
27 Aug 2007
Stop using transportation -- personal or public -- an all other machinery that uses fossil fuel, biofuel, or energy derived from either one. It is not enough to say you use less than other folks. It is not enough to say you use it for a higher purpose. If it is a limited or non-renewable resource, if it is wrong to burn fossil fuel or devote land to growing biofuel, it does not matter what your excuse is for relying on either one. Time to quit. Every gallon you burn contributes to global warming, pollution, and degradation of natural habitat.
Aftere you stop, please tell the rest of us how you managed to do so.
It is apparent, based on the discussions on this website, that an environmentalist who truly cares about the planet should not be burning and fossil fuel or biofuel. Why are you still doing it?
If you are waiting for everyone else to change first, you are going to be waiting a very long time.
Forward!
Permalink
Jonas Posted 3:22 am
27 Aug 2007
Here: FAO chief calls for a 'Biopact' between the North and the South
The chief of the leading global environmental and social think tank says so.
Here: Worldwatch Institute chief: biofuels could end global malnourishment
Why do you so stubbornly repeat the same boring message over and over again? These attempts of yours to bash the greatest energy transformation, environmental clean-up and poverty alleviation option, is getting a bit tiresome. Try to look at the issue from a range of perspectives. The world is larger than your bourgeois backyard and background.
But I'm sure you'll never read anything that goes against your predetermined dull, simplistic and pseudo-moralistic agenda.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:27 am
27 Aug 2007
And people opposed to genetic tampering should only by certified organic food or STFU?
And people opposed to Chimpy's excellent adventure in Iraq should stop paying taxes that fund the war machine or STFU?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:35 am
27 Aug 2007
One should not purchase goods they generally condemn. The easiest way to stop production of an item is to stop buying it and then, and only then, find a way to persuade others to stop buying it.
Regarding the third case, no.
I think it is a bit more complicated. Production of the undesirable product is not consumer driven.
Forward!
Permalink
The Frustrated Gardener Posted 8:48 am
27 Aug 2007
Now, using "organic" fertilizers in an industrial ag process like this one might not have a huge impact on the overall carbon balance of this particular biodiesel stream. Given the transport energy costs of moving the (heavy!) mounds of biosolids down to Yakima and then moving the resulting canola oil back up to Seattle, it may be that the carbon emissions per unit of fuel is probably not much better than mined-and-refined diesel.
BUT: 1) at least the precious fixed nitrogen in the poop has already been energetically "paid for" by the upstream processes (ie. the fertilizers that made the food crops that ultimately became the poop); 2) at least the canola oil comes from more-local sources than mid-western soy or (god forbid) Indonesian plantation palm oil.
Main point is: Has anyone else noticed that the discussion of the "carbon neutrality" of biofuels makes little reference to the massive energy expenditure made annually in producing the synthetic fertilizers necessary to do ANY of the farming that we do? There's an awful lot of atmospheric carbon up there that owes is existence to our soil use practices, not to anybody's bloated SUV.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:07 am
27 Aug 2007
Virtually every Federal study on biofuels neglects impacts to Soil (Erosion), Forrests, and N2O greenhouse gases from Fertilizers and Nitrogen Fixation.
They even go so far as to assume the the most ideal conditions are the norm. Which are only possible for 1 year, and degrade thereafter.
AND even go to assume that crop yields will increase by over 50%, when crop yields have actually been decreasing due to harsher weather, particularly increased heat.
Or that we're supposed to have these vast resources of "waste vegetable oil" even when that resource could only meet less than 0.7% of our current fuel demand.
_
It's not much different than the blithe optimism we were sold about how simplistic the war in Iraq would be.
_
That said, we won't have to worry much longer about biodiesel.
Instead we'll just switch straight to Actual Diesel created from plants.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/08/biodiesels-green- ...
Which really tells you what this is all about.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:51 am
27 Aug 2007
>>> That said, we won't have to worry much longer about biodiesel.
Instead we'll just switch straight to Actual Diesel created from plants. <<<
Uhhh... what's the difference between biodiesel and the "Actual Diesel created from plants" you mention?
It would appear that someone simply developed a better and more efficient process for producing diesel fuel from plants. Isn't that good news? Less energy in. More energy out. Cleaner. More energy from less land. Less pollution..
The link you provide actually contradicts the suggestion that biofuels are accompanied by blind optimism. Folks are working on improving the yield and quality of the product. We won't habe to choose between food and fuel. The market might actually provide a renewable source of fuel for automobiles and planes.
Are environmentalist afraid that corporations, researchers, and Federal labs are actually going to find a solution to our energy problems? Afraid you won't have something to compain about? Afraid we'll actually find a way to maintain our desired standard of living, help others improve their quality of life, AND repair our natural environment?
