Richard Branson, Mayor Bloomberg slam biofuels
Criticisms of biofuels just keep piling up. At a UN Assembly debate on Climate Change, New York Mayor Bloomberg framed the biofuel food vs. fuel debate starkly saying "people literally will starve to death in parts of the world, it always happens when food prices go up." At the same meeting, according to the BBC video above, billionaire Richard Branson, once a big proponent of biofuels (see links below) now says he regrets investing in ethanol for financial and environmental reasons.
All of that criticism comes just days after a Science magazine study says biofuels can be twice as harmful as gasoline (see video below). If you look closely at what the Science Magazine scientists, Richard Branson, Mayor Bloomberg and others have said about biofuels, they are not saying biofuels are all bad, they're just criticizing the way they are predominantly made today (see: corn ethanol in America). How do you support a fuel that can be worse than the gas you are trying to replace?
While the UN is trying several things, in a world where the U.S. can hardly tell what's in its toys, it's doubtful much can be done, in the short term, to assure the green production of the internationally. However, all of the market investment may not be for naught as if projects like Coskata get to market faster or if biofuels are given more research attention.
Related:
[Source: Reuters, BBC, NBC Nightly News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mpower 4:35PM (2/12/2008)
I really do wish that millionaires without a clue would refrain from embarrassing themselves by offering ignorant opinions outside their field of expertise.
Once again, no distinctions are made between the many types of biofuel currently being produced and researched. These idiots simply assume that all biofuels will displace food crops... which is patently untrue. Comparing sugar-based ethanol with algae-based biodiesel is criminal... different league, different sport.
MP
Reply
Snowdog 5:30PM (2/12/2008)
I really wish posters without a clue, who don't even view/read the provided material would refrain from commenting incorrectly about it.
Actually looking at what they are saying it is evident that they are making a strong distinction, this is largely about the Corn Ethanol boondoggle vs sources that might actually have some worthwhile yield, like Cane Sugar Ethanol.
Reply
mpower 7:30PM (2/12/2008)
"...it is evident that they are making a strong distinction..."
I disagree completely. Any distinction made by Branson or Bloomberg within this material is accidental at best. So strong was their message (distinction) that every single media outlet that carried this story failed to make any distinction b/t biofuels, including AutoblogGreen.
Start holding people (and media) accountable, and stop apologizing for them.
Reply
GreyFlcn 7:43PM (2/12/2008)
Which company is selling Algae fuel at realistic prices on a significant scale?
None? Thats what I thought.
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4
As for "second generation" biofuels.
I wouldn't get your hopes up over that either.
Since switchgrass increases emissions 50%
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol10
Cellulosic ethanol from companies like Coskata or RangeFuels, is simply a bait and switch for Coal-to-Liquids.
http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
Kind of sad how America got duped into supporting greenwashed Coal-to-Liquids Tech.
Reply
kballs 8:25PM (2/12/2008)
I don't buy these studies. While corn ethanol is horrible because of all the water, fertilizer, and pesticide use, I fail to see how it doubles NET greenhouse gases over gasoline (which you should realize produces two times more greenhouse gases before it even gets to the pump than it does being burned in a vehicle).
It said switchgrass increases greenhouse gases by 50% over gasoline. This is impossible for something with virtually zero inputs. You don't have to use any water that doesn't fall as rain, no fertilizer, and no pesticide (and grows on land not suitable to food crops). All of the greenhouse gases are produced in harvesting and processing. Even if it DOES produce more ghg than gasoline, there was no indication where they got their numbers.
But, business as usual. Method X is not a universal solution, so we should stick with petroleum products (and feel good about ourselves because there is a supposedly a hydrogen economy in our future). Fucking bogus. If you think corn ethanol is bad, hydrogen production is worse, and most of it will come from petroleum. The truth is, biofuels are being improved (if not for economic reasons to the investors alone), and are a very good mid-term solution if the industry can learn to produce them sustainably (and without toxic pesticides, overfertilizing, and using up the water table).
