Biofuels solution?

I’m writing a short paper currently on biodiesel in Argentina. Its been a great opportunity to get a little more in-depth into the whole biofuels controversy. I say controversy on purpose. There is a lot of misconceptions and confusion and vitriol from all sides of the debate.

When I started off writing about this I didn’t have a very positive outlook on biodiesel/biofuels. But first let me give you a little run down of what both those things are.

Biofuel is the generic term for any fuel made from plant — so ethanol is a biofuel and so is fuel from soybean. The difference is one of sugar vs fat. Ethanol, made from corn, sugar beets, sugar cane and a few other plants I’ve either never read about or don’t know exists is basically starch. So if you put in your car, your car is running on carbohydrates (I always knew they where good for something!). Oil from soybean, rapeseed, sunflower and my personal favourite Jatropha is basically fat. You can blend both starch based fuel or oil based fuel with regular diesel to get biodiesel.

Countries like Brazil and Argentina have been running on biodiesel for years, and its only recently with the current volatility in fossil fuel prices, the fear of a ‘peak’ and Bush’s ‘energy independence agenda’ that there has been a push for biodiesel to be used globally.

That said, the biodiesel/fuel concept has been prevalent for a long time, every time there has been a hiccup in the geo-politics of oil it re-enters the agenda. To me, this time around, it seems pretty serious. Even the most hard-bitten Texan oil man knows that an alternative needs to be found. Interestingly, biodiesel is probably the most fossil fuel alternative we have.

Already available in a lot of countries are blends of biofuels with diesel. These are classified by the percentage of the blend, so B5 fuel means 5% biofuel and 95% diesel and so on and so forth. A regular diesel car can run on this without a lot, in some cases no, adjustments to the engine. B100 is an option as well.

So that said, what do I really think about this biodiesel stuff? On an agricultural front I find it pretty worrying. Soybean, Corn and other fuel plants are incredibly damaging to the environment especially when dealt with as a purely commercial monoculture. Large-scale farms run often by corporations really only care about the bottom line and the short-term. If the world is serious about biofuels then it needs to make sure that the agricultural system in place gets a long-term view overhaul, because the current rate of planting and harvesting is simply not sustainable — and thats not an environmentalist point either. If the land is exhausted of its nutrients, micro nutrients and polluted with excessive nitrogen and Ph from fertilizers then yields will only fall, and thus revenue. (side note: soy can be harvested up to 3 times a year)

Secondly, are biofuels that much better for the environment? That’s an interesting argument. Burning biodiesel releases more NOx (Nitrogen Oxide). That’s the nasty stuff makers of diesel cars have been trying for years to reduce in their emissions. There is less CO2, and some argue that the growing of crops absorbs even more CO2 but that too can be countered. Energy inputs, i.e. Thomas Homer-Dixon’s energy return on investment (EROI), for many fuel crops is low. Technology can improve that, but with that comes a cost in pollution. Its all said a difficult balance to find. Not to mention that much soy cultivation in South America is at the expense of natural forests. I’m sure soy growth takes up a lot of CO2, but I doubt that it absorbs as much as a rain forest. (0bviously that isn’t confirmed by any study I’ve had a chance to read)

A lot can also be said about turning a developing country into an energy provider. Thomas Friedman put it well in his article I blogged about last week: More fuel = less democracy. This might not be the case in the States where the democratic institutions are pretty solid, but what about a country like Argentina? Unarguably their democracy is functioning, but it wasn’t so long ago that they had a major economic break-down, or for that matter a military dictatorship.

Now you ask, what is my position? Clearly, I’m not persuaded. I didn’t even start talking about the social costs. There are better alternatives available. But more specifically, I think biofuels are a feasible option but not the way the system is currently set up. Countries should become self-sufficient. For example, Switzerland should not shift its fuel demands from Saudi Arabia to Brazil in a continuation of our current fuel model. Rather they should look into how to build domestic and regional energy networks. That would solve economic, environmental, and geo-political problems rather than perpetuate old ones.

Carbon diet

Last last year Blair’s Labour government put Climate Change on a policy pedestal. Basically he made it a central part of his governments agenda in the (hopefully) last year of his premiership.

Having lived in England I can safely say the brits, if you measured just by behaviour, are the least environmentally conscious people in northern Europe (the French are probably a close second). However, you wouldn’t be able to tell from their newspapers.

This week the piece that caught my eye was the Times of London ‘Carbon Diet’. Polly Ghazi and Rachel Lewis are giving readers the tips on how calculate their CO2 impact and how to cut back on it.

post-Earth Day

Hope everyone did something thoughtful for Earth Day this past Sunday.

Though wouldn’t be nice to imagine not needing to celebrate an Earth Day again?  No more Earth Day could mean no more problems!

However thats unlikely, and for the authors of this article the reason we shouldn’t have another Earth Day is that its become rather meaningless. To them people today participate in Earth Day events because its a nice gesture but the real revolutionary meaning has been lost.

Sure the origins of Earth Day lay in the radical idea that taking care of our environment was of the utmost importance, but I don’t see anything wrong in it having transitioned into a softer appeal to just think green for 24 hours.

Sometimes the “politics of gesture” matter. The mainstreaming of Earth Day allows people who aren’t necessarily interested or informed about environmental issues the chance to be exposed to them.

Its definitely less ground breaking in spirit but its an important agenda nonetheless.