Hey GreyFlcn... I'm starting to wonder if you own stock in a company selling a competing product. How can I trust your figures? Do you have a lot of money invested in solar? Afraid biodiesel will actually become practical?
Forward!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:40 pm
27 Aug 2007
Yes, actually I am.
In the same way I'm afraid that Coal-to-Liquids would become cost effective, making it much harder to dismiss out-of-hand from a non-environmental perspective.
It would appear that someone simply developed a better and more efficient process for producing diesel fuel from plants. Isn't that good news?
Not really. When we're talking about making a product which is many orders of magnitude worse than conventional diesel, even a magical 100% efficient process wouldn't be enough to undo the damage.
http://greyfalcon.net/tropics3
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:55 pm
27 Aug 2007
Roland Clift, professor of environmental technology at Surrey University, sits on the scientific advisory council of Defra, David Miliband's environment department.
He will tell the seminar that promoting the use of biofuels is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions.
"We calculate that the land will need to grow biodiesel crops for 70-300 years to compensate for the CO2 emitted in forest destruction."
Thats pretty damned scary, considering it would take that longer merely to get back to the status quo.
Especially considering how dangerous the status quo is looking.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:48 pm
27 Aug 2007
If you can't see it yourself, how does your company expect to get the next great GMO product out of you?
better hope they aren't monitering your internet activity. Hehehey. All GMO engineering is a matter of homeland security, isn't it? What if terrorists got a hold of the design for the next generation roundup resistant DNA? gasp!!!
Newsflash! Al Gore uses a lot of electricity!!! get right on that wisci. What are the implications for GHG climate disaster theory?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:10 pm
27 Aug 2007
"BioFuels" for "Coal-to-Liquids"
"Algae" for "Carbon Capture"
"Waste Vegetable Oil" for "Waste Tires"
in any of your logic.
And then see if it still makes sense.
"We should do Coal-to-Liquids now, as a transition fuel to when sometime in the future we can do Carbon Capture. We can use recycled Waste Tires to power a significant portion of our cars, and they give them away for FREE!"
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:17 am
28 Aug 2007
The World Watch Institute was founded by Lester Brown. He left to start another venture called The Earth Policy Institute in 2001. From this report:
Cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in world grain consumption this year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that world grain use will grow by 20 million tons in 2006. Of this, 14 million tons will be used to produce fuel for cars in the United States, leaving only 6 million tons to satisfy the world's growing food needs.
The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year. The grain to fill the tank every two weeks over a year will feed 26 people.
You go on to say:
Biofuels are a historic opportunity to combat global poverty and environmental degradation... These attempts of yours to bash the greatest energy transformation, environmental clean-up and poverty alleviation option, is getting a bit tiresome.
The authors of your link have a hoped for ideal which contrasts starkly with the reality seen here:
The president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, is this week pressing ahead with plans to give a large chunk of one of the country's last protected forests to a sugar cane company so it can expand its operations.
The demonstrations have resumed this week, with hundreds of defenders of the forest beaten up by squads of vigilantes known as kiboko, which local media claim are backed by the government.
This is the second row over plans by the Ugandan government to raze its surviving rainforests. In November 2006, five senior scientists at the National Forest Authority - including its director Olay Bjella, a Norwegian national - resigned in protest against the sale of the Bugala forest reserve on an island in Lake Victoria to an Asian-owned palm oil company, Bidco.
"With international palm oil and sugar prices rising as the demand for biofuel kicks in, events in Uganda would seem to be the shape of things to come,"
...and here:
Rural eastern Paraguay was once flush with jungles, small farms, schools, and wildlife. Now it is a sea of soybeans. The families, trees, and birds are gone. The schools are empty. The air is filled with the toxic stench of pesticides.
This is a case of reality verses fantasy. And to ice the cake, the Science article makes the pro-agrofuel arguments moot unless everyone finds it acceptable to increase global warming to grow agrofuels.
I want to conclude by thanking you for the following (verbose and completely devoid of meaningful content) diatribe:
The world is larger than your bourgeois backyard and background. But I'm sure you'll never read anything that goes against your predetermined dull, simplistic and pseudo-moralistic agenda.
...because it completes your profile of the biodiesel enthusiast sterotype. From biodieselrealitycheck.com:
"Be forewarned that biodiesel enthusiasts can be some of the rudest people you will ever have the pleasure of trying to dissuade."
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:24 am
28 Aug 2007
Wisci
"Folks are working on improving the yield and quality of the product."
Not the yield, but the flash point and lower costs, making it more marketable, which means more will be used, which means more demand on the same feedstocks, primarily food crops, which will have to be grown on carbons sinks, grasslands, and forests.
The article in Science is the final nail and nobody seems to realize it yet. Fuel being made from those feedstocks are worse for global warming than fossil fuels.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink