Participants at the latest meeting of the U.N. Environment Programme’s Convention on Biological Diversity expressed growing concern over the increased use of non-food crops as sources of cellulosic ethanol. According to The New York Times , scientists from organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, The International Union for Conservation of Nature, and others concerned about the use of plants such as reeds and wild grasses may clash with policymakers in the U.S. and E.U., both of which have established targets for expanding biofuel use in response to climate concerns, and are now “anxiously awaiting the commercial perfection of second generation biofuels.”
The scientists’ concern stems from the fact that many of the plant species targeted for use as “second generation” biofuel sources (i.e. non-food crop sources of biofuel, as opposed to corn or soybeans) are not native to the areas in which they will be harvested as a fuel source, creating risky potential for their spread as damaging weeds. They cite biodiversity loss and economic costs as possible side effects of culitvating invasive species for fuel.
Evidently, critics from the biodiversity community are caught between a rock and a hard place when weighing the threats to biodiversity from cultivating weeds for biofuels on the one hand and runaway climate change on the other. The U.N.’s Convention on Biological Diversity identifies climate change as a major hazard for biodiversity protection, and also notes that the successful maintenance of global biodiversity will be central to effective mitigation and adaptation techniques in the face of intensifying climate changes.
The debate outlined in the Times article focused only on plantation-scale cultivation of second generation biofuel crops, unfortunately failing to highlight that there are serious questions of scale that could be introduced as a way of reframing the issue and possibly identifying solutions. In a 1999 paper , researchers from Purdue University hailed native switchgrass as a promising source of biofuel from a non-food crop. They cite not only the overall efficiency of the cultivation process but also the positive impacts that increasing native switchgrass in ecosystems degraded by industrial agriculture would have on soil and water quality, not to mention the potential for inviting other native species - such as insects and migratory birds - back home to acres and acres of native grasses where pesticide-laced corn used to dwell. The key here is the native part. The Purdue paper begins by citing the centuries-old practice of producing energy in conjunction with food production on American farms, a sharp contrast to the biofuels plantation model on the table at the U.N. Convention meeting.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Very interesting. I don’t foresee it to be a huge problem though.
http://www.spec-eng.com/services.htm
I’ve also read that polycultures of native grasses have better yields and are more sustainable in the North American Great Plains region. Developing the ensymes and processes that can handle a diversity of feedstocks, and enable polycultures instead of mononcultures for biofuel feedstocks could blow the sustainable potential of biofuels wide open.
I think we’ve all got to recognize that all of our energy sources and potential energy sources have impacts. The question is how bad, and whether they are worth it, and how we can responsibly mitigate and minimize these impacts. If you’re waiting for the perfect, zero-impact solution, you’ll be waiting a long time. We’d better take the threat of invasive biofuel feedstock species getting out of control seriously, but it shouldn’t be considered a reason to abandon non-food based biofuels, full stop. I’d hate to see the Everglades overrun by giant reeds (as the article raises the specter of), just like I’d hate to see a geothermal power plant in Yellowstone National Park (even though there’s geothermal potential there for sure). It’s about responsible siting and development of renewable energy sources with a focus on mitigating impacts, whether it’s potential for invasive biofuel species running amok or wind turbines killing birds. Both can easily be mitigated, minimized or entirely avoided with a little forethought and planning.