BBC, January 19, 2007

BIOFUELS: GREEN ENERGY OR GRIM REAPER?

[Rachel's introduction: "This is not anti-capitalist, but the straight-forward application of the precautionary principle, ensuring that we have given careful consideration to the full implications of our investments before we rush ahead to spend them. Moving ahead too quickly without considering the options is, to use an extreme example, like invading Iraq without thinking about the future implications."]

By Jeffrey A. McNeely

[On September 22, 2006, Jeffrey McNeely published an article on the BBC web site titled, "Biofuels: Green Energy or Grim Reaper." Readers responded strongly to the article, and here Dr. McNeely responds to those readers.]

I was delighted that my short article on biofuels has generated such a vigorous response -- the public clearly has deep concerns about our energy future.

Brazilian cars have been running on bioethanol for years

First of all, I focused on bioethanol after reading a report saying that 65 ethanol plants were being constructed in the Corn Belt of the US mid-west, with a combined capacity that the Earth Policy Institute considered sufficient to consume all of the maize grown in the major producing states.

These are precisely the states that produce excess maize, which is then used as part of the US contribution to the World Food Programme, and distributed to developing countries.

I am very sympathetic to those who believe that such exports may serve as a disincentive for the recipient countries to develop their own agriculture, but the fact remains that some 800 million people in the world remain undernourished and welcome donations of surplus food.

Waste of energy?

Perhaps worse, last November's issue of BioScience reported that the various inputs required to convert maize to ethanol consume 29% more energy than is contained in the ethanol produced.

Ethanol from cellulosic biomass requires 50% more energy than the final product can deliver; and each gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons (6,400 litres) of water and produces 6-12 gallons (23-26 litres) of noxious organic effluent.

Of course, this is just the first generation of just one type of biofuel, and greater investments in second and third generations may greatly improve the picture.

Having said that, I do recognise that bioethanol is simply one of numerous energy options. Biodiesel is undoubtedly a better alternative, and lignocellulosic energy may be even better. And there are more options on the table: methanol, solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear power.

So while my article raised some warning flags about moving ahead too quickly on bioethanol without considering the full costs and benefits, I also believe that a thoughtful consideration of the costs and benefits of all of the energy options are well justified.

This is not anti-capitalist, but the straight-forward application of the precautionary principle, ensuring that we have given careful consideration to the full implications of our investments before we rush ahead to spend them.

Moving ahead too quickly without considering the options is, to use an extreme example, like invading Iraq without thinking about the future implications.

Most energy experts will agree that our first line of response should be improved energy efficiency and conservation. Banning cars would certainly be unpopular but, with appropriate incentives, the use of alternative forms of transport, ranging from walking and cycling to improved public transport systems, would all be relevant in reducing energy demand.

'Global experiment'

Finally, in the few short months since the original article was published, considerable additional work on biofuels has been done, covering the full range of perspectives.

The expansion of biofuel crops is certainly having an impact on food commodity prices already, which the commodity traders may consider good news. But in many parts of the tropics, land that may be extremely important for biodiversity is being converted to grow bioenergy crops.

Even under the most efficient forms of lignocellulosic processing, we are beginning a massive global experiment whose results are far from certain. Our current way of life is highly energy-intensive, at least for those of us living in cities or developed countries.

This calls for increased investments in research and development to find alternative solutions, along with a serious reconsideration of what "quality of life" really means.

Jeffrey A. McNeely is chief scientist of IUCN, the World Conservation Union, based in Switzerland