Reply
Lascelles Linton 8:31PM (2/12/2008)
mpower, Are you saying this article does not note a distinction?
"they are not saying biofuels are all bad, they're just criticizing the way they are predominantly made today (see: corn ethanol in America)."
How would you put it?
Reply
GreyFlcn 8:52PM (2/12/2008)
==This is impossible for something with virtually zero inputs.==
The only reason it appears to require virtually zero inputs is because in natural ecosystems, the next crop of grass is grown using the previous crop of decomposed grass.
By the laws of conservation of matter, you can't keep taking something out of the soil without the soil becoming depleted.
And you don't get that gigantic growth rate without a lot of resources being yanked out of the ground.
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf
http://greyfalcon.net/peaksoil
________
Additionally, when you grow plants naturally. The soil is covered the entire time.
If you remove all the grass, and till the soil, the soil below becomes exposed to heat and oxygen. This allows for bacteria to break down decades of organic carbon previously locked away in the soil. (Not exactly the same as Peat, but the same principle applies)
http://greyfalcon.net/peat
Reply
Lad 10:13PM (2/12/2008)
Try this dear reader: Walk out into the Sunlight and fell the warmth of the Universe trying to tell your body the answer to the Earth's energy delima;
energy without the toxic byproducts of burning chemicals in the atmosphere. Now if we could just get away from all the greed and insanity of the politics and self-serving interest of fossil fuels and the greed and insanity of trying to bring the next false chemical fuel to market, we could start investing time and money where it will do the most long lasting good...Solar Energies. All these chemicals are simply interim solutions and are blocking the transition to Solar Power Generation and Electric cars.
Reply
texmln 10:32PM (2/12/2008)
I fully support the starvation of third world peoples so my Suburban can have plenty of ethanol to haul my motorcycles up to the mountains for ride. I need my Suburban. Third world peoples, I can do without.
Stop worrying about the rest of the people on the planet. If they're worth anything at all, they'll figure out how to feed themselves, clothe themselves, and shelter themselves. If they can't even do that, we won't miss them.
Reply
Mik_Cal 3:10AM (2/15/2008)
I believe the study said that only sugarcane ethanol in the tropics might be considered to be more beneficial than gasoline...if you don't chop down rainforest to grow it.
On the other hand, people here, except for Grey Falcon, are mixing up biofuel promises for biofuel reality. There have been no commercially viable cellulosic ethanol plants made yet...it's still vaporware. So these billionaires are basically on the right page in warning about the dangers of biofuels. Monbiot was on this about 2 years ago. I'm wishing that more people had listened earlier.
Reply
Daniel Lyons 12:43PM (3/04/2008)
Stream57 develops Flash-based video streaming applications to enable live and on-demand web casting. We create customized applications that can layer in perfectly with your training and educational offerings. Use our applications to improve employee communication and collaboration, drive new forms of revenue and channels, conduct market research etc. etc. Our Applications can be seamlessly integrated into existing intranets or public web sites or presented as a new branded web presence.
A sample of industries we work with but not closed to are Healthcare includes Major Pharmaceutical Companies, Financial Institutes, Education Industry, Major Associations, Trade Shows, Conferences, Entertainment Industry, Communications, Public Relations, Investor Relations, Sales Organizations and Insurance Companies to name a few.
Our technology…
• Requires no download, since Flash is already installed on 98% of computers
• Is cross platform, playing just as well on Macs as it does on PCs
• Detects the end-users’ bandwidth, giving them the best possible user experience their connection can handle
• Can be customized for private label
• Is recognized for intuitive UI, for presenters, participants, and administration
• Can layer into website or LMSs, integrating within your programs nicely
• Converts PPT files to Flash, maintaining animations, builds, and even embedded video files within the slide presentation
• May also be converted to Pod casts, CD-ROMs, DVDs, and coming soon… Smart phone streaming
Daniel J. Lyons III
Director of Business Development
Stream57
462 7th Ave, Suite 401, New York, NY 10018
Office: 212.584.2408
Cell: 914.456.1796
vCard
Reply