Biofuel Madness: Another Disastrous Impact of Global Warming Deception

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

There are many deadly and disastrous stories associated with the deception that human CO2 is causing global warming. Some are more obscure than others, but no less deadly in the unnecessary damage and destruction they caused. One was the myth of what was called “Arab Spring.” It never occurred, but what happened was a result of ‘green’ policies based on non-existence science. Unintended consequences are the inevitable result of actions and must not be used to inhibit action and progress. However, there is a difference if the objective was based on evidence and provides benefits or was based on concocted evidence and was mostly detrimental.

I was on a radio program recently, when a listener called to ask who was responsible for more deaths than anyone in history. The word responsible is important because probably none of those most people identify, including Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong, ever actually killed anyone themselves. Many people now realize that the list includes people society tend to glorify, such as Alfred Nobel, who was so mortified by the death and destruction of his invention that he created prizes for advancing knowledge, understanding, and peace. Of course, as is the want of some people, that too has been misused and corrupted with increasing frequency. In the week before Al Gore received his inappropriate Peace Prize, a UK court found his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” guilty of political bias and containing nine significant science errors. It is hard to understand the blindness that leads people to push causes that become tragic, often in their lifetime. Perhaps Alexander Solzhenitsyn explained it best when he wrote,

“To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good.”

The radio caller identified the person he considered responsible for a very large number of deaths as Rachel Carson. In the blind belief that DDT caused the cancer that killed her husband, she published a book that became the bible of the environmental movement.

clip_image001

The myth of the impact of DDT was enhanced and supposedly legitimized by a false story about egg shells thinning. Paul Driessen addressed this and other impositions by the developed world on the developing world in what he called EcoImperialism. Some estimate the number of people who died unnecessarily from Malaria to more than 100 million. Several African leaders made a bold decision to save their people by ignoring the ban. Prime Minister Modi of India made a similar bold decision when he pointed out starvation and one-quarter of his population without electricity overrides the slim possibility of global warming based on very poor science. These are just some of the stories emerging as reason and sensible priorities override the eco-bullying of environmentalists.

Another story that requires exposing is the damage, chaos, and death caused by the push for ethanol as an alternative fuel to replace the evil CO2-producing fossil fuels.

clip_image002

The idea was to convert crops to ethanol, and in the US the subsidies went mainly to corn conversion. According to the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center,

In 2000, over 90% of the U.S. corn crop went to feed people and livestock, many in undeveloped countries, with less than 5% used to produce ethanol. In 2013, however, 40% went to produce ethanol, 45% was used to feed livestock, and only 15% was used for food and beverage.

This had a rapid direct effect.

In 2007, the global price of corn doubled as a result of an explosion in ethanol production in the U.S. Because corn is the most common animal feed and has many other uses in the food industry, the price of milk, cheese, eggs, meat, corn-based sweeteners and cereals increased as well.  World grain reserves dwindled to less than two months, the lowest level in over 30 years.

The impact was potentially deadly and noted by several commentators in the food production industry. In 2006, Graham Young noted the threat and the immorality,

The biofuel madness is gathering steam, and it’s not good news for the world’s poor and hungry. Putting one man’s dinner into another man’s car hardly seems like a sensible or ethical way of solving any of the world’s problems.

In March of 2008, The Times also issued a warning,

The rush towards biofuels is threatening world food production and the lives of billions of people, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser said yesterday. Professor John Beddington put himself at odds with ministers who have committed Britain to large increases in the use of biofuels over the coming decades. In his first important public speech since he was appointed, he described the potential impacts of food shortages as the “elephant in the room” and a problem which rivalled that of climate change.

Beddington was correct. By April of 2008, the President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, wrote,

The World Bank Group estimates that 33 countries around the world face potential social unrest because of the acute hike in food and energy prices. For these countries, where food comprises from half to three quarters of consumption, there is no margin for survival.

