Biofuels harm the environment
Dave Friday/Alami
It's obvious, isn't it. Plants turn sunlight into food—stored energy—so if we turn that food into fuel, we'll have clean, zero-carbon biofuels, right? Wrong, completely wrong. Increased biofuel production actually increases emissions and also harms both people and wildlife. However, instead of stopping, we are doubling the rate of production growth. What's happening?
If you think biofuels are a good idea, you've fallen for the blatant propaganda surrounding them. There is plenty of evidence that biofuels in general do more harm than good. The latest addition is a report from the Transport and Environment (T&E) campaign group, which concludes that the transition to biofuels increased carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percenton average compared to fossil fuel use.
Why? Because growing things on farms is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases. To be fair, 16 percent is the global average, according to the T&E report. For some regions, such as Europe, it is concluded that biofuels reduce emissions overall, but only slightly. And for, at best, a small reduction in emissions, we pay for all the other negative effects that biofuels have.
Let's start with the fact that we are all seeing a significant increase in food bills. Converting wheat and corn into bioethanol and vegetable oils into biodiesel increases demand and therefore prices. It's hard to put a number on this, but all the experts I've talked to over the years believe that this is a significant factor contributing to food price inflation.
Moreover, biofuel crops often require irrigation, meaning that water shortages are increasing in many regions. According to the T&E report, 3,000 liters of water are needed to produce enough biofuel to enable a car to travel just 100 kilometers (62 miles). By comparison, a solar-powered electric car would only need 20 liters to travel that distance.
Then there is a need for land. Farmland continues to expand around the world to feed growing population is eating more meat. Increased biofuel production results in even more land being needed, which means, for example, cutting down more rainforests in Indonesia. make room for more palm oil plantations. Thus, biofuels contribute to the extinction of wildlife and biodiversity. another great global crisis.
The most perverse thing about this is that How inefficient is biofuel production? If solar panels were placed on land instead, the same amount of energy could be generated in 3 percent of the area, the T&E report said. In other words, solar energy can reduce emissions with a much smaller environmental impact. It turns out that when it comes to capturing sunlight, we can do better than nature.
In contrast, with biofuels, the consequences include the same pollution problems as conventional agriculture, from pesticides harming people and wildlife to nitrogen and phosphorus runoff damages rivers, lakes and seas. Using non-food sources of biofuel, such as waste, can reduce some of these problems. However, more than 90 percent of biofuel production will still be based on food crops by 2030, according to the T&E report.
So why are countries around the world subsidizing the production of more and more biofuels? On the one hand, there is a lot of money being made from them, and powerful lobbying groups are demanding more government subsidies and support. On the other hand, there are countries and organizations that want to be able to check the boxes that say they are reducing emissions as needed, and don't want to know the inconvenient truth.
For example, politicians on both sides of the U.S. divide have tried to stay in the good books of Corn Belt farmers who grow corn for bioethanol production. Earlier this year, the US introduced biofuel tax incentives in 2022. were further expanded.
Then there are the shipping and aviation industries that see biofuels as a way to continue business as usual while claiming they are cutting emissions. The airline industry's criteria for so-called “green aviation fuel” at least take into account emissions from increased land use, limiting the use of the most emitting biofuels. The shipping industry has not yet decided whether land use should be taken into account, so its actions could cause further harm. The T&E report warns that shipping alone could double biofuel use by the 2030s. This would be a disaster for all the reasons stated above.
It has been clear for many years that producing biofuels to reduce emissions has the opposite effect. Doing more is crazy.
