Another Gore Miracle: Turning the Gulf of Mexico Green

Fuckallyall

Rising Star
BGOL Patreon Investor
The Disastrous Local and Global Impacts of Tropical Biofuel Production

Here's the link to the story

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=403&idli=1




The Disastrous Local and Global Impacts of Tropical Biofuel Production

Last November, Patricia A. Woertz, the CEO and president of Archer Daniels Midland, outlined a new growth strategy for the food-processing giant. ADM, America’s biggest producer of corn ethanol, will expand its biofuel production, moving into Brazilian sugarcane for ethanol and Indonesian palm oil for biodiesel.
Woertz, a former high-ranking official at Chevron, said ADM will get “long-term growth and returns by capitalizing on our global strengths and the changing dynamics of the global energy and food markets.”

As ADM, one of the world’s largest food companies, seeks to increase profits, the continuing push into the tropics by it and other biofuel producers will only accelerate a potential ecological catastrophe. Vast tracts of Malaysian and Indonesian forest have already been lost, and the increasing demand for palm oil for biodiesel will cause further losses of tropical forests in these and other equatorial countries.

This deforestation will likely be devastating. And yet, despite the global push for biofuels, the potential damage – increased soil erosion, huge carbon dioxide emissions, biodiversity loss, and desertification – is largely being ignored.

Here in the U.S. there has already been ample discussion about biofuels in Brazil, so let us concentrate on Indonesia and the oil palm.

The oil palm (Elaeis) is the most productive oil crop in the world, with an average annual yield of 3 to 4 tons of crude palm oil per hectare for major producer countries. While the soybean is currently the world’s leading source of vegetable oil, with 30 percent of global vegetable oil consumption in 2004, the oil palm is a close second with 29 percent of the market. The fruit of the oil palm consists of a kernel (seed) within a hard shell that is surrounded by a fleshy pulp, the mesocarp. Commercial palm oil is derived from this mesocarp. The palm kernel oil is different. These two oils have distinct fatty acid compositions and hence differing uses. Palm oil is an even 50/50 split between saturated and unsaturated fat, while palm kernel oil’s saturated/unsaturated ratio is 82/18. After oil from the kernal is extracted, a proteinaceous residue remains, palm kernel cake, which is a valuable animal feed.




Traditionally, about 80 percent of palm oil is for edible use. Common food products made from palm oil and palm kernel oil include cooking oils, shortenings, vegetable ghee, margarines and spreads, and confectionery and non-dairy products. Palm oil has several properties that contribute to a long shelf life for end products: it is resistant to oxidative deterioration, suffers lower polymer formation, and has vitamin E as a natural antioxidant. The oil, therefore, is particularly suitable for use in hot climates and as a frying fat in the snack and fast food industry. As for its non-edible use, it is a good raw material for producing oleochemicals, fatty acids, fatty alcohols, glycerol, and other derivatives for the manufacture of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, bactericides, and other household and industrial products.

Demand in the 18th century persuaded Europeans to plant oil palm plantations. The first large plantation was established in Indonesia around 1911, and can be traced back to four seedlings planted at Bogor Botanical Garden. From these seedlings the Deli dura (thick-shelled) palms developed, with better fruit composition and a larger proportion of mesocarp than in African palms. Southeast Asia, and specifically Malaysia, has dominated the industry ever since. Malaysia and Indonesia together currently account for 86 percent of global palm oil production and 91 percent of its global exports. Malaysia produces 42 percent and remains the leading exporter with 48 percent of the world market. Indonesia produces 44 percent of the world’s palm oil and is a close second in exports, with 43 percent of the market.

Indonesia is a far larger country than Malaysia with a correspondingly larger work force, and the expectation is that Indonesia will eventually surpass Malaysia as an exporter. As long as there is political and economic stability, Indonesia will remain the largest producer in the world.

The present success of the oil palm industry in these two countries can be attributed to their favorable climatic conditions, well-established infrastructure, and an unsurpassed knowledge base, both in the oil’s actual production and in its upstream and downstream industries. Oil palm plantations are being established at a rapid rate in several other Southeast Asian nations, including Thailand, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea. However, by far the largest developments are found in Indonesia. These developments are chiefly funded by Malaysians, although China, Europe, and the U.S. are also key players.

The attention given to biodiesel by the U.S. and E.U. governments has spurred the demand for palm oil for biodiesel. The E.U. recently ordered that 5.75 percent of all vehicle fuels come from renewable sources. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service has deemed oil palm as a feedstock for biodiesel, and therefore it is eligible for the biodiesel tax credit of a penny per percent of biodiesel blended with petroleum diesel. These moves by the world’s biggest motor fuel markets have led to a surge of investment in Malaysian and Indonesian palm oil plantations. Indonesia’s largest plantation company, PT Astra Agro Lestari, has seen its shares jump by about 80 percent over the past year.

