Are Biofuels the solution?

Everyone knows the link between global warming and combustion of fossil fuels, and how many organisations (except for oil companies) and governments (either out of good intentions or purely because of economics) have begun pushing for the increased use of biofuels, i.e fuels made out of biomass, e.g. manure, or ethanol from sugarcane fermentation, etc. But are biofuels good alternatives?

Biofuels are encouraged mainly for two reasons. First, under combustion, biofuels generally give off up to 60% less carbon emissions than fossil fuels. Second, that there will be some energy security (i.e life can generally go on if oil supplies and prices fluctuate).

However many things have not yet been taken into consideration. What about the production costs (in carbon terms) of producing the biofuels? Will the use of biofuels be an excuse to put more vehicles on the road (thereby negating the supposed carbon savings)? Will the production of biofuels adversely other things on Earth? Are people really looking at the big picture without cash-registers ringing in their heads?

Yes, we all know by now that use of biofuels can potentially cut carbon emissions by 60%. But how are the biofuels produced? We industrialise everything. So now we have to consider the carbon costs of the industry. Fuels need to burnt to manufacture fertiliser, to power machinery in the farms and biofuel plants, and fuel needs to be burnt to transport crops (or whatever biomass) to and from the biofuel plants. An whole new carbon emitting industry is setup. Will the eventual emission-savings of cars running on biofuels be enough to offset the costs? We don't know for sure yet, but I suspect, no.

There's worse to come. It's something that really riles me sometimes. And our neighbours in Malaysia are part of this whole farce. Whoever that did the calculations in carbon savings did so with the assumption that carbon absorption by forests would stay constant. But neighbouring countries around us are seizing this economic opportunity by clearing large patches of forest and starting palm oil plantations. The Malaysian Palm Oil Council CEO has also put the following blatant lie in the Council's website "www.mpoc.org.my":

"There are a number of advantages in using palm oil for the production of biofuel. Unlike fossil fuels, the combustion of palm oil biofuel does not increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the oil is merely returning carbon dioxide obtained earlier from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. As such, biofuel is regarded as carbon neutral.

Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, the world benefits by the burning of biofuel instead of fossil fuel. Additionally, the palm trees that produce oil have simultaneously absorbed a lot more carbon dioxide during photosynthesis to form biomass for the other parts of the plant. The tree continues to absorb carbon dioxide throughout its life span of 25-30 years. A consumer of palm biofuel in Europe can therefore take comfort in knowing that palm biofuel is more than carbon neutral.

An added benefit of photosynthesis is the release of oxygen to the atmosphere. The quantity of oxygen released by oil palm, a perennial crop, far exceeds that produced by annual crops such as soybean or rapeseed. The cultivation of palm trees is therefore a huge contributing factor in the reduction of global warming. "

There is no way that clearing forests will result in reduction of global warming. Palm trees, although they do absorb some carbon during photosynthesis, will not absorb more than a patch of forest of the same area, simply because the density of vegetation is so different! Trees in plantations are planted some distance apart from each other, unlike in forests. They also have not accounted for the carbon costs in the production process and the loss of absorption when the original forests were cleared and there was no vegetation.

Now, the IMF has raised another issue. The use of other crops, like soy and maize, has put a lot of pressure on food supplies throughout the world. Food prices are rising, and the poor are starving more and more. Is it worth starving anyone just so that someone can turn their food into fuel for a car that they don't really need? Is it worth depriving a poor man of an ear of corn just so that someone can drive to his posh, air-conditioned office two blocks away? The magnitude of the problem (845 million people will go to sleep hungry tonight) makes it a hard problem to solve. People cannot put a face to it. Josef Stalin said "One dead is a tragedy, one million dead is a statistic". How apt is his description!

It seems to me that biofuels is not the answer. And its benefits could possibly be overhyped by governments trying to make a quick buck. People must change their lifestyles. E.O. Wilson said that we will probably need two more planets in order to sustain the lifestyles of typical Americans (which the majority of the world is trying to "acheive"). Earth, big as it is, is running out of space, and is being suffocated by us. Look at the picture below. It shows how much space (and you can imagine the carbon emission) it takes to transport a bunch of people by car.



And the group, if transported by bus (See the difference!).




The pictures are courtesy of the Geo-4 report, which got them from the Press-Office of the City of Münster, Germany.

So in the end, I ask the same question to all reading this. Are biofuels the solution?