Remember, all this occurred under the Bush and Blair regimes. The San Francisco Chronicle reported in April 2008,

In the pantheon of well-intentioned governmental policies gone awry, massive ethanol biofuel production may go down as one of the biggest blunders in history. An unholy alliance of environmentalists, agribusiness, biofuel corporations and politicians has been touting ethanol as the cure to all our environmental ills, when in fact it may be doing more harm than good. An array of unintended consequences is wreaking havoc on the economy, food production and, perhaps most ironically, the environment.

The reaction was what it always is when the food supply fails, riots and an overthrow of a government. It is one of the two major reasons throughout history why people will override the prevailing sentiment expressed in 2000-year-old graffiti in Pompeii: If we get rid of this bunch of scoundrels, we just get another bunch of scoundrels. CNN reported in April 2008,

Riots from Haiti to Bangladesh to Egypt over the soaring costs of basic foods have brought the issue to a boiling point and catapulted it to the forefront of the world’s attention, the head of an agency focused on global development said Monday.

The UK Telegraph was more specific

Egyptian families are having to get up at dawn each day to queue up for bread rations, as the country struggles to cope with grain shortages that threaten a major political crisis.

Egypt is in the grip of a serious bread crisis brought on by a combination of the rising cost of wheat on world markets and sky-rocketing inflation.

Barack Obama was elected President in 2008 so inherited the fallout from the failed ethanol policy. The problem was he was more committed to it and the false global warming agenda than Bush. For example, he promised a reduction in the rate of sea level rise in June of 2008 and made global warming and climate change central to his political platform.

The origin of the term “Arab Spring” is unclear but it very quickly became attached to President Obama and certainly solved his political dilemma. He took a failed green agenda policy issue and turned it into a political progress that justified his Middle East policies. He also benefitted from the riots because the people overthrew Hosni Mubarak, who stood in the way of his plans to install a Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo. Meanwhile, the people suffered hardships, starvation, and death, as the military struggle and riots continued.

However, as Aldous Huxley said,

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

To their credit, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were restrained but clear in identifying the problems with ethanol, in Chapter 8 of the 2014 Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change Report they wrote,

“Biofuels have direct, fuelcycle GHG emissions that are typically 30–90% lower than those for gasoline or diesel fuels. However, since for some biofuels indirect emissions—including from land use change—can lead to greater total emissions than when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be considered on a case by case basis”

In fact, using ethanol produces more CO2 than fossil fuels,

The University of Edinburgh study concludes that ethanol made from corn produces up to 50 percent more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. And ethanol made from rapeseed produces up to 70 percent more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. (Rapeseed is also the source from which canola oil is made.) Both corn-based and rapeseed-based ethanol produced high levels of nitrous oxide, twice as much as previously believed, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide — a gas naturally “exhaled” by plants and produced in combustion of fossil fuels.

Fortunately, the process and production are collapsing. The real tragedy is none of it mattered because CO2 was not causing global warming or climate change. Unfortunately, no accountability will occur. No punishment or condemnation of those responsible for the damage, destruction, and deaths caused by this deliberate pursuit of a political agenda using falsified science will ensue. Somebody once chastised me for saying that these are tantamount to crimes against humanity. I will continue to repeat that claim as the ethanol, and all the other policies of death and destruction are unmasked.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

276 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Hardy
February 28, 2017 10:29 pm

Article in the Guardian of all people, labelling biofuels as a crime against humanity: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/nov/26/burning-food-crops-biofuels-crime-humanity

Dr. Strangelove
March 1, 2017 12:45 am

Ethanol for fuel is a good way to waste energy. The energy efficiency of ethanol production from corn is 53%. You need a ton of corn feedstock to make 113 gal. of ethanol. At 76,000 BTU/gal of ethanol and 16 million BTU per ton of corn. It needs almost twice as much BTU input per BTU output. You cut energy usage by half using gasoline for fuel and burning corn biomass for electric power.

