Grey,

"Drastically reduce the value of biofuels by cutting programs"

Whatcha mean?

You keep beating that drum on biofuels, but you're not living in the real world. Our only choice right now is to advocate for biofuels from non-palm/non-corn/more sustainable feedstocks. (And before I get into trouble here, "more sustainable" does not mean "sustainable." Just closer to it.)

Until biofuels are outlawed, which looks like a long way away indeed, you can't just wish a massive, and growing, industry away. You can, however, organize to change its practices. Ask the folks who took on Home Depot over tropical lumber about that.

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

Fungibility, eh. What can I say, I went to a state school.

Sure, this happens all the time. But with an informed public, and with a world of pressured governments, we wouldn't have crops displaced to areas that ought not be cultivated.

Don't need to wait for global laws to enforce sustainability. Unsustainable will very likely become synonymous with unprofitable.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

Erik, you say:

But with an informed public, and with a world of pressured governments, we wouldn't have crops displaced to areas that ought not be cultivated.

Yeah. And if wishes had wings.

Where is the public outcry, Erik? Show us these pressured governments that are calling a halt to subsidies and mandates for corn-ethanol and soy-biodiesel.

Already we're seeing prairie land being put to the plow, which is bad news for ducks. As Jim Ringelman writes in this extended essay for Ducks Unlimited:

First, the Bad News

Most experts believe that commercial-scale, cellulosic ethanol processing plants will not come on line for five years or more. Until then, the demand for corn ethanol is expected to increase dramatically. Regrettably, when it comes to breeding ducks, it is hard to find a silver lining in a forecast for more corn acres. In fact, the demand for more corn is likely to throw a big wrench into the gears of the duck factory.

Typical of any supply-and-demand relationship, when the demand for corn is high, so is its price. If corn growers receive a high price for their product, they can then afford to invest more in land and land rental. Farmers who grow less profitable crops get squeezed out. Simple supply-and-demand economics force those currently receiving a low return on their land investment to reconsider how their land can best be used to generate revenue.

An obvious concern associated with increased corn production is the fate of land enrolled in CRP, a program that was created in the 1985 Farm Bill to idle highly erodible land by restoring it to grassland. As the many other conservation benefits of CRP emerged--including the addition of 2.1 million ducks each year to the fall flight--the program became recognized as the most significant and successful conservation initiative ever implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Now, those in search of more corn ground are viewing CRP land as up for grabs. The USDA evidently agrees. Last February, it announced that no new CRP signups would be held in 2007 and 2008, and that it is considering allowing landowners currently enrolled in CRP to terminate their contracts early--all for the stated purpose of providing more acreage to meet the demand for corn. But cornfields do not provide suitable nesting habitat for ducks. And depending on how many acres of CRP are lost in the PPR, some portion of those 2.1 million ducks will not be flying south each autumn.

The demand for corn will also put pressure on the 22.3 million acres of remaining native prairie grassland in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Newly broken prairie will not grow much corn. In general, the soils are too poor, and the climate is often unsuitable for corn. But some newly broken prairie may be suitable for wheat and other crops that will be displaced by corn on existing cropland. And even if the native grasslands remain intact, the demand for corn and cropland in general is driving up the cost of all land dramatically. These increased land values also affect the region's other producers--cattle ranchers. ... The livestock industry is native prairie's "reason for being," at least in an economic sense.

But, Dr. Ringelman sees a bright side ... sort of:

The (Hopefully) Good News

If ducks can weather the corn ethanol storm, good news may be on the horizon. The cellulosic ethanol industry, if implemented in a duck-friendly way, could be an asset to waterfowl production. The key lies in the nature of the feedstock, what land uses it displaces, and how it is harvested. ...

If switchgrass is planted on cropland that used to be cultivated every year, the net effect on ducks will almost always be positive. Annually tilled crops (except for winter wheat) provide poor nesting habitat for ducks. But if switchgrass replaces CRP or native prairie, duck production will be negatively affected. Grassland left completely undisturbed (in the case of CRP) or grazed (in the case of native prairie) is generally more productive for ducks than grassland that is harvested every year, even if harvest occurs during the fall. [My emphasis]

In short: the good news about switchgrass is that it would be better for ducks than corn, but not as good as what the ducks had to begin with, before the biofuels boom.

Until you advocate ending all subsidies and mandates benefitting first-generation biofuels (with the possible exception of biodiesel made from used cooking oil), you are allowing a runaway cart (first-generation biofuels) to drag a hobbled horse (sustainability).

Those are not the most defensible arguments I've ever seen.

"But with an informed public, and with a world of pressured governments, we wouldn't have crops displaced to areas that ought not be cultivated."

Exactly. These crops that should not be cultivated are called biofuels. And personally I am trying to pressure government by writing about it. And who is better informed, Willy Nelson or Geroge Monbiot?

"Don't need to wait for global laws to enforce sustainability. Unsustainable will very likely become synonymous with unprofitable."

Your choice of fuel is not only no more sustainable than fossil fuels, but it also usurps food crops, land, and biodiversity. I wouldn't put soy based biodiesel in my tank if you paid me (although, essentially, anyone using it is getting paid at about 51 cents a gallon).  

