[Greenbuilding] Geroge Monbiot: A Lethal Solution / The Guardian

Wed Apr 4 11:46:09 CDT 2007

There was an interesting opinion piece in the Washington Post recently that
made many of the same points about ethanol and bio-diesel.  The article has
some interesting figures and is work a look.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301
625.html

-----Original Message-----
From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Racheli Gai
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:21 PM
To: Greenbuilding Building
Subject: [Greenbuilding] Geroge Monbiot: A Lethal Solution / The Guardian

To those who are excited about biofules:  read and ponder :(
BTW, some local food prices are already rising as a result of this  
competition,
as I was told by a guy who sells chickens and eggs at the farmers  
market (he said
his eggs will cost more as of last Sunday for this reason).
R.

A Lethal Solution
Posted March 27, 2007

We need a five-year freeze on biofuels, before they wreck the planet.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 27th March 2007.

It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry. Now it is plain  
fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that  
it causes more harm than good. But they plough on regardless.

In theory, fuels made from plants can reduce the amount of carbon  
dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. Plants absorb carbon as they grow -  
it is released again when the fuel is burnt. By encouraging oil  
companies to switch from fossil plants to living ones, governments on  
both sides of the Atlantic claim to be "decarbonising" our transport  
networks.

In the budget last week, Gordon Brown announced that he would extend  
the tax rebate for biofuels until 2010. From next year all suppliers in  
the UK will have to ensure that 2.5% of the fuel they sell is made from  
plants - if not, they must pay a penalty of 15p a litre. The obligation  
rises to 5% in 2010(1). By 2050, the government hopes that 33% of our  
fuel will come from crops(2). Last month George Bush announced that he  
would quintuple the US target for biofuels(3): by 2017 they should be  
supplying 24% of the nation's transport fuel(4).

So what's wrong with these programmes? Only that they are a formula for  
environmental and humanitarian disaster. In 2004 this column warned  
that biofuels would set up a competition for food between cars and  
people. The people would necessarily lose: those who can afford to  
drive are, by definition, richer than those who are in danger of  
starvation. It would also lead to the destruction of rainforests and  
other important habitats(5). I received more abuse than I've had for  
any other column, except when I attacked the 9/11 conspiracists. I was  
told my claims were ridiculous, laughable, impossible. Well in one  
respect I was wrong. I thought these effects wouldn't materialise for  
many years. They are happening already.

Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled(6).  
The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global  
stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows(7). Already there  
have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling  
the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns  
that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the  
sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this  
year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year."(8) According  
to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the main reason is the  
demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made  
from both maize and wheat(9).

Farmers will respond to better prices by planting more, but it is not  
clear that they can overtake the booming demand for biofuel. Even if  
they do, they will catch up only by ploughing virgin habitat.

Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum.  
The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural  
rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022(10). Just five  
years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn't happen until  
2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into  
biodiesel for the European market. This is now the main cause of  
deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the  
extinction of the orang utan in the wild. But it gets worse. As the  
forests are burnt, both the trees and the peat they sit on are turned  
into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics  
shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon  
dioxide emissions, or ten times as much as petroleum produces(11). I  
feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes TEN TIMES  
as much climate change as ordinary diesel.

There are similar impacts all over the world. Sugarcane producers are  
moving into rare scrubland habitats (the cerrado) in Brazil and soya  
farmers are ripping up the Amazon rainforests. As President Bush has  
just signed a biofuel agreement with President Lula, it's likely to  
become a lot worse. Indigenous people in South America, Asia and Africa  
are starting to complain about incursions onto their land by fuel  
planters. A petition launched by a group called biofuelwatch, begging  
western governments to stop, has been signed by campaigners from 250  
groups(12).

The British government is well aware that there's a problem. On his  
blog last year the environment secretary David Miliband noted that palm  
oil plantations "are destroying 0.7% of the Malaysian rain forest each  
year, reducing a vital natural resource (and in the process, destroying  
the natural habitat of the orang-utan). It is all connected."(13)  
Unlike government policy.

The reason governments are so enthusiastic about biofuels is that they  
don't upset drivers. They appear to reduce the amount of carbon from  
our cars, without requiring new taxes. It's an illusion sustained by  
the fact that only the emissions produced at home count towards our  
national total. The forest clearance in Malaysia doesn't increase our  
official impact by a gram.