In Indonesia, the oil palm plantations are owned and operated by many of the same companies that operate logging, wood-processing, and pulp industries. (The Salim Group, the Raja Garuda Mas Group, and the Sinar Mas Group are all prime examples.) A natural result of this conjoining has been an increase in illegal and damaging land use. A company with a plantation concession may only be interested in the land’s timber. The trees will be cut down and hauled away, no replanting effort will ensue, and the land will be left deforested and degraded.




Companies commonly set fires to clear land for plantations. Besides being illegal in many countries, including Indonesia, the fires are hard to control and spread easily to affect adjacent forests and communities. In 1997 and 1998 fires raged through 6 percent of Indonesia, burning 11.7 million hectares of land. The majority of the fires occurred on plantation company land, and three-quarters were oil palm plantations. The government accused 176 companies of starting these fires, of which 133 were oil palm plantation companies. Just 5 companies were actually taken to court and only one was penalized.

The widespread tropical forest and peat fires in Indonesia during 1997, combined with the fires in Central and South America and in the boreal regions of Eurasia and North America, emitted 7.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide. The cumulative emissions from these forest fires rival the world’s total anthropogenic emissions. Tropical forest and peat burning in Indonesia has continued unabated. And these oil palm plantations can never sequester back the carbon dioxide that is released in forest and peat burning.




The results of all this forest clearing can be seen by looking at Indonesia’s carbon dioxide emissions. Indonesia is now the third-leading producer of carbon emissions after the U.S. and China, according to a recent study done by two Dutch entities, Wetlands International, a non-profit agency, and Delft Hydraulics, a consulting firm. The study also found that degraded peatlands in Southeast Asia produce some two billion tons of carbon “which is equivalent to almost 8 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.” It goes on to say that these carbon emissions are a “major obstacle to meeting the aim of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Beyond the problems that arise from forest clearing, the replacement of primary forest with a monoculture plantation is disastrous for biodiversity. A 1969 study showed that primary forests in the tropics contain 75 mammalian species, while disturbed forest, oil palm and rubber plantations, and scrubland contain only 32, 13, and 11 respectively. Naturally, plant diversity is more severely affected by the plantations. Since oil palm plantations can only be established in equatorial countries, the most biologically diverse in the world, these issues hold particular weight. An examination of Indonesia will put this into context. Although Indonesia occupies 1.3 percent of the earth’s land surface, it is home to 11 percent of the earth’s plant species, 10 percent of its mammal species, and 16 percent of its bird species.

Following deforestation and the subsequent conversion to agriculture, soil erosion on steep mountain slopes in Indonesia can be 30 times higher than the nominal soil erosion in U.S. agriculture, 10 tons per hectare.

It is the sheer scale of the deforestation in many equatorial nations that is most worrisome. Indonesia again is a prime example. Forty percent of the forests extant in 1950 were cleared in the subsequent 50 years. (In 1950 there were 162 million hectares of forest, and in 2000 there were 98 million hectares.) The island of Borneo has lost 80 percent of its primary forest in the last 20 years. Official Indonesian statistics state that up to 2.4 million hectares of forest are leveled each year. Since in the 1980s the average was 1 million hectares per year, it is clear that the rate of forest loss is skyrocketing. Deforestation continues to be an immense problem – and the recent biofuel fervor has only made it worse.

One of the major benefits touted by plantation companies is their substantial generation of employment, especially in rural areas, which in turn drives rural development. Since oil palm plantations are currently less mechanized than other types, they require a larger labor pool. For example, oil palm plantations employ about 1 person per 10 hectares. In comparison, the larger soy plantations in Brazil employ an average of 1 worker per 200 hectares. A 20,000 hectare oil palm plantation would thus employ 2,000 people, while the same size soybean plantation would only employ 200.

It is possible, however, that such claims of increased employment are a disingenuous measure for community improvement. Oil palm plantations, like all other tropical plantations, exist in the world’s most biologically diverse terrestrial regions, ones that have supported human communities for a long time. In fact, human beings are tropical animals who originated from these regions, so it is safe to say that as a species we have more experience creating a livelihood from tropical forests than from any other habitat. The loss of these forests to giant monoculture plantations creates a previously non-existent dependency on external factors. A local community may no longer be self-sufficient, for instance having plentiful quantities of local fruits, vegetables, bushmeat, and lumber, and find themselves at the mercy of market forces to provide work and wages, imported foodstuffs, and housing materials. As circumstance has shown, this pattern of stripping away a community’s once viable subsistence lifestyle and replacing it with an alien wage-based existence is detrimental and debilitating.

Communities once considered poor by Western standards often become utterly impoverished by their forced dependence on a market economy, which holds no real niche for them other than as cheap labor. There are factors beyond a mere sustenance autonomy that must be considered as contributing to a quality of life. One must also take into account a people’s ancient cultural and spiritual ties, as well as their legal rights to their land.

