BioFuels: Culprit or Scapegoat?

The global trend toward biofuels came under attack last week at the International Energy Forum in Rome. Blamed by industry insiders for the nascent food crisis, alternative fuels made from cash crops - particularly grains - have been subject to growing criticism as it becomes evident that they aren’t the much-touted panacea for global warming many had imagined. Though these comments aren’t especially surprising coming from a bunch of oil CEOs and government policy wonks, they shouldn’t necessarily be dismissed. More and more studies are indicating that biofuels such as ethanol use at least as much energy as they are purported to save, and that the reallocation of farm land for fuel crops is putting a strain on global food markets.

So biofuels apparently aren’t all they were cracked up to be. We shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss biofuels, however. While they make a convenient scapegoat for the current crisis and are clearly deserving of skepticism, they may not be entirely to blame, despite what the energy moguls claim. Biofuels will probably never live up to their original hype, but with continued technological progress and more intelligent legislation, they may still find their niche on a smaller, more sustainable scale. First, while most attempts to produce biofuels utilize processes and raw materials that are inefficient, some alternative methods offer hope. The International Energy Agency (IEA) supports the use of second-generation biofuels, which use non-food crops to produce the fuel. Other methods focus on genetically engineering certain tree species to reduce lignin levels, which prevent researchers from accessing the cellulose needed for ethanol production. Given their high levels of cellulosity, trees are otherwise perfect candidates for biofuels. Such methods are not without their own controversies, however; critics of bioengineering have raised concerns over compromising the structural integrity of these experimental trees, not to mention the threat of cross-fertilization with wild strains. Second, most current subsidy policies do little but promote such inefficiency. Corn-based ethanol - the bulk of biofuel produced in the U.S. - is especially inefficient given corn’s low cellulose content compared to other potential sources. Yet Congress continues to pass bills in favor of greater corn subsidies and cornthanol production. (Click here and here to read our past posts.) At the conference, recently ousted Italian prime minister Romano Prodi astutely commented that “We have to examine very closely subsidy policies so as to avoid distortions in the allocation of resources”. Such a prudent approach may prove better in the long run than the outright dismissal of biofuels, despite the significant limitations born out by recent events.

“Tortillanomics”, a slideshow on Frontline’s website, also explores the effects of biofuel production on corn prices in Mexico. Click here.


Posted on Monday, April 28th, 2008 at 10:25 pm | Tagged in Biofuel, Energy Efficiency, Food, Legislation, Politics, Sustainability | posted by Bill

AddThis Social Bookmark Button   Print Print   Email Email