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Ah. Ron,

"Where is the public outcry, Erik? Show us these pressured governments that are calling a halt to subsidies and mandates for corn-ethanol and soy-biodiesel."

Look, that's what I'm saying. The outcry about biofuels at Grist sounds odd when there's no concurrent action going on. I don't KNOW where the action is. Folks who feel strongly about this ought to be talking to their reps in Congress, and especially to all the enviro groups they send checks to each year which all seem to be lined up behind biofuels. What's IISD doing to pressure their NGO peers on the topic? Center for a New American Dream is promoting ethanol, I just read elsewhere in this blog. Are they not reading Gristmill or what?

BioD: what's defensible and what isn't? Is continuing to burn gasoline in your car truly defensible?

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

So Ron, you asked "Where's the public outcry?" And I said I don't know. So you reply with examples of public outcry? I thought YOU were the one that didn't know. So why ask?

Anyhoo, don't nobody label me a biodiesel industry apologist. I keep saying that it's already here getting huge on the public teat, you can't just unbuild it, so let's make it as good as it can be until we don't need it anymore b/c we've got a better idea than internal combustion and liquid fuels.  

I'm fine with zeroing subsidies. Count me in. Fuels ought to compete on their merits. Biodiesel is a premium liquid fuel which is as good for an engine as it is for the air, so it should do fine on the market. And it would help mightily if the subsidies for oil would go, too.

The kind I force-feed my Jetta is at least 50% recycled. Show me dino-fuel that can claim that.

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

There isn't yet a general public outcry. What we are seeing is criticism of current policies expressed by academics, libertarians, some people in environmental NGOs, and an increasing number of editorial writers. But the people that matter, the policy makers, are still bowing at the alter of ethanol.

Maybe politicians can't unbuild the existing biofuel infrastructure, but they can certainly stop funding its expansion.

You keep asserting that biofuels are better than petroleum fuels. That is debatable, especially for corn ethanol distilled in plants fueled by coal, but also for some biodiesel. So I do not accept the argument that we should keep indiscriminately supporting all 1st-generation biofuel production "because at least it's better than petroleum products".

I have no problem with biodiesel made from recycled cooking oil. (Nor would I have a problem with lipodiesel.) Yet it receives half the subsidy of biodiesel made from virgin agricultural oils or fats. Don't you find that perverse?

Happily we can agree on this:

I'm fine with zeroing subsidies. Count me in. Fuels ought to compete on their merits. ... . And it would help mightily if the subsidies for oil would go, too.

(although, essentially, anyone using it is getting paid at about 51 cents a gallon).

Actually it's closer to $2 a gallon.
Or roughly half the sale price.

http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png

51 cents was for another biofuel. In any case, I'm with Ron, this debate is starting to sound like a broken record. Using biodiesel made from soy increases your ecological footprint about 50%. If you  manage to find a source that mixes 50% recycled then your footprint increases 25%, which is still huge. We are talking about personally usurping six or seven acres of a valuable food commodity to propel your car annually. Not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination. Go to http://www.biodieselrealitycheck.com and look at check number 2 in particular.

"BioD: what's defensible and what isn't? Is continuing to burn gasoline in your car truly defensible?

Truly? Defensible? I've presented well-defended arguments that fossil fuels are less environmentally destructive than burning food crop biodiesel. So, yeah, if my arguments turn out to be more defensible than yours are then burning gasoline in my car is more defensible than burning food crop biodiesel.

And your burning of it is not helping to usher in a better fuel. It is creating an incentive for profit seekers to provide you more of it while maximizing their profit. There is a whole hell of a lot of Amazonian rainforest and Cerrado ready to supply you.

Eric, this is not about your stereotypical Mano-a mano pissing match where two guys argue about what is better, Chevy or Ford, Prius or Jetta. I gave the issue a tremendous amount of thought before I chose a hybrid. Most people burning biodiesel in Jettas did not and they are understandably very resistant to the idea that their choice is actually worse for the environment "overall" than a burning regular diesel. Sure there are fewer pollutants at the tail pipe than regular diesel (but not gasoline)and less CO2 emitted on a life cycle basis, but again, visit http://www.biodieselrealitycheck.com to see how bad it blows other parameters.

Greyfalcon,

That is stunning...

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Seeing Greyfalcon's link, I had to chuckle. Erik asked about what we (the Global Subsidies Initiative of the IISD) were doing to communicate our concerns about biofuels, or at least the poor targeting and low cost-effectiveness of subsidies to biofuels. Our most important effort has, of course, been the study that we commissioned from Doug Koplow last year. Between Doug's website and ours, we've counted around 200,000 downloads of the report since last October -- not bad for a densely written analysis of 100 pages, with no glossy photos or graphs. And that is not counting the information from the report that Greyfalcon has kindly provided as a public service on his website. (Thank you, Greyfalcon!)

The report continues to be cited in the press (and by other researchers), most recently in Jeff Goodell's hard-hitting article for Rolling Stone, "Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles".