Fill ‘er up: biofuels and soil quality
August 14, 2008
It seems that, everywhere but in Canada’s parliament, we’ve reached a consensus that while biofuels are an important step in finding alternatives to fossil fuels, food-for-fuel isn’t the best use of our crops. Biofuels offer the possibility of a renewable, alternative energy source, but by using crops like corn to produce it, we’ve increased average food prices by as much as 75 per cent, not to mention the inherent controversy in any agricultural subsidy.
The great hope, then, has been “cellulosic materials” — fibrous, otherwise useless crops that, while offering the danger of spreading like weeds, don’t encroach on our food supplies. What’s more, many of them, like switchgrass are tantalizing because they are more efficient at producing ethanol, use very little water and require no fertilization.
Given that one of the most essential arguments against corn as a fuel source stems from its added emission cost in the agricultural process, these “second generation” biofuels strengthen the claim that fuels like ethanol could ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And it seems the benefits for cellulosic materials don’t end there.
A recent study by the US Agricultural Research Service found that switchgrass can also improve soil quality. By increasing levels of a soil component called glomalin, the switchgrass helps reduce the risk of erosion, creating a medium for micro-organisms to develop in. It’s a double benefit, given that switchgrass is already a native North American species, and one that will certainly add fuel to the push toward secondary biofuel sources.
A word of caution, though: there was a time when using our corn in our gas tanks seemed like an unqualified success too.
Stomachs or gas tanks?
July 7, 2008
In the debate over biofuel, the main defense from proponents of edible grains being used in the process has been that there is no definitive proof that their use is driving up food costs. But a recent report from The World Bank has just refuted that argument with a potent accusation.
According to an unpublished World Bank report reported on by the UK’s Guardian newspaper, biofuels have been responsible for as much as a 75 per cent increase in food prices, rather than US government’s stated position that biofuels are responsible for only a two to three per cent increase.
Given the current meeting of the G8 nations in Hokkaido, Japan, the calls for a moratorium on food for fuel production are likely to increase in a very public way, and with the report fuelling a barrage of fresh scrutiny the US will be facing specific arguments against its previous claim.
In light of even the perception of increasing food prices linked to biofuels, the trend away from food-based fuels toward cellulosic materials continues to be touted as one of the most simple solutions to the problem. However, just as biofuel subsidies once (even recently) heralded as progressive steps are now being undermined, so-called secondary biofuels are also not without their risks.
