Friday, April 25, 2008

Biofuels and Global Warming

There is a lot of rhetoric about ethanol, biofuel, and the intersection of the food and fuel economies. Like Global Warming, there are many, many facets to the matter. One needs to understand science and math (statistics) to some degree to truly have an informed opinion on Global Warming. To understand biofuels, I need to know more about farming and biofuel production techniques. And my meagre understanding of organic chemistry is not enough by far.

So, I don't know what to think.

The water argument has its holes. As does the linearity of the notion that crops go to food OR fuel. There are questions as to the true cost/feasibility of ethanol, from cost to make, efficacy, to the impact on the environment. And so on.

A good number to start with would be the number of people who could be fed by the land that would be needed to fill a 60L tank with fuel. Of course, we’d have to ignore the fact that you can’t expect the average car made these days to run if all you poured into tank was ethanol.

But this idea is fraught with complexity too. What biomass are you using? Corn, sugar, hemp? What process are you using to make the ethanol? What energy are you getting from the ethanol compared to gasoline? What environmental impact does the production (and transport) of the ethanol have compared to gasoline with respect to water usage, energy input, etc.? What about soil depletion and other land use concerns? What byproducts are you creating? Is there a market for them or a cost to dispose of them?

Both sides of this argument have a reason to exaggerate.

Wherever the 'truth' lands, its fairly clear that biofuels are not the panacea they are supposed to be.

Regarding the economic impact of all this, we can be sure that people living in the West will still be able, next year, next month and in the next decade, go to Burger King and partake of as many Whoppers as they want. The big losers will as always be the poorest. And on the global scale, that’s not us. Its people we don’t see. Its people we don’t have to see if we don’t want to, providing the TV remote is at hand.

Suppose that the food shortage is indeed due at least in part to the biofuel subsidy craze. (This seems like a logical notion.) And if we are going (or trying to go) to biofuels to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because of Global Warming then we’d better be right. From previous posts, you might see that I am a non-believer in Global Warming. The irony here is that a lot of ‘Global Warmists’ say that we can’t afford to be wrong on Global Warming; that we SHOULD behave as if it is true because of the Armageddon that is awaiting us if we do nothing. They are right on the first point. But they choose to ignore the impact of the fight.

We can’t afford to be wrong. This is only the thin edge of the wedge. Fighting Global Warming may make millions starve to death and create unrest unlike anything we’ve seen. This crusade Al Gore and his ilk would have us fight may create destruction and death unlike anything Mankind has seen.