Many indigenous groups have had a negative response to their land’s deforestation and the establishment of plantations. This has led to the illegal imprisonment, torture, and murder of local activists. One of the more notorious cases involved Bestari Raden, an indigenous activist from Indonesia’s Aceh province. In 2004, he was arrested while on government assignment to review the Ladia Galaska project, a road through the Leuser Ecosystem (an area of 2.6 million hectares). The project would have opened the forests to increased logging, and since Bestari was well-known for his opposition to destructive logging in his home region, it is reasonable to conclude that his arrest was a political one. He was charged with rebellion, threatening state security, and incitement, found guilty of the latter two charges, and sentenced to two and a half years in prison. Some did not get off so easily. A mass grave containing 14 bodies was discovered in South Aceh in 2001. Among the murdered was a researcher from the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in West Java. Three researchers from the same institute disappeared in 1999.

The oil palm is not the sustainable-energy magic bullet touted by many. Sustainability is solely an inherent property of natural ecosystems, in which there is mass and energy balance. It is misleading to believe that a resource, such as the oil palm, is sustainable because it is renewable. The crop is renewable only with a large input of resources.

The oil palm plantations’ resultant forest loss is a truly global burden and must have a global solution. Thus, it is essential not only that the international community criticize those at the heart of the issue, but also that it provide them expertise and assistance. Importer nations must research the footprint that inadvertently remains after the purchase of every forest good. Transparency and independent monitoring along the entire palm-oil production chain should be required. Great benefits would immediately result should the three largest importers of palm oil (China, the E.U., and India) consider some of these changes.

Perhaps most important of all: the industrialized world must realize that biofuels in general, and palm oil in particular, have a tremendous ecological cost. Once that happens, perhaps the palm-oil juggernaut can be slowed. If not, the citizens of the world will collectively pay the price for the ongoing devastation of the world’s remaining rainforests – all for the sake of another tank of fuel.
 
On his presidential campaign trail late in 1999 and in serious need of at least some farm votes, Al Gore boasted to a Midwest audience that it was he who had cast a tie-breaking vote in 1994 against a proposal by New Jersey Democrat Sen. Bill Bradley which would have cut tax incentives for ethanol fuel. “It’s well known that I’ve always supported ethanol. And I have not ducked when votes for … agricultural interests were on the floor.”

Ethanol has been a major part of Gore’s “Green” campaign to save the environment. By switching over to E85 (85% ethanol/15% gasoline) in our vehicles, we would supposedly consume less fossil energy while simultaneously reducing those damaging greenhouse gases that are causing everything from global warming to respiratory ailments, not to mention nasty smog. President Bush and many bi-partisan members of congress also bought into the idea, although ethanol was on the bottom of a long list of his 2005 Energy Policy ideas that included some effective steps like hydrogen fuels, tax incentives on hybrid vehicles, and encouraging automakers to produce more clean diesel cars and trucks.

Now, we discover that, thanks to increased ethanol production, something else is turning “Green” -- the Gulf of Mexico. A huge 8,543-square-mile dead zone, roughly the size of New Jersey, is growing off the coast of Mississippi and Louisiana. It is the result of a huge algae growth, fueled by nutrients flushed from the farmlands in the Midwest watershed.
These feed enormous soupy green algae blooms that suck oxygen from the water, suffocating any fish, shrimp or mollusks that become trapped in that area. As the algae die, the mass of cells sink to the seafloor, bacteria break down the organic matter consuming most of the oxygen at that level which, in turn, suffocates sea stars, corals, snails and other shellfish.

What has caused this sudden ecological catastrophe? The culprit is believed to be the sharp increase in ethanol production in the Midwest -- 19% more corn in 2007 than in 2006.

Being the skeptic that I am, I asked Kelly Wilson, a good friend and the best researcher I know, to dig up the statistical data on ethanol. The results confirmed my suspicions that ethanol is doing more harm than good.

At present, 6 million of the approximately 250 million vehicles in the United States are E85 Flex-fuel designed and 50% of those are in commercial or government fleets. A gallon of E85 has only 72% of the energy available to a gallon of gasoline. So, a V6 Chevy Impala which the EPA rates at 21mpg city and 31mpg highway will get only 16mpg city and 23 mpg highway on E85. (The power and drivability is almost the same.) You consume more gallons to go the same number of miles you used to get on gasoline. And, of course, E85 nationwide averages about 25 cents per gallon more than gasoline even though it returns 20 to 30% less fuel economy.

But, we’re saving fossil fuels, you say? Less petroleum and less dependency on foreign oil imports? Well, the picture is not quite that pretty. It takes 1 acre of corn to produce 300 to 330 gallons of ethanol fuel. (To replace the 200 billion gallons of petroleum products we now consume yearly, we would need to commit 675 million acres of our farmland to its production. That would be 71% of all available farmland in which case we would have to start importing our food products.)

