There was an emergency rally to clean-up a toxic oil spill at UC Berkeley yesterday. As part of a theatrical performance to protest the proposed $500M deal with British Petroleum (BP), organic molasses was spilled at the door of the administration office and students came with mops, buckets, rags, lab coats and masks to wash away this dirty dirty corporate deal. Cops were all over the place and arrested the graduate and freshman undergraduate students who spilled the “oil” and hung caution tape at the scene. Over 140 people were present to demand that the BP deal not be signed by the University, and to hear from distinguished faculty and student speakers who shared the bullhorn next to signs reading “contaminated” and “NO BP Deal: UC Berkeley is not for sale.” Cal is my alma mater and the last thing I want is Big Oil’s influence on this university.
StopBP-Berkeley is a diverse group of students concerned about corporate control of the public university, especially regarding biofuels. On February 1, 2007 the agreement was announced to establish an Energy Biofuels Institute in collaboration with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne. The 3 main objections to this agreement: a) the process was undemocratic and lacked transparency, b) efforts to address sustainability and justice come second to the focus on fossil fuels, and c) corporate interest is prioritized over scientific research for the public good.
Earlier in the week, StopBP-Berkeley held a Teach-In where over 100 students, faculty and community members attended to hear professors and an award-winning science writer express their concerns. (See Berkeley Daily Planet for more info regarding both the Teach-in and the action.)
Here is a List of Reasons to Oppose the BP-Berkeley Deal:
1. Students and the public had almost no say in the biggest corporate deal in UC history.
2. Serious concerns exist about biofuel sustainability.
3. Biofuel crops are already an environmental disaster.
4. BP violates human rights
5. BP + “Sustainable” = “Greenwashing”.
6. Corporate biofuels exacerbate hunger in the world.
7. BP fights laws that hold corporations accountable.
8. UC Berkeley’s research agenda belongs to us, not to for-profit corporations.
9. BP stops at nothing to make money.
10. The EBI will not be seriously researching sustainability.
For a paragraph of each and more general info, visit the StopBP-Berkeley website.
Here are a Few Simple Reasons to Oppose Biofuels:
1. Even if we converted the entire US corn crop to production for ethanol it would only satisfy 12% of our energy appetite,
2. The net energy savings from replacing a gallon of gasoline with ethanol are only the equivalent of about a quarter of a gallon, because of the energy used to grow corn, transport it, run ethanol plants, and so on
3. The transportation industry alone uses nearly 70% of the oil consumed in the US, which is a leading cause of global warming, foreign conflicts, and economic crisis. The single biggest step we can take to save our climate is demanding the auto industry use existing technology to improve vehicle fuel-efficiency.
For more information, visit Freedom From Oil.
Nina,
While I defend anyone’s right to voice an opinion, as a spokesperson for environmental protection and someone in the public eye, you have a responsibility to avoid misinformation, particularly when it relates to topics as critical as the long term environmental health of the planet. I fully support the aims of this website and it is critical that the public become fully aware, as quickly as possibly, that we are facing potentially catastrophic climate changes, and that we all have a duty and the potential to do something about it.
I was therefore dismayed when I read your commments under the title “Here are a Few Simple Reasons to Oppose Biofuels”, since they paint a completely misleading and innaccurate picture of something that has the potential to make a real difference to our impact on the environment. Your first two comments relate to the use of corn as the material from which biofuels would be made. You appear not to be aware that essentially all serious studies acknowledge freely that, for a number of reasons, we will never rely on corn for biofuels in the long term. Instead, the future of bioenergy feedstocks is more likely to be based on ‘lignocellulosic’ material from several sources, including a range of grasses and wood byproducts. This is not only a cheaper way to generate ethanol, but also has the advantage that these ‘bioenergy’ crops can be grown on marginal soils that are not currently being used as farmland. You also make some sweeping statements such as “Biofuel crops are already an environmental disaster”…a nice soundbite and attention grabber, but what on earth does it mean? Which is more environmentally damaging, current methods of drilling and digging out fossils fuels (oil and coal) or growing perennial grasses to make ethanol?
The bottom line is that we all have a responsibility to limit our energy use and to avoid wasteful energy consuming habits. However, at the same time let’s all be realistic and accept that we will also need to find alternative energy sources as the popoulation of this planet increases and importantly, let’s do it in way that causes the least damage to the environment.
Please avoid these ‘easy to digest’ one-liners if they are innaccurate and mislead the public. You have taken on the role of a spokeperson for environment, so please be responsible, do your homework, investigate carefully and present a balanced story in your blogs, not just something that looks good as a snappy banner headline. It’s the easiest thing it the world to get angry and oppose something as the first reaction. What takes effort is to spend the time to educate yourself and then spread information, not misinformation.
I’m gonna stand with Nina on this one – liquid fuels aren’t a solution, even from cellulosic sources. There are many reasons to oppose liquid fuels, including concerns about genetically modified crops, soil erosion, water consumption (this is a BIG one!), healthy and safety, pollution from contaminated feed sources like construction and demolition waste, and corporate domination. More info on biofuels is available here.
I followed the link that you provided Matt and ended up at the “Energy Justice Network” where they suggest some alternatives to biofuels and the suggestions are: 1) conservation 2) solar power and 3) wind power. Sounds good right?
Let’s look at these….conservation first. Of COURSE that’s what we should be doing. We are all extravagant over consumers and if we restrained ourselves, the world would be a better place…sure, no arguments there. It’s great to see new initiatives springing up all over the country that address energy efficiency. Conservation is critical, but is it going to be the sole answer to the impending energy crisis? No of course not! Are we as a society going to drastically cut our energy use? Unlikely! It’s naïve to think that our society is going to abandon our SUVs, enormous air conditioned houses and all our other energy demanding toys any time soon. So, the bottom line is yes, let’s conserve and push for research into energy efficiency, but we are absolutely going to have to find new sources of energy …there is simply no disputing that.
So where will the energy come from?” Can solar and wind power provide the answer? Take look at this site and you’ll find a link to some well researched information http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=494.
Here are a couple points to consider: (1) if every single one of the 70 million single family homes in the US was covered in solar panels it would still only meet 7.5% of the current US electricity demand! (2) An impractical number of windmills would be required (many, many millions) to meet even a small portion of energy needs and already there are howls of protests about the construction of land or sea-based windfarms. Again, the bottom line is that solar and wind can certainly supplement our energy needs, but even when combined will come nowhere near to meeting demands, and don’t forget that energy demand worldwide is continuing to rocket, in parallel with the global population.
So, be realistic and ask yourself again where this energy is going to come from. We have a finite and rapidly diminishing supply of fossil fuels. There is simply no clear answer right now and nobody knows, but bioenergy crops have a lot of potential and we should do our best to support studies into how to grow them in the most environmentally sustainable way. Matt you mentioned that the BIG issue is water use efficiency. Well the great news is that there are already studies with perennial grasses (e.g. Miscanthus) showing that some species require far less water and irrigation than most crop plants, such as corn. The message here is that there is great potential, so let’s keep the studies going and see how water and fertilizer use can be reduced to generate the most benign bioenergy crops possible.
As for “genetically modified crops” …where did that argument come from?? This has absolutely nothing to do with the biofuels issue. Studies on lignocellulosic plants are focusing on native grasses and stands of poplar and willow….nothing at all to do with GM!! It makes for frustrating reading when such entirely irrelevant arguments are included and I hope that it was just thrown in to be more sensationalist…and then of course you toss in the old chestnut of “corporate domination’. Well that just comes back down to whether you want to live in a typical Western society or not.
Over population is only going to place increasing pressures on the environment and we will have to find radical new solutions, which will require education, research and behavioral changes…end of story. I’m for all three and it worries me when I read articles from groups purporting to promote the environment, when in reality there is an ostrich- with-its-head-in-the-sand mentality. We are not going to get ourselves out of this mess with solar panels, wind farms and high energy-efficient light bulbs. It needs something far more dramatic than that and both technological breakthroughs and cultural changes will be essential.