Green Holidays

The Times of London today has an article on 50 great green places to stay worldwide. Its a pretty globally comprehensive list: there are ‘green’ hotels in almost every corner of the world.

[thanks Sarah]

Norway’s Carbon Free Future

Norway’s governing Labour Party announced today that they plan to make Norway essentially a zero CO2 emitting country by 2050.

Norway has always been at the forefront in dealing with climate change. Remember that Gro Hartlem Bruntland, ex-PM, was the author of the seminal UN report Our Common Future [The Bruntland Report]. The report gave us the most commonly employed definition of sustainable development: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Back to the present –

Norway plans on achieving this goal by first exceeding their reduction commitments for 2012 made for Kyoto by 10% points, followed by 30% cut in emissions by 2020.

The Prime Minister said that by 2050 they want Norway to be totally a net zero carbon emitter by 2050. How?

The first steps suggested are through energy efficiency improvements in transportation and household. It turns out that their most emitting sector, ironically, is in the sourcing and transportation of their natural gas reserves. He suggests a plan composed of developing more efficient technology with a focus on carbon sequestration. I have my doubts on the effectiveness of this technology, or the cost to benefit ratio, but I’ll get into that on another post.

However they achieve their goal, this bodes well for future international negotiations on climate change. If the US sees a country like Norway manage its CO2 emissions effectively without imperiling its economy, then maybe they’ll realize that its not a zero-sum game and start acting.

iEarth

iTunes has compiled a list of Earthday [April 22, 2007] themed podcasts. They range from your typical hippy environmentalist to a National Geographic report.

The two I was most excited about seeing were — Inside Renewable Energy and Ahead of the Curve: Business Responds to Climate Change.

The second pod is also available as a video and about 12 minutes long. Its a quick watch and a pretty good topical overview of how business can look to climate change as a “win-win” situation. They give examples of companies that have reduced emissions and saved money by increasing their energy efficiency: big names like Dupont, Johnson & Johnson and Wal-Mart.[I recommend trying to ignore the choice of dramatic music, its a little over the top]

Don’t be too fooled by the all the good work they posit as examples. The information is a little shallow in its analysis, a lot of their examples of green products are green on the downstream but still remain high CO2 emitters on the upstream. They are also conflating clean energy strategies with the energy independence strategy exposed by G.W Bush. As to their conclusion on government policy, they go the likelihood that there will be a national cap and trade policy, which I also see as the likely outcome of any national legislature.

British Gas New Energy

The Guardian reported today on a British Gas launching a new business unit specialized in providing energy saving services to customers. Apparently 25% of the UK’s CO2 emissions come from homes and British Gas New Energy, as the new branch will be known, will provide services to help reduce household emissions. Their services will include:

1. Sale of photovoltaic panels to heat customers water: this is a great way to conserve energy and only requires small panels to do the job
2. Advise customers on how to reduce their energy usage to cut costs and emissions

British Gas sees this move as a potentially high grossing revenue stream for the company, a great example of a “green is good for business” model.

Ladies Home Journal 1900 Predictions of the future

From Kottke.org [one of the all time cleverest blogs], the Ladies’ Home Journal Predictions in 1900 of life 100 years hence.

• Prediction #20: Coal will not be used for heating or cooking. It will be scarce, but not entirely exhausted. The earth’s hard coal will last until the year 2050 or 2100; its soft-coal mines until 2200 or 2300. Meanwhile both kinds of coal will have become more and more expensive. Man will have found electricity manufactured by waterpower to be much cheaper. Every river or creek with any suitable fall will be equipped with water-motors, turning dynamos, making electricity. Along the seacoast will be numerous reservoirs continually filled by waves and tides washing in. Out of these the water will be constantly falling over revolving wheels. All of our restless waters, fresh and salt, will thus be harnessed to do the work which Niagara is doing today: making electricity for heat, light and fuel.

Pretty fascinating list all around, but this one stands out. I guess they really thought we would have solved our energy dependency and pollution problems. At the turn of the century, coal was the most widely used source of industrial energy, leaving cities like London swimming in its infamous pea soup fog — a rather disgusting and unhealthy byproduct of the coal burning factories surrounding the city.

BP’s attempt to clean up their brand

With the recent TERRIBLE press that British Petroleum (BP) has been dealing with, this is their newest attempt at positive advertising.

They stay with the green and yellow of their fortuitous corporate colours, but shift from pure “green” gas image to a less explicit branding using “beeps” — children-like characters who save energy and advocate for BP’s good image.

Whats happened recently with BP is particularly depressing to me. With Lord Browne at the helm BP radically changed big business’ relationship to climate change. They publicized the possibility that inventive, creative and potentially green solutions existed for gas companies to act on their CO2 emission responsibilities.

Green Power Popularity

I’ll start off this blog with a comment on Thomas Friedman’s article in the New York Times magazine from this weekend. I’m glad that such a listen-to voice has laid out what is a rather comprehensive view on how “green”issues/concepts/technology/politics can be used advantageously by developed countries rather than being viewed as a potential enemy to economic growth. As a student of green economics I’ve read a lot of what Thomas Friedman lays out in his article already. Thinkers like Daniel Esty, Thomas Homer-Dixon and my personal favourite Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute have covered these issues for their entire careers in far more depth. Friedman could be the right person to make it mainstream.

A great resource if you are interested in learning more about the possibilities of cooperation between business and governments for finding solutions and creating a sustainable future is the word done by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development.