Keep in mind that corn doesn’t grow itself and ethanol doesn’t appear magically when the corn is harvested. It takes 4,000 gallons of fresh water per acre per day to replace evaporation in a cornfield. The crop will require 129.9 pounds of nitrogen and 55.5 pounds of phosphorus fertilizer per acre. It requires petroleum products to pump, produce and deliver these. In addition, fields must be ploughed and cultivated, and crops must be harvested -- all by petroleum-driven farm equipment. That requires 6.85 gallons of diesel fuel and 3.4 gallons of gasoline per acre. And to finish the distillation process after harvest requires 3.42 gallons of LPG and 33.49 kWh of electricity per acre.

All in all, it takes 1.597 gallons of diesel and gasoline used in the corn crop growth, harvesting, shipping of corn to ethanol production, and distribution of ethanol to the consumer for every 1 gallon of ethanol that is produced. And, again, that 1 gallon of ethanol is going to be 20-30% less efficient than the gallon of gasoline it is replacing.
Most of the new ethanol production plants (called dry mill operations) are now being built to use coal as their primary source of power, mostly because the natural gas that was initially used has become so expensive. The coal-fired plants produce twice the emissions and essentially cancel out the global warming benefits of the use of ethanol fuel in vehicles. Putting more E85 vehicles on the road will actually increase greenhouse gases, smog, respiratory ailments, etc.

And, it is the sharp increase in nutrient runoff which is magnifying the green “Dead Zone” in the Gulf.

Al Gore, I apologize for all of these facts. Just look at them as another “Inconvenient Truth.”
 
factcheck_header.gif


Audacious Ethanol Hopes?​

Fact Check.org
June 12, 2007

The leading three Democratic presidential candidates wax optimistic about ethanol. We provide a reality check.

Summary
Gas prices have hit record highs this year as 2008 presidential candidates outline their hopes for renewable fuels. In this story, we take a look at the reality. We focus specifically on E85, a popular ethanol-gasoline fuel blend, and the top three Democratic candidates' statements about this fuel as they fight to win votes in Iowa. We find that there are many technological bridges left to be crossed before E85, or other renewable fuels, can fulfill the role these candidates envision for them — or can start saving individual consumers cash at the pump.


Analysis
Presidential candidates have been soliciting votes in Iowa, one of the nation's leading ethanol producing states. But how practical are plans for a growing role for E85 — a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline? Is there enough ethanol for every car to run on E85? Will there ever be enough? How much does E85 cost? We look at statements made by Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as well as former Sen. John Edwards. We find their statistics to be accurate as far as they go, but we also find they don't go very far.


Can Every Car Run on E85?

On April 3, 2006, Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a speech in Chicago titled "Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet." In it he said:

Obama: Already, some cars on the road have the flexible-fuel tanks necessary for them to run on E85, a cheaper, cleaner blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. But millions upon millions of cars still don't have these tanks. It's time for them to install those tanks in every single car they make, and it's time for the government to cover this small cost, which currently runs at just $100 per car.​

John Edwards made a similar promise in a speech on May 31, 2007, posting the following on his campaign Web site:

Edwards Campaign Web site: [John Edwards] will create new markets for ethanol by requiring all new cars to run on both gasoline and E85 ethanol, requiring 25 percent of chain gas stations to carry E85, supporting E20 and E30 fuels, and working with U.S. automakers to make efficient and alternative-fuel cars.​

It is true that, as of November 2004, there were as many as 6 million vehicles in the U.S. capable of running on E85, compared with approximately 230 million capable of running on gasoline and diesel. Also, Obama's estimate that it would cost $100 per car to transition them to E85-capable tanks originated with Daniel Kammen, a professor at the University of California Berkeley and director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. We take no issue there.

But Obama and Edwards leave out the fact that E85 produces significantly fewer miles-per-gallon than gasoline, by about 20 percent to 30 percent. Technology is slowly whittling away at that difference, but pure gasoline and E85 are not equally efficient yet — at least not in cars we can buy. Here's what the Environmental Protection Agency had to say in October 2006:

EPA: In general, E85 reduces fuel economy and range by about 20-30 percent, meaning [a flex fuel vehicle] will travel fewer miles on a tank of E85 than on a tank of gasoline. This is because ethanol contains less energy than gasoline. Vehicles can be designed to be optimized for E85 — which would reduce or eliminate this tendency. However, no such vehicles are currently on the market. The pump price for E85 is often lower than regular gasoline; however, prices vary depending on supply and market conditions.​

It is worth noting that a car capable of running on E85 is also able to run on pure gasoline as well as other ethanol-gasoline blends such as E10 and E15. It's also true that E85, which is produced using U.S. corn supplies, produces less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline and could help to reduce foreign oil consumption in the future.

But while it may be possible and relatively inexpensive to equip all cars with E85-capable tanks in the future, there are still the questions of the relative cost of ethanol and its availability.


E85 vs. Gasoline: Which One Is Cheaper?

Obama claims E85 is cheaper. We ask: Cheaper than what? The latest Clean Cities Alternative Fuels Price Report, which was issued in March and is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, shows the average retail price per gallon of E85 was approximately 20 cents less than that of gasoline, but ethanol was 66 cents more expensive when measured as a per-gallon gasoline equivalent. This is because, as we explained earlier, E85 gets fewer miles to the gallon than gasoline. So when drivers run their cars on E85 they spend more to get where they're going.

