On Dec. 13, the US Senate passed a revised energy bill that included a large expansion of the federal motor fuel ethanol mandate (OGJ Online, Dec. 18, 2007). On Dec. 18 the House approved the measure, which calls for sales of 15 billion gal/year of ethanol by 2015 and an increase in the renewable fuels standard to 36 billion gal/year by 2022, at least half from advanced biofuels.
Is this a case of being green just for the sake of being green? One recent study stated that the cure of biofuels may be worse than the disease. Another study found that people weren’t environmentally conscious regarding energy savings.
OECD study
In September, the Round Table on Sustainable Development at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a study that came to sobering conclusions: Biofuels may hurt global economies, raise food prices, and still suffer from unfavorable economics (OGJ, Oct. 8, 2007, p. 22).
In 2005, global production of biofuels amounted to about 1% of total road transportation fuel consumption. By 2050, this number could theoretically jump to 11% given conventional technologies for producing ethanol and biodiesel, according to the study.
“An expansion on this scale could not be achieved, however, without significant impacts on the wider global economy,” the study said. “It is more likely that land-use constraints will limit the amount of new land that can be brought into production, leading to a ‘food-versus-fuel’ debate.”
Before taking carbon emissions through land-use change into account, conventional biofuel technologies typically deliver less than 40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels.
“When such impacts as soil acidification, fertilizer use, biodiversity loss, and toxicity of agricultural pesticides are taken into account, the overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel,” the study said. “The conclusion must be that the potential of the current technologies of choice—ethanol and biodiesel—to deliver a major contribution to the energy demands of the transport sector without compromising food prices and the environment is very limited.”
Biofuels are also uneconomic, a situation that could worsen in the future, especially considering them in light of government policies.
“Increasing competition with biomass feedstocks…is actually pushing feedstock prices and production costs up,” according to the study. “Higher oil prices will have the effect of increasing biofuel production costs.”
The study went on to state that the use of biofuels roughly doubles the cost of transportation energy.
Responding to economics
Even when it makes economic sense to be “green,” many consumers don’t respond. Vattenfall AB, a Swedish utility company, as reported in the June 2, 2007, issue of The Economist, quantified which technologies for saving energy would be most economic.
The company found that efficient lighting systems are among the highest in return on investment in energy savings, typically with a payout of less than a year. According to the article, low-energy light bulbs can cost 4-5 times as much as an incandescent bulb but use 80% less energy. But sales of low-energy light bulbs remain slow—representing, for example, only 30% of sales of one major European bulb maker, Philips Lighting.
The reasons for this behavior are that “the savings are too small and the effort involved in change too large,” according to the article, and that consumers are not willing to make the initial investment for a long-term benefit.
If anyone feels guilty about making nongreen choices, there is a web site that allows people to confess their “eco-sins.” Called truegreenconfessions.com, the web site lets posters admit their struggles to be green and lets them vent their frustrations about the various environmental rules.
From some of the confessions, it is indeed obvious that many consumers are green only if it’s convenient.
“Why must being green take up so much of my time?” asks one anonymous writer. “Peer pressure is the only reason I do anything even remotely environmentally friendly.”
Someone whose recycling bin had been stolen confesses, “I haven’t gotten around to getting a new one, so I haven’t been recycling.”
A third writes, “I absolutely love my hybrid but I drink from plastic water bottles. Sorry, but our tap water tastes like cows have been swimming in it. At least I do recycle the bottles.”
It isn’t easy being green.