My own opinion is that energy will have to be found from a range of sources, including wind- and solar-based energy, but I am optimistic about biofuels and think that we should explore their possibilities as carefully as possible. What worries me is that an uninformed and reactionary stance will cause long term damage. Why be negative at this point in the game when nobody has a complete understanding of the pros and cons? Matt and Nina, it’s wonderful that you are passionate about this subject and I applaud your motivation to do something about this, but please, please let’s make sure education and open-mindedness go hand in hand with that passion. Why not host a forum and invite articles that are both pro and against biofuels and at least explain the issues more carefully and provide links to well researched studies? Let’s elevate the level of discussion by learning as much as we can about the issues and figuring out the best strategy before it’s too late.
Joss,
I appreciate your concern that my post was inadequate.
However, did you explore the links I provided? I made a conscious decision to give one-liners in my post in order to keep it simple & short and I balanced that by providing links to webites for more detailed information. I also didn’t want to jump into the nitty-gritty details of the BP-Berkeley deal since I didn’t think people would absorb a super long post. For the serious reader, the website which I provided has posted the full and summarized proposal (and then they can come to their own conclusions).
1. In order to address your concerns that my headliners were insufficient, here are some examples of more info which I have mostly simply copied & pasted in order to illustrate to you that further information was included (and which readers were directed to twice via the links) :
Biofuel crops are already an environmental disaster:
The Amazon rainforest is being cut down to make way for soy and sugarcane for use as biofuel. In Indonesia, ancient forests are being burned up to make room for oil-palm biofuel. All of this contributes to global warming. Some of the biggest experts critical of the sustainability of biofuels work right here at Berkeley. Don’t assume that biofuels will be sustainable.
(key word: ASSUME. Researchers at UC Berkeley have led the debate, sometimes on both sides, of these issues. The BP proposal underplays these concerns, bypassing the serious research of many accomplished scientists — and will do very little to investigate these consequences. Research into biofuels should have these issues on the forefront of the agenda, not as a public-relations afterthought.)
Corporate biofuels exacerbate hunger in the world:
Biofuel farming is currently using land and crops that would otherwise feed some of the least fortunate people in the developing world. According to the Washington Post, the US demand for biofuel corn has made prices for tortillas go up 400% in Mexico. Peasant farmers in Kenya recently protested biofuels, chanting, “No full tanks when there are still empty bellies!” Further increases in biofuel use could make this worse by making food unaffordable for millions of poor people around the world.
(This paragraph has two more links to detailed articles. The Washington Post article says “There is almost universal consensus in Mexico that higher demand for ethanol is at the root of price increases for corn and tortillas.”)
BP violates human rights:
We should distance ourselves from such corporations; instead we are welcoming them to our campus. BP collaborates with and pays massive royalties to some of the world’s most corrupt and repressive governments. It faces allegations of human rights abuses, and sparking regional conflict to build the Baku Ceyhan pipeline in Eastern Europe. British Petroleum has been accused in the European Parliament of colluding in gross human rights violations by the Colombian army and of serious environmental destruction. UC traditionally divests from corporations with human rights violations, instead of signing $500 million deals with them. Taking money from this company will damage Berkeley’s reputation and public trust in our science.
2. Furthermore, I never claimed to be an expert scientist. I am, however, working alongside expert scientists. And I do claim to care about the impacts that scientific endeavors will have, especially in places and on people whose voices are marginaled. So while my understanding of ‘lignocellulosic’ material may be elementary, my concerns remain as do my questions, why isn’t money being invested in alternative energy and conservation measures that we already know exist, such as wind and solar, and demanding higher mpg in our cars? They work and we can do them now.
Also, the main point of the post is not biofuels in general, but about the specific deal with an oil corporation. I was challenging the BP-Berkeley deal and highlighting concerns about biofuels especially because I think many people are assume they are sustainable.
I hope this response has satisfied some of your concerns, Joss.
Another reason to be skeptical of biofuels. Tortillas prices – for real.
http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/Ag%20&%20Energy/3-16-07Biofuel%20&%20Tortillas/3-16-07notice.htm
My suggestion: add “unsustainable” before the biofuels which should be opposed.
Have unsustainable mean having net lifecycle GHG increases, and significant land impacts, agricultural markets impacts, water impacts, GMO impacts, etc.
We need more people to push back about what biofuels are acceptable or we’ll end up with coal-powered corn-based ethanol and rainforest palm biodiesel, so keep it up, Nina.