Counting the Cost of Biofuel

In the last two posts, I noted that stewardship implies that we must take care of God’s creation but also that in doing so we must “count the cost”. Just as I had posted the last one I read a brief note in the National Post  (Jan. 23,2004,p. FP11) entitled “Neil Young’s Clunker”. Young, who is currently touring Canada “tarring” the Athabaska Oil Sands mining projects, is quoted as reporting that “My car’s generator runs on biomass, one of several future fuels Canada should be developing for the post-fossil fuel age.” In response, the National Post  quotes the following from the website of the Sierra Club of Massachusets about biomass[1]

• Large scale biomass used primarily for electricity generation is extremely inefficient and emits 1.5 times as much CO2 than a coal-fired power plant.
• Claims of “carbon neutrality” for biomass do not account for externalities and full lifecycle accounting of carbon, including harvesting processing and transportation of fuels. Truckloads of biomass fuel would need to be transported on regional roads, adding to diesel particulate pollution and additional fuel use.
• Large scale biomass calls for the harvesting of millions of trees on tens of thousands of acres - some of it on state forest lands. Multiple facilities proposed in MA all claim competing areas for harvesting fuel at a rate that is not sustainable.
• Biomass consumes and removes organic forest material, including that which would normally remain behind and contribute to the forests ongoing ability to sequester carbon.
• Burning biomass can release carcinogenic substances and particulates in our air water.
• Biomass facilities evaporate and/or otherwise use massive volumes of water to operate and can impact rivers, streams, and water supplies.

Conclusion

The Sierra Club has significant concerns over the production of energy from biomass, including the net emissions of CO2 and airborne toxins, the inefficiency of biomass energy production, impact on ecosystems and public health, and assumptions made regarding “carbon neutrality” of such operations. 

This quote from an organization that bills itself as “the nation's oldest and most effective grassroots environmental organization” certainly illustrates why we must “count the cost”. Being well intentioned about the environment is not enough. It also provides another opportunity to point out that with judicious taxation, market forces can be harnessed to make better environmental decisions.

• If CO2 and particulate emissions were adequately taxed, electricity generators would take this cost into account and over time switch to methods that emit the least.
• If fuel is taxed more to reflect the cost of diesel particulate pollution and the cost of using roads, the incentive to  transport truck-loads of biomass would be reduced. Less biofuels would be produced.
• If forest lands would be overused, government could set sustainable limits and auction off the rights to harvest (with necessary requirements for replanting etc.) The auction would permit the market to ensure that the wood products would go to their most valuable use. The consequent higher prices are likely to lead to less use for biofuels.
• Water use can also be taxed so that the cost of water depletion is also properly considered in the decision to “go biofuel”.

---

[1] http://www.sierraclubmass.org/issues/conservation/biomass/biomass.html