The second question is if we should be turning food crops in to fuel when world reserve food stocks are running low just at the time when extreme weather events are causing food production problems in many areas.
Second generation biofuels are made from plant-derived waste such as straw, forestry waste or food waste. They can also use purposely grown crops or managed woodland. There are several companies working to produce enzymes cheap enough to make the process viable and the first commercial plants are now being built.
Today The Independent said:
“Short-term, the answer to the ‘food vs fuel’ debate is that the world needs to make tough choices: fossil fuel burning accounts for 75 to 85 per cent of global CO2 emissions; deforestation accounts for 15 to 25 per cent, so we can see where the imperative lies.
“The good news is that ’second generation’ and more innovative biofuels – on a 10-year timescale – pose less tough choices. Biofuels derived from straw, timber, manure, rice husks, agriwaste of any description, even sewage and methane from landfill waste – all could play a part with little detriment to food prices or rainforests. They also tend to be more fuel-efficient and cleaner; the US government claims a 91 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions. Add in hybrid technology in cars, higher agricultural productivity (Malthus was wrong, after all), and suddenly carbon neutrality seems almost achievable.
“If our mighty auto and oil industries bend themselves to that task, then the future can be bright, green and profitable”
The problem is that the timescale is too long if we want to keep CO2 levels down to acceptable levels at the same time as we put off oil and gas depletion. This really should have massive government spending to speed things along.
