Biofuels: Scientists Hate 'Em, But Politicians Love 'Em. What Gives?

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 07:00:00 AM PST

• For example, Biofuels may speed up, not slow global warming: study, says that when demand for crops goes up, farmers will cut down rainforests and with them, deplete the planet's ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Grist makes this case too. And Mother Jones provides a fantastic investigative piece on the same theme.

• As if that isn't enough, Civil Eats chatted with one of my favorite experts on agriculture and energy issues, David Pimentel. Here's an excerpt:

  His most recent paper Pimentel D et al. Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs, published in the journal Human Ecology, is as scathing an indictment of the effects of biofuel policy as a scientific paper can be. He and his coauthors conclude, "Growing crops for biofuel not only ignores the need to reduce fossil energy and land use, but exacerbates the problem of malnourishment worldwide."

• In Don't Suffer Biofuels Gladly, Tom Philpott also makes this point.

  [A coalition of NGOs] charge that  the U.S. biofuel program actually "exacerbates global warming" because of greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizers and the conversion of grasslands and rainforest to cropland. Further, the mass production of monocropped fuel feedstocks like corn, soy, and palm degrades soils, increases water pollution, drives out biodiversity, and endangers the food security of vulnerable populations. In the process of creating these lamentable side effects, biofuels are offsetting a relatively small amount of conventional fuel use -- and are grabbing the lion's share of federal support for alternative energy. In short, biofuels have been an abject failure.

  The money quote? "money, not science, has driven ethanol fuel policy."

• The Unraveling of the Ethanol Scam: At least 14 Studies Have Exposed the High Cost of Ethanol and Biofuels points to 14 studies showing that biofuels exist on governmental charity alone - otherwise they aren't very financially viable. Of course - if they were a good solution to our energy and climate crises, I would argue that the government investment is worth it. But they're not.

• Natasha Chart reflects on the other supposed perk of ethanol - helping farmers. Not so much, it turns out, now that oil prices are back down. Oops.

• Yet two more articles, Will USDA Head Vilsack Cheerlead Syngenta's New Controversial Biofuel Frankencorn? and USDA Deliberates Millions of Acres of Industrial GM Corn for Ethanol, wonder how the USDA will handle biotech giant Syngenta's request to approve a new GM corn that is easier to make into ethanol. The Obama administration is clearly friendly to ethanol, and Vilsack is known for his friendliness to biotech. Why are politicians embracing a loser?