TAKE ACTION
Recent entries
- Al Gore and the new American Dream
- Nuclear costs head for the moon
- Salmond bravely goes where Brown will not
- Video: Melting Point
- Apple releases iPhone 3G’s Environmental Status Report
- Day out with the Greenwash Guerillas
- Australian activists climb coal fired power station
- 'Eco-chippy' sets new standards for sustainable fish and chips
- Amy goes to Glastonbury
- Apple iPhone 3G: Twice as fast but slow on promises
Biofuels: green dream or climate change nightmare?
Posted by jamie on 9 May 2007.
As you may have already seen, along with WWF, the RSPB, Friends of the Earth and enoughsenough.org, we've placed an advert in several of today's papers warning the government about the environmental risks of biofuels as an alternative to petrol and diesel. Hang on, I imagine some of you are saying right now, aren't they supposed to be clean and green with the power to save us from the tyranny of fossil fuels? Well, yes... and no.
Green fuels? Yes please!The government wants to know what you think about biofuels. Tell them we need strict and compulsory controls to make sure they really are green fuels. Hurry - you need to do it before 17 May.
Send your email now
View the advert
Watch the video
Biofuels such as ethanol (a petrol replacement that Brazil is doing so much to champion) and biodiesel can indeed have advantages over more traditional fuel sources. Made from processed agricultural crops such as sugar cane and oil palm, burning biofuels only releases the carbon dioxide those plants absorbed during their lifecycle, not massive quantities of compressed, fossilised carbon that has been locked out of the carbon cycle for millions of years. So naturally, they could form part of the solution to climate change, at least if it doesn't take a huge amount of energy to actually make them which is sometimes the case.
The battle between cars and people
As a result, the government has grabbed onto biofuels like a drowning sailor and in the proposed Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) is insisting that all fuel companies increase the amount of biofuels they supply. Sounds like a great idea, until you look at how they're produced. As George Monbiot has been pointing out for several years (see here, here and, more recently, here), if their production isn't properly monitored and controlled, it could spell disaster for rainforests, our own food and water supplies and even climate change.
I know it's stating the bloody obvious but these crops need to be grown somewhere. There's a finite amount of arable land on the planet and most, if not all, of that is already being used to feed the 6 billion plus population. Monbiot points out that if we rely on crops for our fuel supplies, it will "set up a competition for food between cars and people" and that crop prices are already rising as a result. As food becomes more and more expensive, you can bet it won't be those sitting behind the wheel of a 4x4 going hungry.
With prices for biofuel crops rising ever higher as demand increases, the temptation to open up new areas of arable land is just too great. Illegal timber isn't the only reason the rainforests of south-east Asia are being torn down, and in Indonesia vast areas that were once virgin forest are being replanted with palms, the oil from which goes into a multitude of supermarket products and, increasingly, biofuels. With species such as orang-utans already highly endangered, the expansion of oil palm plantations into their remaining habitat could be the final straw.
Deforestation = climate change
The link between deforestation and accelerated climate change is well-established, not least in the Stern Review which said that 18 per cent of emissions are as a result of forest destruction. Another fact in our own press release that caught my eye is that biodiesel from soya grown on deforested land would take 200 years before it could be considered 'carbon neutral'.
But to even attempt to meet the world's current fuel demands, colossal tracts of land would need to be turned over to biofuel production so the irony is that instead of reducing emissions, this supposedly 'green' alternative could actually be increasing them by an order of magnitude.
So what's the answer? Do we now campaign for an immediate ban on all biofuels? No, because as I mentioned above they can offer part of the solution. However, the government's RTFO needs to ensure that biofuels do actually reduce climate change emissions and that forests and other valuable habitats aren't bulldozed to grow them. But even more importantly, we need to be using less fuel in the first place by making our vehicles more efficient and, wherever possible, getting out of our cars and onto buses, trains, bicycles or Shanks's pony.
So that's something we can all do right there: if you have a car, it should be the most efficient model available. You could also use it less, and start cycling or walking more. If you've done all of that, there's still something you can do: the government is asking for people's views about biofuels so we all have a chance to influence what goes into the RTFO.
Send a email to the transport minister, Stephen Ladyman, telling him that we need for rigorous controls on biofuels. Otherwise the green dream really will become a nightmare.
Global Warming
GLOBAL WARMING
Carbon Sequestration
How many hectares would need to be planted with trees on currently unforested lands
to compensate our carbon footprint?
Carbon sequestration by tree planting is only a small part of a temporary solution to the problem of global warming. It would be necessary to change our consumption and living behaviour to solve this problem.
Carbon sequestration it is present only during the maturity period of the tree. Trees take carbon dioxide from the air together with other elements from the soil and the air which are converted into wood. The amount of carbon sequestered by a tree in a given year is simply and only the little increase of the mass in the tree per year, multiplied by the mass of the tree that is carbon.
Approximately 42% to 50% of the mass of a tree (dry weight) is carbon. There is a net carbon sequestration only while the tree is growing to reach maturity. As trees die, they emit the carbon sequestered back into the atmosphere. In steady state, a mature forest gives off as much carbon as it gathers. Therefore, it is not important how much carbon the tree will sequester immediately, but rather how much it will sequester over its entire life. To calculate carbon sequestration, it is necessary to decide on the period of time that it takes for the forest to reach maturity. Carbon sequestration rates vary by tree species, soil types, climates, topography and management practices.
Carbon accumulation in forests and soils eventually reaches a saturation point, beyond which additional sequestration is no longer possible. This happens, for example, when trees reach maturity, or when the organic matter in soils builds back up to original levels before losses occurred. Even after carbon saturation, the trees or agricultural practices would need to be sustained to maintain the accumulated carbon and prevent subsequent losses of carbon back to the atmosphere.