Clean Cities Report, March 2007: Note that prices for the alternative fuels in terms of cost per gallon equivalent are higher than their cost per gallon because of their lower energy content per gallon. It has been seen, however, that consumer interest in alternative fuels increases as the price differential per gallon increases, even if that differential does not translate to savings on an energy-equivalent basis.​

So as gasoline prices rise, ethanol does become the cheaper alternative. But it still isn't cheaper than gasoline when fuel efficiency is taken into account. The report also stated, however, that owners of some flex fuel vehicles could experience greater fuel efficiency, and cash savings, depending on the type of car they have.

The argument has been made that one of ethanol's hidden savings to consumers is increased energy security. A March 16 Congressional Research Service report cuts this theory off at the pass:

CRS: Despite the fact that ethanol displaces gasoline, the benefits to energy security from corn-based ethanol are not certain.... Further, as long as ethanol remains dependent on the U.S. corn supply, any threats to this supply (such as drought), or increases in corn prices, would negatively affect the supply and/or cost of ethanol. In fact, that happened when high corn prices caused by strong export demand in 1995 contributed to an 18% decline in ethanol production between 1995 and 1996. Further, expanding corn-based ethanol production to levels needed to significantly promote U.S. energy security is likely to be infeasible.​

At this point it would be impossible to increase ethanol production to the levels necessary to significantly impact gasoline imports and increase the nation's energy security. Other renewable fuels would need to be tapped and inventions introduced to bring about significant change in the amount of gasoline imported by the U.S.


E85, Where Art Thou?

Even if every car could be equipped with flex-fuel tanks, is there enough E85 to go around? Sen. Clinton, who has gone from opposing corn-based ethanol tax incentives to supporting them over the last five years, had the following to say on May 23, 2006:

Clinton: We have an underused resource, American farmland, and rural communities across our country eager to try something new and do their part to help solve our energy problems. Today we have 97 biorefineries located in 19 different states with the capacity to make nearly 4.5 billion gallons of ethanol. Now, over the next 12 to 18 months, we will increase that capacity by 50 percent. And we're seeing it in New York as we're seeing it around the country. But think about that: We have the capacity to make nearly 4.5 billion gallons of ethanol, but that is a long way from helping us deal with our gas problems.​

It's true that the U.S. has produced 4.5 billion gallons of ethanol, according to a July 2006 Department of Energy report. But, according to the CRS, total ethanol production accounts for "2.4 percent of gasoline consumption on an energy equivalent basis" even as ethanol production uses 20 percent of the nation's corn supply. In addition, E85 represents only 1 percent of all ethanol consumption (the other 99 percent, according to a 2006 CRS report, goes toward fuel blends consisting of up to 10 percent ethanol, also called "gasohol"). With this in mind, a 50 percent increase in biorefinery capacity is merely a drop in the bucket when it comes to replacing the overwhelming amount of gasoline we consume. The CRS report outlines some of the existing barriers to expanded ethanol use:

CRS: [ B]arring a drastic realignment of U.S. field crop production patterns, corn-based ethanol's potential as a petroleum import substitute appears to be limited by crop area constraints, among other factors.​

Those "other factors" include limits on ethanol distribution. Gasoline is currently distributed via pipeline. But ethanol, which is more corrosive than gasoline, would eat through the existing pipes, so ethanol is transported by truck or rail-car, an expensive alternative. The fuel pipes can be coated with epoxy or other materials to prevent corrosion, but that would merely be one of many fixes needed. Another problem with ethanol distribution is that the fuel would have to travel from the Midwest to the coastlines for refinement and distribution, whereas gasoline tends to go in the opposite direction. It is possible to fix this problem, but the solution would require additional investments in infrastructure. According to the CRS, modifications to remedy these problems "will likely be expensive, and could further increase ethanol transportation costs."

But this only addresses ethanol production. What about getting ethanol into our cars? John Edwards had the following to say on his Web site:

Edwards' Campaign Web site: [A]lthough millions of ethanol-ready cars are on the roads, only about 600 of the 169,000 gas stations have pumps for E85, a blend of ethanol and gasoline. Edwards will require oil companies to install ethanol pumps at 25 percent of their gas stations and require all new cars sold after 2010 to be "flex fuel" cars running on either gasoline or biofuel. The New Economy Energy Fund will develop new methods of producing and using ethanol, including cellulosic ethanol, and offer loan guarantees to new refineries.​

The Department of Energy provides a map of the fueling stations currently offering E85. According to that map, there are more than 900 stations offering the alternative fuel and the number is rising. Among the states that have no stations whatsoever are Maine, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont. States offering less than 10 E85 stations are California, Massachusetts and Sen. Clinton's home state of New York. It’s worth noting that in New York, the functioning E85 stations are either private, government-only service stations or stations that are in the planning stages and not yet operational. The overwhelming concentration of E85 fueling stations are in Minnesota, which sits in the heart of the nation's Corn Belt and houses between 300 and 400 E85 fueling stations.