In February the European Commission was faced with a straight choice  
between fuel efficiency and biofuels. It had intended to tell car  
companies that the average carbon emission from new cars in 2012 would  
be 120 grams per kilometre. After heavy lobbying by Angela Merkel on  
behalf of her car manufacturers, it caved in and raised the limit to  
130 grams. It announced that it would make up the shortfall by  
increasing the contribution from biofuel(14).

The British government says it "will require transport fuel suppliers  
to report on the carbon saving and sustainability of the biofuels they  
supply."(15) But it will not require them to do anything. It can't: its  
consultants have already shown that if it tries to impose wider  
environmental standards on biofuels, it will fall foul of world trade  
rules(16). And even "sustainable" biofuels merely occupy the space that  
other crops now fill, displacing them into new habitats. It promises  
that one day there will be a "second generation" of biofuels, made from  
straw or grass or wood. But there are still major technical  
obstacles(17). By the time the new fuels are ready, the damage will  
have been done.

We need a moratorium on all targets and incentives for biofuels, until  
a second generation of fuels can be produced for less than it costs to  
make fuel from palm oil or sugarcane. Even then, the targets should be  
set low and increased only cautiously. I suggest a five-year freeze.

This would require a huge campaign, tougher than the one which helped  
to win a five-year freeze on growing genetically modified crops in the  
UK. That was important - GM crops give big companies unprecedented  
control over the foodchain. But most of their effects are indirect,  
while the devastation caused by biofuel is immediate and already  
visible.

This is why it will be harder to stop: encouraged by government policy,  
vast investments are now being made by farmers and chemical companies.  
Stopping them requires one heck of a battle. But it has to be fought.

You can join the campaign at www.biofuelwatch.org.uk.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. HM Treasury, March 2007. Budget 2007, Chapter 7.

2. Department for Transport, 21st December 2005. Renewable Transport  
Fuel Obligation (RTFO) feasibility report. Executive Summary.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/rtfo/secrtfoprogdocs/ 
renewabletransportfuelobliga3849?page=1

3. George W. Bush. 23rd January 2007. State of the Union Address.  
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html

4. The US Energy Information Administration gives US gasoline  
consumption for October 2006 (the latest available date) at 287,857,000  
barrels. If this month is typical, annual consumption amounts to 3.45  
billion barrels, or 145 billion gallons.  
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_m.htm

In the state of the union address, Bush proposed a mandatory annual  
target of 35 billion gallons.

5. George Monbiot, 23rd November 2004. Feeding Cars, Not People. The  
Guardian.  
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/

6. Nils Blythe, 23rd March 2007. Biofuel demand makes food expensive.  
BBC Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/6481029.stm7. Eoin  
Callan and Kevin Morrison, 5th March 2007. Food prices to rise as  
biofuel demand keeps grains costly. Financial Times.8. Keith Collins,  
chief economist, US Department of Agriculture. Quoted by Eoin Callan  
and Kevin Morrison, 5th March 2007, ibid.

9. Food and Agriculture Organisation, December 2006. Food Outlook 2.  
http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/j8126e/j8126e01a.htm

10. UNEP and UNESCO, February 2007. The Last Stand of the Orangutan.  
State of Emergency: Illegal Logging, Fire and Palm Oil in Indonesia's  
National Parks.  
http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/PDFs/LastStand/ 
full_orangutanreport.pdf

11. Wetlands International, 8th December 2006. Bio-fuel less  
sustainable than realised  
http://www.wetlands.org/news.aspx?ID=804eddfb-4492-4749-85a9 
-5db67c2f1bb812. http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/resources.php#2007Jan31

13. David Miliband, 14th July 2006. Malaysian Diary.

http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/archive/ 
2006/07/14/1497.aspx

14. Commission Of The European Communities, 7th February 2007. Results  
of the review of the Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from  
passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles. COM 19 final.  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/co2/pdf/com_2007_19_en.pdf15. HM  
Treasury, ibid.

16. E4Tech, ECCM and Imperial College, London, June 2005. Feasibility  
Study on Certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Final  
Report.

17. Robert F. Service, et al, 16th March 2007. Cellulosic Ethanol:  
Biofuel Researchers

Prepare to Reap a New Harvest. Science 315, 1488. DOI:  
10.1126/science.315.5818.1488

_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
List info:
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
      publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org