Scare Tactics
Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit
It’s interesting to look back on things. Just a few decades ago we had no idea how much of what we were doing was bad for us. Take smoking for example. You watch old movies and everyone was smoking. Even movies not so long ago had people smoking in them. Now smoking is not only been declared dangerous for your health, but for those around you and the World Health Organization has declared a massive worldwide effort to stamp out (pardon the pun) the spread of smoking.
It’s amazing how in a few decades you can go from something socially acceptable to seemingly taboo. Take biofuel for example.
Biofuels?
Yep, the darling of the transit industry, biofuels, which only a month ago were touted as being able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 90 percent are now being cautioned against. New reports that widespread conversion of crops to biofuel producing varieties could increase the release of carbon by 420 percent.
Here’s the thing, though. These reports have focused on corn-based ethanol and they are assuming widespread converting of rainforests and grasslands to make the corn for the ethanol. Haven’t we been told for years that destroying the rainforests would add to the increase in greenhouse gases and global warming?
Yes, but if you tack that information on to a study about ethanol crop production it makes that look bad. I can’t help but shake my head at this. Socrates said, “Everything in moderation. Nothing in excess.” That kind of seems common sense.
That should apply here, but it doesn’t. The study talks about widespread conversion to biofuel crops. Not conversion to biofuel crops to supplement our current fuel supplies.
It’s much like what the current administration is looking to do with transit funding. We had a report come out earlier this year that the entire transportation infrastructure was in need of fixing. Note the word ‘entire’ here. Of course, the response was to underfund transit and basically steal from the Mass Transit Account in the Highway Trust Fund to bolster the Highway Account.
Everything in moderation, remember? Balance the highways with mass transit, not sacrifice one to prop up the other. But right now with the public in fear of their local bridges collapsing, it’s far easier to justify this shifting of funds.
It’s just easier to get someone to pay up for something they are scared about.
For the latest industry news, check out MassTransitMag.com’s Daily News section.
Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,
February 8th, 2008 at 11:58 am
There is one thing I don’t understand about the biofuel corn “crisis” that people are talking about here. (OK, more than, but one principal thing.) For decades, we’ve been PAYING farmers NOT to grow stuff. Even so, we have had way too much wheat, principally, but also too much corn, too much to put into the elevators, too much to use. So, huh? Now we’re short? How can this be? It’s not like we’ve lost the capacity to grow things. We’ve been artificially squashing production down. Can’t we just say “Let’r rip!!” and get all we need? I’d sure like us to stop paying people NOT to do stuff we now need. And put that “extra money” into TRANSIT!
February 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
It is not an issue of “moderation in all things”, but rather one of the “home run” mentality. Biofuels produced from corn are not particularly energy efficient. They are not the home run that they have been touted to be, and we are years away from the technology needed to convert waste biomass or grow specialty crops to use as an efficient fuel source. See the January/February issue of Technology Review magazine for an extensive and well-documented article on “The Price of Biofuels”. Unfortunately, the “home run” mentality also applies to shifting funds to fix infrastructure. What we need is a more difficult solution, and that is a modification of the fuel tax.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Freight locomotives are large polluters and more should be done to reduce emmisssions, not just by lowering the Sulfer content of diesel but utilizing catalytic converters or similar to the exhaust system
February 8th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
The article is referenced in the NY Times here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?th&emc=th
February 8th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Clearly it is a propagandistic scare tactic. It continues to sadden me to see his uneducated overemphasis on ethanol as the defining characteristic of “Biofuel”. Clearly ethanol is not the way to go, at least for North America. A far better choice, easier to produce, easier to consume, and requiring minimal fleet conversion, and actually improving performance, is Biodiesel. Most Americans are unaware of the efficiency of this option, and that B-5 and B-20 (5% and 20% Bio blends) are now common commercially. What is needed is a campaign to change the mindset; eliminate the “stench” of the diesel of old, and show how even small communities could embrace biodiesel production systems as part of a self-sustaining public transit system. I look forward to a world of vast fleets of quiet, clean, biodiesel supplemented minibuses that can truly solve the transit needs of most commuters and day-trippers.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Biofuels will be part of our future renewable energy supply especially when looking at the fact that a substantial percentage of fuel/feed-stock crops do not meet feed quality spec due to environmental affects over the growing/harvesting period. They will however still be acceptable for fuel without substantial energy losses and would be more valuable as fuel than than fodder. The concern is how valuable, which will require some price control intervention as technological advancements such as genetic crop enhancement could create a biofuel crop industry that would endanger affordable foodstocks. The future of alternative fuels, including biofuels are inevitably going to be an important aspect of global trade, politics and ethics.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I think a responsible national policy that addresses the impacts of producing biomass for fuel needs to be in place. I like algae and cellulose for a responsible biomass but, so far, there is no algae lobby to debate the corn lobby or big oil.
FYI - The oil yield per unit area of algae is estimated to be 5,000 to 20,000 gallons/acre/year (A look back at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae, United States Department of Energy, July 1998) compared to 50 gallons/acre/year for soybeans.
I am a fan of biodiesel however, algae can be used to produce ethanol as well as biodiesel.