So What About the Oil Companies?

In the same 2006 speech, Obama referred to the role oil companies could play in bringing about increased consumption of renewable fuels:

Obama: Every American should have the choice to fill up their car with E85 at any fueling station. And oil companies should stop standing in the way and join us in making this happen. If the big oil companies would devote just 1 percent of their first quarter profits this year to install E85 pumps, more than 7,000 service stations would be able to serve E85 to hungry motorists.​

The CRS reported in March that a new ethanol pump could cost $100,000 to $200,000 dollars. The Senator, however, was considering three different ranges of costs for refurbishing existing pumps, as opposed to building new ones. The first figure, cited by the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, put the cost at $5,000 per pump. The second came from the Illinois Corn Growers Association, which gave a range of $2,000 to $8,000. The final figure came from the Renewable Fuels Association: It cited a price range of $15,000 to $30,000. It should be noted, however, that each of these organizations represent groups and individuals with a vested interest in increased ethanol production.

But Obama claims oil companies are "standing in the way" of increased ethanol production. The Senator appears to be referring to oil companies' plans last year to increase gasoline refinery capacity in the U.S. — a move that had the potential to help lower gas prices. But, according to the New York Times, the plans were all but scrapped when the president proposed significantly increasing renewable fuels production in his 2007 State of the Union address. The New York Times quotes John D. Hofmeister, the president of Shell Oil Company, explaining the reason for this change:

Hofmeister: If the national policy of the country is to push for dramatic increase in the biofuels industry, this is a disincentive for those making investment decisions on expanding capacity in oil products and refining.... Industrywide, this will have an impact.​

These developments lead many to believe that the oil companies are intentionally delaying investments in extra refining capacity to keep gas prices high, though we could find no conclusive evidence that intentional market manipulation is taking place.

Still, even if the oil companies immediately began giving 1 percent of their profits toward the installation of E85 pumps, other obstacles — like limitations on how much corn the nation can produce or the fact that many flex fuel vehicle owners aren't even aware that their cars can run on E85 — are significant.

We do not dispute that ethanol along with other renewable fuels such as methanol and biodiesel have the potential to play a significant role in moving the U.S. away from foreign oil consumption and lessening greenhouse gas emissions. But ethanol has a long way to go before the campaign promises made by Clinton, Edwards and Obama can be fulfilled.

- by Emi Kolawole

Sources

Mouawad, Jad. "Oil Industry Says Biofuel May Keep Gas Prices High." The New York Times. 24 May 2007.

"Edwards Launches Plan to Boost Ethanol Use." The New York Times. 31 May 2007.

Congressional Research Service. Ethanol And Biofuels: Agriculture, Infrastructure, and Market Constraints Related to Expanded Production. Washington: GPO, 2007.

Sedgwick, David. "Ethanol: Energy savior or farmer's pork barrel?" Automotive News. 29 Jan. 2007: 112.

Beaumont, Thomas. "Clinton to back ethanol in Iowa." Des Moines Register. 4 Mar. 2007: 1B.

Congressional Research Service. Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues. Washington: GPO, 2006.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/audacious_ethanol_hopes.html
 
Last edited:
Corn boom could expand ‘dead zone’ in Gulf​

Farmers say crop too profitable to stop,
despite problems downstream

g-071217-cvr-cornethanol-3p.hmedium.jpg

A truck driver unloads his cargo of corn into a chute at
the Lincolnway Energy plant in the town of Nevada, Iowa,
on Dec. 6. The company is one of a growing number
across Iowa and the United States that convert corn
to ethanol fuel as an alternative to oil. Jason Reed / Reuters

APTRANS.gif

Dec. 17, 2007


JEFFERSON, Iowa - Because of rising demand for ethanol, American farmers are growing more corn than at any time since World War II. And sea life in the Gulf of Mexico is paying the price.

The nation's corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer. And when that nitrogen runs off fields in Corn Belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and eventually pours into the Gulf, where it contributes to a growing "dead zone" — a 7,900-square-mile patch so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.

The dead zone was discovered in 1985 and has grown fairly steadily since then, forcing fishermen to venture farther and farther out to sea to find their catch. For decades, fertilizer has been considered the prime cause of the lifeless spot.

With demand for corn booming, some researchers fear the dead zone will expand rapidly, with devastating consequences.

"We might be coming close to a tipping point," said Matt Rota, director of the water resources program for the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental group. "The ecosystem might change or collapse as opposed to being just impacted."

Environmentalists had hoped to cut nitrogen runoff by encouraging farmers to apply less fertilizer and establish buffers along waterways. But the demand for the corn-based fuel additive ethanol has driven up the price for the crop, which is selling for about $4 per bushel, up from a little more than $2 in 2002.

That enticed American farmers — mostly in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota — to plant more than 93 million acres of corn in 2007, the most since 1944. They substituted corn for other crops, or made use of land not previously in cultivation.

