http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/02/oil-and-all-his-friends/
[Multiple links in on-line article.]
Commentary | February 24th, 2014
Oil and all his friends
A researcher’s account on the war against biofuels
Written by Mohamed Leila
To spare you the boredom paired with long cliché introductions about
global warming and energy crisis, I am jumping straight to the point: we
probably have enough oil to keep our engines running for another
century. What we can’t afford though, is the ongoing climate change
caused by fossil fuel emissions. Environmental issues aside,
industrialized countries will continuously suffer from disruptions in
oil exports caused by conflicts in the Middle East. Some will try to
strengthen their grip on supply by ‘democratizing’ large oil producers
while others will seek local alternatives. Although heavily criticized
by some environmental groups, biofuels provide a convenient substitute
to fossil fuels.
There are two types of biofuels in the world: ones that compete with
food crops and cause famines, and others that use agricultural waste and
non-edible crops. Not being huge fans of world hunger, most of us prefer
the second type.
Biofuel Network (BFN) is a Canadian initiative that brings together
academic and industrial institutions working on economically and
environmentally sustainable fuel options; McGill is the proud host of
this organization (don’t get excited, McGill was also the proud host of
the Petrocultures conference earlier this month). As a PhD student, I am
working with Professors Joann Whalen of Natural Resource Sciences, and
Jeffrey Bergthorson of Mechanical Engineering, on comparing different
alternative jet fuel technologies.
Despite our efforts, there is a fierce political battle currently being
fought against biofuels in the U.S. which might affect the Canadian
transition to sustainable, renewable fuels.
The story begins in 2005, when the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was
established under the Energy Policy Act as the first minimum volume
mandate for renewable fuels in the U.S.. Later in 2007, the congress
issued RFS-2 as part of the Energy Security and Independence Act, which
dramatically increased the mandate and included new types of
second-generation biofuels. RFS-2 also necessitated that fuels undergo a
life cycle assessment analysis (considering all emissions from raw
material extraction to utilization phase) to validate that they produce
fewer greenhouse gases overall than conventional fossil fuels.
Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to
change the annual targets of renewable fuel blends. If you are ever in a
U.S. gas station, for example, you’ll probably notice the ‘E10’ sticker
on the gas pump, indicating that the fuel contains 10 per cent ethanol.
In November 2012, for the first time in history, the EPA proposed to
lower the annual volume of 2014 RFS targets. The proposal, moved by the
Obama administration, was hailed by the oil industry and interest
groups, while it came as shocking news to hundreds of biofuel companies
and corn producers.
Hardcore biofuels opponents such as the American Petroleum Institute
(API), which is lobbying to completely repeal the RFS, commented that
the EPA proposal was a step forward but not enough. “Ultimately Congress
must protect consumers from this outdated and unworkable program,” said
Jack Gerard, president of the API, according to the Washington Post.
On the other hand, biofuels proponents have expressed their shock and
disappointment in the EPA proposal. According to Bob Dinneen, president
of the Renewable Fuels Association, the EPA proposed trimming the RFS
targets for 2014 to “capitulate” the fossil lobby. In anticipation of an
annual increase in RFS targets, farmers planted 93 million acres of
corn. Now with the trimming threat, more than 500 million bushels (with
one bushel equivalent to eight fluid gallons) of demand have been
compromised.
The effect of reducing the RFS targets in 2014 (or repealing the targets
altogether if pressure from oil lobbies continues) is not limited to the
U.S.. In a 2012 action plan issued by the Obama administration aiming to
incorporate biofuels in the military fuel supply chain, the U.S.
recognizes feedstock grown in Canada as “local.” The geographical
proximity of Canadian fertile soils, and the demand encouraged by the
RFS-2, provided a real opportunity for Canadian agribusinesses and
bioenergy crops. It also served as a motive for Canadian policy makers
and environmental groups to push for further governmental support for
biofuels development (such as the Biofuel Network, which McGill is an
active part of).
My personal concern with the EPA proposal’s implications is twofold.
First, the direct consequences will include downsizing of existing
ethanol value chains, and consequently people losing their jobs. My
second concern is the message this repeal is sending to youth. Can we
really afford further discouragement to young researchers planning to
work on alternative energies? Is this that the message the ‘progressive’
Obama administration would like to convey to future scientists and
entrepreneurs? Don’t bother with biofuels, solar or wind energy. Oil has
won. Oil and all his friends.
Mohamed Leila is a PhD student in Natural Resources Sciences, and can be
reached at mohamed.la...@mail.mcgill.ca.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel