The idea that we can quit drilling fossil fuels and go “green” within the next few years, or the planet is DOOMED!, has always seemed a fantasy to me. Even if we actually faced a crisis—rather, than as I suspect, at worse, a problem—if it were that easy to go green it would have already been done, no matter what the evil oil companies wanted. In fact, they would be the ones doing it by buying the competition, in much the same way that Google bought You Tube.
Now, a new study shows that biofuels—rather than being the great green hope—may actually be a big, bad polluter. From the story:
Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The Times. The findings show that the Department for Transport’s target for raising the level of biofuel in all fuel sold in Britain will result in millions of acres of forest being logged or burnt down and converted to plantations. The study, likely to force a review of the target, concludes that some of the most commonly-used biofuel crops fail to meet the minimum sustainability standard set by the European Commission. Under the standard, each litre of biofuel should reduce emissions by at least 35 per cent compared with burning a litre of fossil fuel. Yet the study shows that palm oil increases emissions by 31 per cent because of the carbon released when forest and grassland is turned into plantations. Rape seed and soy also fail to meet the standard.
And the news isn’t being fully vetted for fear of losing subsidies:
The EC has conducted its own research, but is refusing to publish the results. A leaked internal memo from the EC’s agriculture directorate reveals its concern that Europe’s entire biofuels industry, which receives almost £3 billion a year in subsidies, would be jeopardised if indirect changes in land use were included in sustainability standards. A senior official added to the memo in handwriting: “An unguided use of ILUC [indirect land use change] would kill biofuels in the EU.”
And here I thought this was just about “the science” and “saving the planet.”
For every action, there is a reaction. That’s why trying to radically stop “carbon dioxide “pollution” seems pretty much a Quixotic quest, what with this study and drilling to tap geothermal energy causing earthquakes and all. That isn’t to say that it can’t be done. But it seems pretty clear that it won’t be done soon.
In the interim, keeping our economies robust seems the best way to provide the resources to pay for the research that will be needed. In other words, going green in the long term may depend on fully exploiting those ancient life forms that now supply our electricity, fuel our cars, and heat our homes, in the short. Or, would we prefer brown outs and gas so expensive only Al Gore could afford to drive?
