The scary thing about global warming is that it is absolutely preventable. The warning signs, camouflaged in natural temperature shifts, have been coming at us for years. So here we are, dependent on oil, dependent on industry: how does one turn around and make the drastic shift towards greener technologies without upsetting the economy? Thankfully, because global warming has been a looming threat for several years and because we are not strangers to energy crises, biofuels are slowly becoming feasible substitutes for gasoline and natural gases. After all, the point of “green science” is to reduce our harmful impact on the environment. Biofuels, coupled with several other conservation-type projects, are merely pioneering the way to a cleaner, and inevitably, greener world.

A comparison of common biofuels

National Geographic, October 2007, “Growing Fuel: The Wrong Way, The Right Way” (Green Dreams, pg. 38-59)

Ethanol

Corn ethanol, mainly the United States’ pet project, has made some people enthusiastic and others more skeptical than ever. For starters, ethanol is expensive and even ethanol-enriched-gasoline is hardly a bargain. And for that price, ethanol delivers 30% fewer miles than a gallon of gasoline corn ethanol were to work - and work efficiently - it would need to be able to provide more miles per gallon at a competitive price, within the range of gasoline, and lower its CO₂ emissions so that, instead of only 22% less CO₂, ethanol would produce 33% less than comparable fuels. This could be accomplished with automobile support and extended research. Still, ethanol’s flame burns bright. It is, at any rate, a step in the right direction.

Álcool

Throughout the 70’s and 80’s, Brazil successfully adopted álcool — that is, sugar-cane based ethanol — as a national fuel. What it took was manufacturer support, a little bit of compromise (in making cars that could utilize both gasoline and ethanol), and some time to catch on. Brazil is uniquely equipped to answer the biofuel question — it produces an enormous amount of sugarcane. And oftentimes, it is even cheaper than gasoline while still producing 56% less CO₂. The problem with álcool isn’t its efficiency or its feasibility — it is the deforestation that is unfortunately associated with both agriculture and industry, and deforestation poses a greater harm to the environment than CO₂ emissions. If production standards were reformed and the process used to harvest the sugarcane was mechanized, which would spare several workers from exhaustion and exposure to harmful gases, álcool could become a reality in many countries that produce great amounts of sugar. After all, sugar is the biological currency of energy.

Biodiesel

Made from canola and soybean oils and capable of emitting 68% less CO₂, biodiesel might seem like a godsend for industrial lines trying to make the green shift. But as with corn ethanol, biodiesel is still rather expensive when compared to their gasoline equivalents. The use of food-products for fuels raises another interesting point: consuming a great deal of food-matter and turning into fuel may exacerbate conditions that may lead to famine or food shortages. Call it a fatalistic or cynical attitude if you want, but we need to be careful about our production of biofuels at any turn. Still, biodiesel is a good green alternative for industries wanting to make that first — and very important — step.

Other possibilities include the use of algae or other widely-available plant matter; will international politics itself be healed as a result of biofuel production, which will certainly change the balance of “power” across the map, unless new environmental standards are adopted worldwide.

Risks

There are risks on both ends of the global warming spectrum. Assuming we do too little too late, we run the risk of causing the earth irreversible damage. That future we already know too well — climate displacement, tremendous storms, drought, famine, extinction of species, and loss of the plant life that has always supported us. But what if we adopt these biofuels only to find that the cost outweighs the value (in my opinion, the value is worth whatever price you are willing to pay), or that we cannot wean ourselves off of our gasoline and natural gas systems quickly enough? What if we begin running out of fuel without something to fall back on? Then, the only way to prevent a possible draining of fuel sources is to find alternative fuels and phase the use of gasoline out as quickly as possible. Emission standards must be improved and automobile manufacturers must try to find ways to make cheaper, more efficient automobiles, like the Gol in Brazil. One of the positive aspects of biofuel production is that growers will receive compensation for their work — unless the process is subsidized, which will increase output and decrease prices — whereas with gasoline production, oil companies reap the profits. After all, the rebirth of agriculture shouldn’t be a thing to be feared.

The urgency behind finding ways to reduce CO₂ emissions is that we can save the earth if we act quickly. Gasoline has enjoyed its era, at the earth’s expense, but a new day is necessary. We have so many resources at our disposal; why are gasoline and natural gases our only readily-available fuel supplies?

We are running on inefficient practices from a time when carbon was a friend, not an enemy; we need to look forward. The human explanation for the condition of the earth, as it is, is greed, ignorance, lack of concern, or simply lack of vision. Whatever we do, we must act with haste.

Read 2 comments (Leave a comment?)

Diana said:

Thanks a lot for this.

Personally, I walk and don’t contribute to factory farms. I try to recycle, too.

I hope we get something worked out soon. Biodiesel sounds really nice.

Posted on October 17, 2007 6:59 PM; Permalink

Ranjani said:

Thanks a lot! I would walk or bike everywhere if I could, but things are too spread apart in Houston for that to work. But it’s awesome that you’re able to :D

Posted on October 18, 2007 6:16 PM; Permalink