The risks of bioenergy
23/10/11 18:24![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
airiefairie.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://worldcarbondatabase.org/news/?p=1822
Last month the conservation organisation WWF presented its second report on Living Forests. It contained some really grave warnings about a potential risk from the too aggressive introduction of biofuels. Some strong measures are needed to counter the negative effects from the unsustainable use of bioenergy crops.
Generally, bioenergy comes from wood, sugar-cane, corn and seaweed (plus some crops like rapeseed), and it is often considered a viable alternative to fossil fuels. A number of governments around the world have already started ambitious programs to cut the carbon emissions by mainly shifting to alternative fuels like bioenergy crops. But the WWF warns that without solid guarantees for alternative crop production, the rising demand for bioenergy could cause major destabilisation because of the rampant deforestation and the increased competition between fast-growing crops and food crops and pastures that have a high conservation value.
The analysis they used was designed to investigate the consequences on the agricultural land, and the report also set two goals: stopping deforestation by 2020 and meeting 100% of the world's energy needs from renewable energy sources alone, by 2050. That may sound too idealistic at this point, but the model indicates that the forests could be protected, and most industrialised countries could indeed shift to renewable energy sources by that deadline. But not if we are working the way we are now. The way bioenergy sources are being used at the moment would cause more harm than good, especially if biofuel crops are being introduced into the energy mix directly as they are now.
The more realistic solution is to try to make the energy consumption more efficient and stop the extensive waste of energy. That could be done through a whole range of measures, including investing in energy-efficient buildings and facilities, and transportation systems using electricity generated by renewable sources (or where not entirely possible, at least making them the bulk of the energy source). That may look like an expensive undertaking at a first sight, but it pays off in the long run because the expenses for dealing with the consequences of excessive nature exploitation would be considerably lower, once these innovations are implemented.
The most pressing problem is that, because bioenergy crops often compete with food crops for the same land, increasing the efficiency of agricultural production is crucial at this point - that is, producing a larger amount of food while using less land and water. Otherwise the tendency we are seeing now would become uncontrollable - food prices rising exponentially, and causing social unrest throughout the most vulnerable regions. In fact one of the main reasons for the Arab spring were the food prices that proved too steep a slope to climb for many people in the Middle East. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
What's more, a common standard of sustainable development would be very useful, taking in consideration all these problems. Although there are major economies who, I am sure, would have quite a few objections against that, as they would be reluctant to relinquish the dominant role on the market that they are having now. But no matter how we twist it, it is necessary to adopt a frame agreement like the already existing "New generation of crops", which has proven to be a valuable instrument of the energy companies who are looking for fast-growing crops. This framework sticks to the principle of preserving the entirety of ecosystems so they could be used over a long-term period, and also the protection and preservation of the environment around those crop areas, and the active involvement of all sides concerned into the economic development of the adjacent regions.
All in all, the notion that bioenergy is a manna from heaven could be as dangerous as the deliberate ignoring of the potential harms from the heavy dependence on fossil fuels and other energy sources with a heavy impact on the ecosystems. Bioenergy itself is neither good nor bad. When used in the proper conditions it could surely help mitigate the effects of climate change, whoever (or whatever) is causing it. And it's fairly possible that reliable clean energy could become far more accessible to ordinary people, including in the developing countries. But meanwhile, if used unwisely, it would put additional stress on the already overburdened resources of the planet.
Last month the conservation organisation WWF presented its second report on Living Forests. It contained some really grave warnings about a potential risk from the too aggressive introduction of biofuels. Some strong measures are needed to counter the negative effects from the unsustainable use of bioenergy crops.
Generally, bioenergy comes from wood, sugar-cane, corn and seaweed (plus some crops like rapeseed), and it is often considered a viable alternative to fossil fuels. A number of governments around the world have already started ambitious programs to cut the carbon emissions by mainly shifting to alternative fuels like bioenergy crops. But the WWF warns that without solid guarantees for alternative crop production, the rising demand for bioenergy could cause major destabilisation because of the rampant deforestation and the increased competition between fast-growing crops and food crops and pastures that have a high conservation value.
The analysis they used was designed to investigate the consequences on the agricultural land, and the report also set two goals: stopping deforestation by 2020 and meeting 100% of the world's energy needs from renewable energy sources alone, by 2050. That may sound too idealistic at this point, but the model indicates that the forests could be protected, and most industrialised countries could indeed shift to renewable energy sources by that deadline. But not if we are working the way we are now. The way bioenergy sources are being used at the moment would cause more harm than good, especially if biofuel crops are being introduced into the energy mix directly as they are now.
The more realistic solution is to try to make the energy consumption more efficient and stop the extensive waste of energy. That could be done through a whole range of measures, including investing in energy-efficient buildings and facilities, and transportation systems using electricity generated by renewable sources (or where not entirely possible, at least making them the bulk of the energy source). That may look like an expensive undertaking at a first sight, but it pays off in the long run because the expenses for dealing with the consequences of excessive nature exploitation would be considerably lower, once these innovations are implemented.
The most pressing problem is that, because bioenergy crops often compete with food crops for the same land, increasing the efficiency of agricultural production is crucial at this point - that is, producing a larger amount of food while using less land and water. Otherwise the tendency we are seeing now would become uncontrollable - food prices rising exponentially, and causing social unrest throughout the most vulnerable regions. In fact one of the main reasons for the Arab spring were the food prices that proved too steep a slope to climb for many people in the Middle East. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
What's more, a common standard of sustainable development would be very useful, taking in consideration all these problems. Although there are major economies who, I am sure, would have quite a few objections against that, as they would be reluctant to relinquish the dominant role on the market that they are having now. But no matter how we twist it, it is necessary to adopt a frame agreement like the already existing "New generation of crops", which has proven to be a valuable instrument of the energy companies who are looking for fast-growing crops. This framework sticks to the principle of preserving the entirety of ecosystems so they could be used over a long-term period, and also the protection and preservation of the environment around those crop areas, and the active involvement of all sides concerned into the economic development of the adjacent regions.
All in all, the notion that bioenergy is a manna from heaven could be as dangerous as the deliberate ignoring of the potential harms from the heavy dependence on fossil fuels and other energy sources with a heavy impact on the ecosystems. Bioenergy itself is neither good nor bad. When used in the proper conditions it could surely help mitigate the effects of climate change, whoever (or whatever) is causing it. And it's fairly possible that reliable clean energy could become far more accessible to ordinary people, including in the developing countries. But meanwhile, if used unwisely, it would put additional stress on the already overburdened resources of the planet.
(no subject)
Date: 23/10/11 15:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/10/11 16:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/10/11 17:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/10/11 16:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/10/11 17:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/10/11 17:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/10/11 23:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/10/11 17:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/10/11 17:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/10/11 20:34 (UTC)Type I Civilization, here we come(assuming we don't go extinct during the next hundred years or so).
(no subject)
Date: 24/10/11 00:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/11 02:16 (UTC)If a Type V is possible, I can't imagine what they'd be like except when I read Cthulhu Mythos fiction.
(no subject)
Date: 24/10/11 07:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/10/11 02:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/11 01:26 (UTC)