TIME takes a moment from declining to name a Person of the Year to open up a discussion about ethanol - about four months and one "Energy Independence and Security Act" passage too late.
The cover article, by Michael Grunwald, brings biofuels back into the spotlight for the time being, but the timing (apologies) is somewhat baffling. The issue, which hit newstands today, is basically a re-hash of the false environmental promise of corn-based ethanol.
But this argument is already so well-documented that most journalists, at this point, have moved on and are now trying to be cynical about next-generation feedstocks, like biomass. No doubt the presses of the venerable weekly were held up so the author could coalesce a compelling lead ("I watched him grab a small anaconda with his bare hands") and spend a day in the Amazon with the Kamayura tribe.
The article also falls short in that its foot-wide exploration of the negative consequences of biofuel mandates does not at all consider the harm to consumers who must pay more for food, or even the taxpayers who are essentially subsidizing the rural redevelopment of the interior Midwest.
But the worst offense of the article is that it wants to lump all biofuels, existing and future, together. This, in turn, forces Grunwald to make an entirely unsupported jab at technology that is not hurting anybody, let alone the environment, because it is not yet being practiced on any meaningful scale.
"Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass ... looks less green than oil-derived gasoline," Grunwald writes.
This is not only a glib statement, it is likely wrong. The USDA's Agricultural Research Service is presently developing switchgrass for use on marginal, highly erodible lands. A recent study, meanwhile, showed that switchgrass yielded 93% more biomass per acre than corn.
I totally agree! gr, remcowoudstra
Posted by: making biodiesel | Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 03:17 PM