Farmer: 'Try to be a good steward'
Corn is more "leaky" than crops such as soybean and alfalfa — that is, it absorbs less nitrogen per acre. The prime reasons are the drainage systems used in corn fields and the timing of when the fertilizer is applied.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that up to 210 million pounds of nitrogen fertilizer enter the Gulf of Mexico each year. Scientists had no immediate estimate for 2007, but said they expect the amount of fertilizer going into streams to increase with more acres of corn planted.

"Corn agriculture practices release a lot of nitrogen," said Donald Scavia, a University of Michigan professor who has studied corn fertilizer's effect on the dead zone. "More corn equals more nitrogen pollution."

Farmers realize the connection between their crop and problems downstream, but with the price of corn soaring, it doesn't make sense to grow anything else. And growing corn isn't profitable without nitrogen-based fertilizer.

"I think you have to try to be a good steward of the land," said Jerry Peckumn, who farms corn and soybeans on about 2,000 acres he owns or leases near the Iowa community of Jefferson. "But on the other hand, you can't ignore the price of corn."

Peckumn grows alfalfa and natural grass on the 220 or so acres he owns, but said he cannot afford to experiment on the land he rents.

The dead zone typically begins in the spring and persists into the summer. Its size and location vary each year because of currents, weather and other factors, but it is generally near the mouth of the Mississippi.

This year, it is the third-biggest on record. It was larger in 2002 and 2001, when it covered 8,500 and 8,006 square miles respectively.

Soil erosion, sewage and industrial pollution also contribute to the dead zone, but fertilizer is believed to be the chief factor.

Fertilizer causes explosive growth of algae, which then dies and sinks to the bottom, where it sucks up oxygen as it decays. This creates a deep layer of oxygen-depleted ocean where creatures either escape or die.

Marine life struggle to survive
Bottom-dwelling species such as crabs and oysters are most at risk, said Michelle Perez, an analyst with the Washington-based Environmental Working Group. "They struggle to survive," Perez said. "They can't swim away."

Crabbers complained at a meeting in Louisiana earlier this year that they pulled up bucket upon bucket of dead crabs.

Rota warned that if the corn boom continues, the Gulf of Mexico could see an "ecological regime change." The fear is that the zone will grow so big that most sea life won't be able to escape it, leading to an even bigger die-off.

"People's livelihood depends on the shrimp, fish and crabs in these waters," he said. "Already, some of these shrimpers are traveling longer and longer distances to catch anything."

Given the market pressure to grow corn, the Natural Resources Defense Council and others argue that the nation needs a comprehensive, federal approach to the problem.

Among the ideas floated: rules to force farmers to use fertilizers with more care, and the establishment of buffer zones to contain runoff.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22301669/
 
Gore Ducks, as a Backlash Builds Against Biofuels

Food Crisis Starts Eclipsing Climate Change Worries

By JOSH GERSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | April 25, 2008

The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels.

With prices for rice, wheat, and corn soaring, food-related unrest has broken out in places such as Haiti, Indonesia, and Afghanistan. Several countries have blocked the export of grain. There is even talk that governments could fall if they cannot bring food costs down.

One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.

“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.

Last year, Mr. Runge and a colleague, Benjamin Senauer, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor.”

“We were criticized for being alarmist at the time,” Mr. Runge said. “I think our views, looking back a year, were probably too conservative.”

Ethanol was initially promoted as a vehicle for America to cut back on foreign oil. In recent years, biofuels have also been touted as a way to fight climate change, but the food crisis does not augur well for ethanol’s prospects.

“It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.”

Mr. Senauer said climate change advocates, such as Vice President Gore, need to distance themselves from ethanol to avoid tarnishing the effort against global warming. “Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said. “There are lots of solutions, real solutions to climate change. We need to get to those.”

Mr. Gore was not available for an interview yesterday on the food crisis, according to his spokeswoman. A spokesman for Mr. Gore’s public campaign to address climate change, the Alliance for Climate Protection, declined to comment for this article.

However, the scientist who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore, Rajendra Pachauri of the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, has warned that climate campaigners are unwise to promote biofuels in a way that risks food supplies. “We should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major impact on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security,” Mr. Pachauri told reporters last month, according to Reuters. “Questions do arise about what is being done in North America, for instance, to convert corn into sugar then into biofuels, into ethanol.”

In an interview last year, Mr. Gore expressed his support for corn-based ethanol, but endorsed moving to what he called a “third generation” of so-called cellulosic ethanol production, which is still in laboratory research. “It doesn’t compete with food crops, so it doesn’t put pressure on food prices,” the former vice president told Popular Mechanics magazine.

A Harvard professor of environmental studies who has advised Mr. Gore, Michael McElroy, warned in a November-December 2006 article in Harvard Magazine that “the production of ethanol from either corn or sugar cane presents a new dilemma: whether the feedstock should be devoted to food or fuel. With increasing use of corn and sugar cane for fuel, a rise in related food prices would seem inevitable.” The article, “The Ethanol Illusion” went so far as to praise Senator McCain for summing up the corn-ethanol energy initiative launched in the United States in 2003 as “highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress.”

