February 8th, 2008
An article in today’s Independent shed interesting light on the good/bad biofuels debate. A scientific study looked at the carbon dioxide released when land was converted to biofuel production and came to some shocking conclusions.
A cornfield in South Africa
“All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly. Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture,” said Joe Fargioine of the US Nature Conservancy who was the lead scientist in one of the studies.
The study found that when peat-lands in Indonesia are converted to palm-oil plantations, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt. Cutting down amazonian trees to grow soya beans immediately creates a carbon debt of 319 years. Some production has more indirect effects such as in the US where farmers used to rotate between soyabean and corn crops and now just grow corn for biofuel - the has led to increased production of Soya (to meet the supply deficit) in the Amazon and hence even more trees are lost.
“Such conversions of land to grow corn (maize) and sugarcane for biodiesel, or palm oil and soybean for bioethanol, release between 17 and 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels, the scientists calculated.
One of the choice paragraphs in the report is; “In finding solutions to climate change, we must ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease”.
You can see the full article in the Independent Online here.
February 5th, 2008
Well it’s been an interesting time for the oil industry! Last week, Shell announced record annual profits of £13.9bn, whereas this week BP saw profits fall sharply to a ‘disappointing’ £8.76bn. These figures however have been dwarfed by Exxon Mobil, who announced profits of $40.6bn - a record for a US firm.
Of course, big profits for UK-based companies are a good thing for the government - Shell’s profits will land around $1bn into the lap of the treasury by way of taxation. All of this makes me a little skeptical about the real effort the government is putting into tackling climate change - with the treasury getting money from all fuel sales, plus the profits from the companies selling, extracting and refining the fuel, they really do need to look at alternative ways of funding from the taxation of oil if they are going to avoid a deficit whilst at the same time, encouraging people away from cars and our current carbon-consuming lifestyles.
This week, Shell also ‘acknowledged’ Peak Oil could be here within a few years. In an email sent to all Shell employees, Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell said;
“Regardless of which route we choose, the world’s current predicament limits our maneuvering room. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to population growth and economic development, and Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand”
He went on to criticise policy makers;
“Taking the path of least resistance, policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy consumption - until supplies run short. Likewise, despite much rhetoric, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until major shocks trigger political reactions. Since these responses are overdue, they are severe and lead to energy price spikes and volatility.”
Heads up to TreeHugger.com for publishing the above information.
Whatever it takes for the government to react properly and urgently to address energy consumption and curb greenhouse gas emissions, it’s clear that the car lobby is not going to give up without a fight. Governments are pushing the car makers to improve vehicle efficiency, but these moves are being met with huge resistance. Car makers say that owners of less efficient vehicles are already paying their dues with increased road tax duty and high fuel prices.
Shell’s former chairman, Sir Mark Moody Stuart has joined the debate by saying that the rich should not be allowed to ‘buy’ their way out of responsibility for tackling climate change.
On the BBC website, he said; “Nobody needs a car that does 10 or 15 miles to the gallon. In my opinion, it simply shouldn’t be allowed.”
Sir Mark currently owns a Toyota Prius - the MPG is not stunning, but is better than most similar-sized vehicles, and the big bonus is in reduced CO2 emissions.
The SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders) naturally takes the view of motorists already ‘paying through the nose’ and how wrong it would be to take away the ‘freedom of choice’ for the motorist. I wonder whether freedom to breathe clean air is a more fundamental right?
Maybe the oil companies are in the last throws of high profitability before their fall from grace? I heard an interview on Radio 4 recently with Jeremy Leggett (a former oil-man who now champions the peak-oil reality and the ‘Transition Towns‘ movement), who said that oil companies need to embrace renewables properly and become ‘total energy’ companies. When asked about the work that BP did with renewables, he said this was pretty much a smoke screen, designed to get some positive PR but lacked any real commitment. Time will tell.