Plants, humans and animals are carbon based life-forms using energy from the sun to withdraw carbon from the air. This carbon it is used in the internal chemistry of the cells. Trees take C02 mainly through small pores on the undersides of their leaves. Frequently at night, trees give off more C02 than they absorb by the leaves.
One tonne of carbon in wood or forest bio-mass represents about 3.5 tonnes of atmospheric C02. Without going into atomic chemistry 100 Kg. of dried wood contains approximately 45 Kg. of carbon equivalent to 160 Kg. of atmospheric C02.
Mature trees at intervals of 5 meters in forests would correspond to 400 trees per hectare, with about 300 Kg. of carbon in each tree. Since generally 42% of the mass of a tree is carbon, this corresponds to each tree weighing 714 Kg.
Estimates for the amount of carbon sequestered during 100 years range from 75 to 200 metric tonnes per hectare, depending on the type of tree. We could assume 100 tonnes of carbon sequestered per hectare equivalent to 350 tonnes of C02 per hectare in 100 years. This is equal to one tonne of carbon sequestered per hectare per year equivalent to 3.5 tonnes of C02 per hectare per year without taking into account loss of trees.
Calculating losses at 25% per hectare, this would give us 75 tonnes of carbon and 260 tonnes of C02 sequestered per hectare in 100 years. This is equal to 0.75 tonnes of carbon and 2.6 tonnes of C02 per year per hectare
An average carbon dioxide emissions worldwide per person was about 3.9 tonnes in 2001. Then, 1.5 hectares per person would be required to compensate the carbon footprint. Additionally, to compensate the carbon footprint of the world’s population of 6,000 million people there should be 9,000 million hectares of adequate land available for tree planting on currently unforested lands. Population and C02 emissions are increasing daily, so much more hectares would be required.
Fertile lands are needed for food production. Most of the largest extensions of currently unforested lands in the world are not adequate for tree planting. Furthermore, 70.8% of the world’s surface is covered by water. Tree planting benefits the environment greatly, but will not solve the problem of global warming. It would be necessary to change our consumption and living behaviour to solve the problem of global warming.
Bio-fuels and carbon dioxide
The notion that there is "good" CO2 which comes from recently deceased botanicals, and "bad" CO2 which comes from botanicals which died many years ago, is just plain silly.
Carbon is carbon. When you burn it, it produces carbon dioxide. So if a person is genuinely concerned that CO2 in the air is causing global warming, he or she should be of a mind to eschew the burning of ANY carbon fuel, be it coal, petroleum, natural gas or ethanol. If internal combustion is desired, then that CO2-shy person should be looking for an engine that burns hydrogen produced by hydrolysis produced in turn by electricity from nuclear power.
bio fuels
I understand the problem with newly created bio fuels, feeding cars over people, but what about the reuse of old or waste oils?
Is the government considering the recycling of oils, for instance the gathering and filtering of the millions of gallons of catering oil that is poured away each year causing huge problems for the sewage systems?
re: Bio-fuels and carbon dioxide
I wasn't trying to make a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' CO2 (and you're right - such an idea is nonsense), but there's no denying the net effect of burning biofuels compared with that of burning fossil fuels is very different.
In the less than 150 years, we've released vast quantities of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) that has been locked out of the carbon cycle for millions of years in the form of oil, coal and other fossilised deposits. By doing this over a very short space of time, geologically speaking, we're unbalancing this natural process to the point where we've saturating the atmosphere with CO2 and its resulted in climate change.
Biofuels, on the other hand, are only releasing the carbon accumulated during the lifetime of the plant in question. So while ethanol does indeed release CO2, it's considered carbon neutral because that CO2 would have been removed from the atmosphere only a few months or years beforehand. The net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't increased and as jdelavegal points out above, a mature forest is also carbon neutral, absorbing as much CO2 as it releases.
And while hydrogen fuels might be part of a good energy mix, I don't think nuclear power is the way forward.
web editor
gpuk
re: bio fuels
If we could power everything on old chip fat, the world would indeed be a better place. The sad thing is that, unless we all become morbidly obese, there isn't enough of it to fuel the nation's cars.
Shame.
web editor
gpuk
I think we should all change
I think we should all change our ways as it is the planet that is suffering for our mistakes.If everyone took time to recycle and be bothered about the enviroment then we would all live in a safer and cleaner world.
Guilty Conscience
Having recently discovered biodiesel(made from rapeseed) am I now to stop using it, based on this article. I have no choice but to use my car for work and so 'green diesel' seemed like the best option to reduce my carbon emissions, however, I am now confused and feel a bit guilty at destroying rainforests. Somebody please ease my conscience!
Invitation
Hey,
I would like to invite all readers of this blog to check out a webpage about production of biodiesel within the african countries - the ultimate solution to both replacing all fossil fuels worldwide and ending poverty in africa - and please give us your comments and your views - I really am convinced that this is the only way we can stop global warming!
Andrea
website
If you could provide the address of your web page, I'd be happy to.
web editor
gpuk
Green peace and bio fuels
In the article http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/bio-diesel-green-fuel-we-can-use-today
greenpeace encouraged the use of bio fuels, esspecialy bio diesel but are now going against them. I have the feeling that greenpeace holds some responisbilty for any enviromental damaged caused from bio fuels. Insted of campaigning for everything to be changed imediatly maybe these enviromental groups should find a LONG TERM, VIABLE solution before campaigning and not cause more damage than good.