Kermit Johnson
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
March 1, 2017 6:31 am

Spoken like a true Central Planner!

paqyfelyc
March 1, 2017 2:56 am

I object this biofuel scheme because it cannot exist without subsidies, being way more expensive than ordinary fuel, and, as a way to help farmers, it is a very inefficient way turn expenses into income. So it is just plainly stupid. It make sense in a political point of view only, which is an other way to say it is just plainly stupid.
However, I hate this kind of “food mustn’t be turned into fuel” rant, because it is just the same nonsense. Hint: that’s a watermelon rant, and when did watermelons say something sensible? Never.

The biofuel were invented because farmers couldn’t make a living selling food (well, so they said, and they were believed, for some good reason). Biofuel do NOT replace food, they replace production that just wouldn’t exist, or wouldn’t be bought as food. No one ever starved because of biofuel, and food price were never risen because of biofuel.

Kermit Johnson
Reply to  paqyfelyc
March 1, 2017 6:31 am

While I agree with much of what you wrote, I would like you to give us a rundown of the “subsidies” in ethanol production. I only know about one – federally subsidized crop insurance – and it is a pretty insignificant amount. In fact, that subsidy would not be eliminated, IMHO, even if ethanol production was discontinued, as it is a government program that is designed for the bankers mostly – to make sure that farmers pay back the huge loans the bankers disperse.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Kermit Johnson
March 1, 2017 6:59 am

I cannot give a rundown of subsidies, All I know is that oil is bought at ~50$/barrel (42 gallons) = 1.2 $/gallon, while ethanol sells at ~1.5$/gallon (industrial bulk), and furthermore you need ~1.5 ethanol to get the same energy than 1 oil, meaning you need ~1.5$ of ethanol were 0.8 $ of oil would be enough.
So subsidies, in some form or another, must be ~0.7$/gallon of ethanol when you want to use ethanol rather than oil.
Remember that oil is just extracted from underground, while ethanol is extracted from biomass that require land, work etc. that has to be paid for, before you do the extraction work.

Kermit Johnson
Reply to  Kermit Johnson
March 2, 2017 6:13 am

paqyfelyc – No, you can’t “give a rundown of subsidies”! Of course you can’t. Does it ever occur to you that there is a reason why you can’t?

Your numbers are pulled out of you know where. There is a reason why blended fuel is cheaper than regular gasoline. Ethanol is used to raise the octane of low grade gasoline, thereby making it cheaper to refine. And, you say that half again as much ethanol is needed to match the energy of gasoline?? Do a little research before you post claims.

Randy
March 1, 2017 7:23 am

You must convert that oil into gasoline so you need to add refining costs to produce gasoline. Ethanol at $1.50/gallon is ready to blend with gasoline. The energy difference is mitigated by the higher heat of vaporization of ethanol. Your 1.5 factor is closer to 1.1. Currently 84 octane gasoline is blended with 10% ethanol to produce 87 octane gasoline. 84 octane is cheaper to make than 87 octane ( about $.10 per octane) and you get more gallons of 84 octane gasoline from a barrel of oil than you do with 87 octane.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Randy
March 2, 2017 1:30 am

Fair enough. So that may be ~0.6$/gal subsidies instead of ~0.7. Does it changes the matter ?
Actually industrial ethanol (as opposed to: ethanol in booze, which we rather have out of plants anyway 😉 ) would be made out of oil, if it wasn’t for subsidies.

Randy
Reply to  paqyfelyc
March 4, 2017 7:26 am

I wasn’t going to respond to your reply but I kept thinking about your calculations and found them to not make sense (you actually counted your 1.5 factor twice). My search of google tells me that the U.S. Congress did not extend the tariff and the tax credit for ethanol, allowing both to end on December 31, 2011. At the pump by me regular 87 octane is $2.59/gallon, E10 87 octane is $2.26/gallon. If you make 15% less gas mileage on E10, the coast per mile is the same. This does not take into account the greater yield per barrel for 84 octane vs 87 octane which is small but real. The EPA says E10 lowers gas mileage by 3%, GM says it lowers it by 4.8%. Most people on this site who find ethanol so objectionable say it’s over 15%. My personal experience is close to GM’s estimate. Then again I drive a GM vehicle.