In Britain, some hunger-relief and environmental groups have turned sharply against biofuels. “Setting mandatory targets for biofuels before we are aware of their full impact is madness,” Philip Bloomer of Oxfam told the BBC.

Biofuel advocates say they are being made a bogeyman for a food crisis that has much more to do with record oil prices, surging demand in the developing world, and unusual weather patterns. “The people who seek to solely blame ethanol for the food crisis and the rising price of food that we see across the globe are taking a terribly simplistic look at this very complex issue,” Matthew Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association said.

Mr. Hartwig said oil companies and food manufacturers are behind the attempt to undercut ethanol. “There is a concerted misinformation campaign being put out there by those people who are threatened by ethanol’s growing prominence in the marketplace,” he said.

The most obvious impact the food crisis has had in America, aside from higher prices, is the imposition of rationing at some warehouse stores to deal with a spike in demand for large quantities of rice, oil, and flour. The CEO of Costco Wholesale Corp., James Sinegal, is blaming press hype for the buying limits, which were first reported Monday in The New York Sun.

“If it hadn’t been picked up and become so prominent in the news, I doubt that we would have had the problems that we’re having in trying to limit it at this point,” Mr. Sinegal told Fox News Thursday. “I mean, I can’t believe the amount of attention that is being paid to this.”

The Sun’s article, which came as food riots were reported abroad, circulated quickly on the Internet, was republished in newspapers as far away as India, and prompted local and network television stories.

Speaking in Kansas City, Mo., yesterday, the federal agriculture secretary, Edward Schafer, blamed emotion for the spurt of rice buying at warehouse stores. “We don’t see any evidence of the lack of availability of rice. There are no supply issues,” he told reporters, according to Reuters.

http://www.nysun.com/news/food-crisis-eclipsing-climate-change

-VG
 
World Starvation - Fertilizers and Biofuels

Want to drive around on ethanol and other biofuels?

http://www.alternet.org/story/26703/?page=entire

Crop plants assemble carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen into proteins that are essential both to plant growth and to the diets of humans and other animals. Of those four elements, nitrogen is the one that's too often in short supply. If you see yellowish, stunted crops, whether they're in an Indiana cornfield or an Indonesian rice paddy, it's likely that you can blame it on a lack of nitrogen.

A world of 6.4 billion people, on the way to 9 billion or more, needs more protein than the planet's croplands can generate from biologically provided nitrogen. Our species has become as physically dependent on industrially produced nitrogen fertilizer as it is on soil, sunshine and water. And that means we're hooked on natural gas.

To pry nitrogen atoms apart chemically requires intense energy; it happens, for example, around a bolt of lightning. So it was not until 1909 that humans developed an industrial-scale method, called the Haber-Bosch process after its German inventors, to reassemble nitrogen atoms into another molecule, ammonia, that is usable by crop plants.

The two essential inputs to the Haber-Bosch process are air, which is free, and natural gas, which is expensive and becoming more so. Therefore, to extend Vaclav Smil's reasoning, 40 percent (soon to be 60 percent) of the Earth's inhabitants owe their survival to natural gas, a non-renewable fossil fuel. And if Julian Darley is right, a species that can't survive without natural gas is a species in big trouble.

Vaclav Smil, distinguished professor at the University of Manitoba and author of the 2004 book Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch and the Transformation of World Food Production, has demonstrated the global food system's startling degree of dependence on nitrogen fertilization. Using simple math -- the kind you can do in your head if there's no calculator handy -- Smil showed that 40 percent of the protein in human bodies, planet-wide, would not exist without the application of synthetic nitrogen to crops during most of the 20th century.

That means that without the use of industrially produced nitrogen fertilizer, about 2.5 billion people out of today's world population of 6.2 billion simply could never have existed.

Nitrogen fertilizer made it possible for us to overpopulate the Earth, and now we're hooked. Someday, as reserves of fossil fuels dwindle, our descendents will come to inhabit a less crowded planet, on crops fed entirely by sunlight and natural fertility. Whether that future population decline happens humanely through planning and restraint or cruelly through catastrophe depends largely on how we manage nonrenewable resources, especially natural gas.


Why is the government and agri business pushing biofuels that will lead to mass starvation when natural gas is depleted? You are worse off then oil after reading this article.

Boone T Pickens pushing the infrastructure switch to natural gas for cars or trucks will lead to disaster and high profits for the companies involved in the game. This guy walking around trying to be the Republican's Al Gore. Nobody on TV is digging deep into his statements, questioning the sustainability of biofuels such as ethanol or biodiesel. This is like Enron pushing deregulation, you know how that turned out for California. Another BP disaster in the making.

2.5 billion people would die of starvation if we ran out of natural gas..
. Over 4 billion if world population goes to 9 billion. 60 years of natural gas supplies left, much less if biofuels production and population increases.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top