- BitsBlog - https://bitsblog.com -

“Green Fuel” Isn’t: The Argument Against Biofuels

After years of being fed the line that bio fuels were the fuel of the future, and very green, it turns out that that’s not the case.  No surprise to us, we’ve been saying it for quite some time.  But now the scientific community is beginning to wake up and smell the tofu burning:

NewScientist.com news service- [1] It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel. So say scientists who have calculated the difference in net emissions between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fuelling cars with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead.

They recommend governments steer away from biofuel and focus on reforestation and maximising the efficiency of fossil fuels instead.

The reason is that producing biofuel is not a “green process”. It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make “green” fuel.

Well, yes, but then again, we’ve been saying that here for quite some time.  I’ve yet to see an effective counter argument on that point.  But more, the article goes into what I labeled the law of unintended consequences:

What is more, environmentalists have expressed concerns that the growing political backing that biofuel is enjoying will mean forests will be chopped down to make room for biofuel crops such as maize and sugarcane. “When you do this, you immediately release between 100 and 200 tonnes of carbon [per hectare],” says Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, UK, a conservation agency that seeks to preserve rainforests.

This correct is this is, I think they underestimate that aspect of the problem.

In any event, with the environmental argument for using biofuels thus negated , one wonders if we will come back to the solution that this blog has been advocating since its inception; domestic drilling, and increased refining capacity.  It’s an idea whose time has long since come.  Let’s get to it.

Update:(Bit) James Joyner [2] notes the same story:

Andrew Samwick [3] observes, “Putting energy reform in the hands of domestic agricultural producers seems like no better an idea than putting it in the hands of domestic petroleum producers.”

And this is in addition to the moral question of whether it’s a good idea to convert a cheap, efficient form of food (say, corn or soybeans) into an inefficient substitute for fossil fuels.

I respond:

>>

After 30 years of work against domestic petroleum refiners, by the enviro-wacko left, we now find ourselves in the situation where we have Insufficient drilling capacities at home, and insufficient refining capacities at home, to meet the demand. Of course, the hope (thought they would never admit it) was that tightening the supply of oil would increase the supply of other forms of energy, such as biofuels. This was supposed to be our energy panacea.

But, like every other wet dream these people have come up with, it’s turned into a nightmare. It has become clear that we are not going to be able to do that. As a result, we now have an energy starved nation, paying $3.00 a gallon and better for the ability to drive back and forth to work… and all the economic repercussions that invokes.

The common complaint, and one that I am sympathetic to, is that our environmentalist friends are about damaging the economy of the united states, and with it, our standing in the world. It’s pretty hard argue against that statement, with results like what we have in front of us.

For 30 years and longer we have, at the behest of the “environmentalist” left, avoided the real solution: increased domestic drilling and increased domestic refining capacity.

It’s about time we turn that situation around.