By: Brittney Barrett
Amid mounting concern regarding the U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, biofuels, which are grown and not processed, have been lauded as the solution to sustainability. New reports released by the ETC Group, an international sustainability and conservation organization; however, are revealing biofuels are not as green as many originally believed.
The 84-page document released by the ETC, presents a protracted analysis of what it calls "the new bioeconomy," arguing that the use of biofuels for energy and resources can in some instances, present environmental consequences that rival those of coal. Emission wise, when something like a tree is burned in order to create fuel, it lets out an amount of carbon dioxide comparable to coal. Despite this, there appears to be a public understanding of biofuel as carbon neutral, the result of an early miscalculation from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) pertaining to biofuel’s potential to reduce carbon emissions. The categorization of biomass for energy as “Low-carbon energy supply systems,” with the potential to “directly reduce CO2 emission has led to destructive national renewables policies, carbon trading, and technology transfer activities.
In addition to posing similar emission related risks to the environments, biomass, or the living matter intended to replace fossil carbon, could pose a huge threat to the food supply.
“The most productive and accessible biomass is in the global South – exactly where by 2050, there may be another 2 billion mouths to feed on lands that (thanks to climate chaos) may yield 20-50% less,” the report’s author writes. “Although this would seem to be the worst time possible to put new pressures on living systems, governments are being told that “Synthetic Biology” – a technology just being invented – will make and transform all the biomass we will ever need to replace all the fossil fuels we currently use.”
Synthetic biology is essentially the creation of new organisms that have never existed in nature that will be used in order to create biofuel. This sector of biomass creationism is moving very quickly and with little regulation, meaning it’s difficult to determine how successful or dangerous a venture this will be. The author of the study believes that research should cease until we are able to predict the consequences that the introduction of new organisms would pose for climate change, the world’s ecosystems, food and energy supplies and for livelihoods and land rights.
This full force ahead approach to research and implementation of biomass and biofuel related endeavors, born from the urgency of diminishing fossil fuels is problematic. Finding a viable alternative is necessary, but as could be observed by the backlash met from the European Union’s mandate (requiring that biodiesel account for 10% of all transportation fuel) impetuousness comes at a cost. Recent drafts from the EU reveal modeling exercises that indicate the mandate could yield undesirable global consequences via commodity markets.
One draft report cautions, “The simulated effects of EU biofuel policies imply a considerable shock to the agricultural commodity markets.”
Another, according to a Reuter’s article claims, "Current and future support of biofuels...is likely to accelerate the expansion of land under crops, particularly in Latin America and Asia."
Responding to these developments, the United Nations has spoken out regarding the potential dangers of the continued implementation of these policies and are actively urging the EU to reconsider their commitment to biofuel until its extended consequences can be fully recognized.
Early claims that the earth can produce enough biomass to support a biomass-based economy are being rescinded as new reports indicate we are already, in the words of Jim Thomas at the ETC “deeply overdrawn at the biomass bank.”
“Attempts to define a limit for human use of natural resources beyond which ecosystems lose resilience and begin to break down reveal that we consumed past such limits twenty years ago and are now in severe ‘Earth overshoot,’” he adds.
Even in light of these revelations, scientists and policy makers, desperate to solve the daunting dilemma that is nonrenewable resources are following every possible lead, in many cases, with perilous enthusiasm.
There is a degree of tunnel vision among policy makers that has blocked out peripheral possibilities for extending the lifeline of current fossil fuels and creating policies that are sustainable and implemented at a pace that allows for long-term risk assessment.
Laboratory research from one Santa Barbara based company, Save the World Air (OTCBB: ZERO) shows their Applied Oil Technology, AOT™ requires approximately ten times less energy than existing heating and chemical additive treatments, and has the potential to reduce viscosity of crude oil by up to 50%. This in turn, would reduce the amount of energy consumed worldwide in the production of energy on an enormous scale, buying us time while science explores new technologies and energy sources rather than crashing head on into unforeseen obstacles with unproven technologies. STWA’s other technology, Elektra, provides a similar solution for diesel-fueled fleets, including trucks, military vessels, cargo ships, airplanes, and rail systems. The technology promotes greater efficiency and emission reduction by improving the misting capabilities of the fuel prior to its combustion with the aim of increasing fuel economy.
The lack of media attention these sort of developments have received is indicative of the mindset policy makers have taken toward the fossil fuel problem up until this point.
“Everyone is looking for an overnight fix to bridge the gap before energy alternatives such as solar power or hybrid systems become commercially viable,” said Cecil Bond Kyte the company’s C.E.O. “Until we figure out how to reduce the fully burdened cost of those technologies, we have to find a more efficient way to use our existing energy sources.”
No comments:
Post a Comment