Retired Kit P
March 1, 2017 8:03 am

“Kit, appeals to authority are lame. Appeals to your own authority are the lamest of all.”

@Forrest

Gosh that sounds like a baseless opinion. Wrong too. Often I provide substantive information. I provide information based on being an expert. I am an expert because I was paid to be trained and then paid to perform the work. My work was then accepted by others.

I am not going to win a debate with lawyers. I am not trained for that. Right is right. When I provide information to the NRC, I do not appeal to being an authority. My company paid me to provide the information because I was an authority. In a follow up the NRC was nitpicking. I had to explain high school chemistry to doctor what’s his name. I was nice about it because he was nice about it. We all agreed to change what I wrote to add the word ‘significant’ to my statement of ‘no effect’.

See what I did Forest? I told you were wrong, I explained why , I provided an example.

MarkW
Reply to  Retired Kit P
March 1, 2017 8:10 am

An example without enough information for anyone to confirm whether it is real or entirely made up.
I’m sure you are managing to impress yourself.
When you talk about nuclear, you give enough information that others can confirm your expertise.
Outside of that, you give nothing other than the claim that since you are an expert in nuclear we should take everything you say as gospel.

Griff
March 1, 2017 8:30 am

“Prime Minister Modi of India made a similar bold decision when he pointed out starvation and one-quarter of his population without electricity overrides the slim possibility of global warming based on very poor science.”

I don’t think that’s Modi’s position at all.

Look what he said at Paris:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/climate-change-is-not-of-our-making-modi-at-paris-summit/story-AYCPgLGSqWD2kS2o4cZ0RO.html

“India’s progress is our destiny and right of our people. But we must also lead in combating climate change,” he said

Modi has driven the plan for 175GW of renewable energy in India by 2020

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
March 3, 2017 1:48 am

“Griff March 1, 2017 at 8:30 am

Modi has driven the plan for 175GW of renewable energy in India by 2020”

A plan is still just a plan. Like a pledge. Anyone can say anything, but actually doing something about it, that’s a different ballgame. India and China, within 15 years, will lose their industry to south east Asia because, wages are too high. I was right about China/India in the mid-1990’s and I am right about south east Asia, even Africa. I won’t be around to see it this time though.

Retired Kit P
March 1, 2017 9:14 am

“Let me try and expand your stupidity.
Nobody is forced to buy electricity. Therefore if the government triples the cost of electricity, nobody can claim that they have been harmed.”

Let me check my bill. MarkW is lying again. I do think it stupid for Mark to think he is smart enough to explain anything to anyone except maybe Griff.

A few years back my power bill did increase. My utility explained why on the bill. The was major capital expenditures for capital improvements to meet new regulations. However, is an exceeding cheap commodity even with the rate increase.

Again nobody is forced to buy energy. I observe how people spend money. I am not forced to pay outrageous ticket prices, eat at restaurants, spend $4 for a cup of coffee. Then they complain about the 50 cent they spend on energy getting there.

And now the 5 cents that might be ethanol.

There are some places where state goverment policies cause electric rates and gasoline more expensive. It is called taxes.

Clearly some of you have an agenda that blames everything on what you do not like. First do not buy it, second stop whining without facts to back it up.

willhaas
March 2, 2017 4:09 am

To be a pure biofuel the fuel must be produced and delivered without the use of and goods and or services that involve the use of fossil fuels. I doubt that there exists any pure biofuels in use today. If you feel that the burning of fossil fuels is bad for the planet then stop using and paying for goods and or services that involve the use of fossil fuels in any way. It is the consumers money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business.