Residual Forces

One of my pet peeves is how Republicans are falling prey to the anti-capitalistic movement that is bio-fuels. Be it ethanol or bio-diesel, Republicans, especially in the Midwest, feel it is their responsibility to allow the Agriculture Departments replace Energy. Pawlenty, Coleman, and on the the line, all of them do everything they can to be Green.

Well last night I linked to a Strib Editorial that seemed to trumpet what I have been saying about Light Rail being added to the 35W bridge. Today, the scientists back up my gut reactions to Bio-nonscience.

Here’s the email alerting me to it, and it is from someone friendly to the Green push on energy.

OMG, this is too much.  Now the NewScientist says you were right.  Biofuels will destroy the environment.

Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead

I can see your head swelling from here. 

This is an important argument to have, before we do the damage I fear we will. We’re refusing to burn energy specific resources and instead burning our food.

It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel. So say scientists who have calculated the difference in net emissions between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fuelling cars with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead.

Actually I have been saying that sort of thing all along!

They recommend governments steer away from biofuel and focus on reforestation and maximizing the efficiency of fossil fuels instead.

Engines were getting more and more efficient, that is until we started mandating the less efficient ethanol and bio-diesel to be added.

The reason is that producing biofuel is not a “green process”. It requires tractors and fertilizers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make “green” fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced from corn – an alternative to oil – “it’s essentially a zero-sums game,” says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at the International Energy Agency in Paris, France (see Complete carbon footprint of biofuel - or is it?).

Which is why the administrations and lawmakers look to the Ag Departments to make the sale of Ethanol and bio-fuels to the masses. They don’t make any sense on the reality scale.

What is more, environmentalists have expressed concerns that the growing political backing that biofuel is enjoying will mean forests will be chopped down to make room for biofuel crops such as maize and sugarcane. “When you do this, you immediately release between 100 and 200 tonnes of carbon [per hectare],” says Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, UK, a conservation agency that seeks to preserve rainforests.

Go read the rest.

And let’s not forget the biggest problem with farming huge plots of land, which would be needed to make the goals set out by law and policy makers, agricultural runoff. Lakes and rivers would receive the runoff storm water from these huge farm plots. this runoff will carry pesticides and herbicides. That’s a bad thing to put in fresh water. As we increase farmlands to meet the Green push, there will be more and more runoff polluting our lakes and rivers.

When I was growing up, I remember learning how that was the biggest source of water pollution there was, now no one mentions it.

Add to this how you need more Green fuels to match the energy output, and air pollution goes up.

So in order to save ourselves from ourselves, we may end up destroying the world. Does that really seem like a good thing to do?

It is not too late to get real, and stop the Green insanity. We just need someone brave enough to do the right thing, not the politically expedient one.