U.S. House looks at how to improve the nation’s highway freight network

[ Like all books and articles I read on transportation for my book, this session assumes endless growth and worries about future congestion, which will not be a problem on the other side of peak oil, which is coming soon.  Conventional oil peaked in 2005, over half of the 500 giant oil fields that provide 50% of oil are declining at 6%, a rate that increases exponentially, and unconventional oil (10% of supplies) won’t be able to keep up with that.  At least this U.S. House of Representatives session is more concerned freight than cars, which are wasting what conventional oil remains…

Also of note is Susan Alt’s comment: “We have electric trucks, but the big, heavy ones we would not be able to haul any load because we would have 50,000 pounds of batteries unfortunately.” Alt is a senior vice president for public affairs at Volvo Group North America.

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation, 2015, Springer]

House 113-55. February 27, 2014. Improving the Nation’s Highway Freight Network. U.S. House of Representatives. 101 pages. 

Excerpts

THOMAS E. PETRI, WISCONSIN.  The Nation’s highway system is an essential part of the broader freight transportation system. Not every community is located adjacent to a railroad, airport, waterway or port, but consumer goods are almost invariably transported along the Nation’s 4 million miles of highways and roads for at least part of the journey.

America’s reliance on the highway system is growing faster than the system is itself. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that in the next 30 years there will be 60% more freight that must be moved across the United States.

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA.  The American people understand all too well what we mean when we say we have got to transport people. They think about the roads and the highways. They think about their transit. They think about their cars, but I am not sure that they understand what makes this country great, and it is the transportation of goods so that those people can use the goods.

MARK GOTTLIEB, P.E., SECRETARY, WISCONSIN  Department of Transportation, on behalf of the America Associati0n of State Highway & Transportation officials  

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of AASHTO and the State DOTs on the importance of efficient and safe freight movement to our State’s economies and to provide input on our freight transportation challenges. We support the establishment of an overall national freight transportation policy. However, we believe that designation of highway and freight networks cannot be accomplished through a top-down Federal process. A one-size-fits-all set of designation criteria fails to address unique, state-specific freight considerations. The methodology used to designate the 27,000-mile national highway freight network resulted in critical gaps and omissions and does not reflect many significant freight corridors operating within, between and among the States.

Gerald R. Bennett, mayor, Palos Hills, Illinois, on behalf of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

My agency, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, CMAP, elevated freight as a high priority within our region’s award winning Go to 2040 comprehensive plan. Our region is an unparalleled hub not only of domestic but also international freight. Over a billion tons of freight worth more than $3 trillion move through the Chicago region each year. A quarter of all U.S. freight and nearly all U.S. intermodal freight originates, terminates or passes through Metropolitan Chicago. Nearly half of the freight in the region is through traffic, an indication of our central role in the national freight system. To address freight congestion, the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program, called CREATE, the first in this Nation, was established in 2003. This is a public-private partnership of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Illinois Department of Transportation, and the Chicago Department of Transportation, AMTRAK, the region’s Metra Transit System, and private railroads. CREATE is dedicated to implementing specific rail improvements in and around the Chicago area. Its 70 projects include new fly- overs, grade separations, improved signaling, equipment modernization, and as of November 2013, 20 projects have been completed and 9 more are under construction. Most of the completed projects are rail improvements, many of which are on the belt corridor that circles Chicago to the west and south, with connections to multiple railroads. Eight of the eleven belt corridor projects have been completed and another is under construction. In contrast, relatively few projects move forward to mitigate freight’s negative impacts on local communities. Only 3 of CREATE’s 25 highway rail grade separation projects have been completed and only 3 are under construction.

Due to the lack of funding, 13 grade separations have not started at all and not one of the program’s 7 passenger corridor projects was completed in the past 10 years. This is also highly problematic because in a truly intermodal economy, grade separations facilitate the movement of truck traffic through the region.

Susan Alt, senior vice president for public affairs, Volvo Group North America

Volvo Group manufactures heavy trucks under the brand names of Mack Trucks, Volvo Trucks, Volvo construction equipment, Volvo Penta marine engines, Prevost and Nova transit coaches and city buses. The Volvo Group has six manufacturing facilities in the United States, in the States of Virginia, Tennessee, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York and we are headquartered in North Carolina.

We rely on more than 50,000 truckloads of freight, of material coming into our factories each year. We rely heavily on the Ports of Norfolk and Baltimore to import 25 percent of our production material, and those same ports plus the Port of Charleston, South Carolina, for the export of our finished goods. We rely on the entire Interstate Highway System for the movement of our material, most notably Interstate 81, as four of our factories are located on or very near it. It is America’s infrastructure that makes all of this possible. The health of America’s freight network matters because it is important that our American manufacturing operations remain competitive in a global economy. In recent years the industry has embraced ‘‘just in time’’ or lean manufacturing philosophies that reduce manufacturing material in the production line. This new efficiency has manifested as a substantial benefit to Volvo, our customers and the economy as a whole. However, to be efficient, we have to have the right material at the right place at the right time.

In modern manufacturing, we cannot have excess inventory in our assembly or our delivery process. We deliver parts to the production line just as it is needed for assembly. Our ability to move parts from our supplier to our factory and finished goods from our factory to our end customer relies on the infrastructure of America. There are disturbances we can plan for, but what we cannot control for is unexpected delays due to congestion. This is where we get into real trouble. When, for example, a truck is caught in a traffic jam and cannot make its delivery, the ripple effect of that one delivery can be costly. It means we do not build the product on time, tying up capital. It means the product will have to be reworked, tying up man- hours, not following manufacturing quality processes. It means sending workers home early. It means not delivering to the customer on time and hurting our competitiveness all because of that one missed shipment.

Mr. PETRI. Chicago is where the railroad industry came together 150 years ago. Trains went to Chicago, and they went west from Chicago, and you can go to the center of Chicago and north, south, east, west tracks are the same grade level. They have to stop and wait for each other. I understand anyone who sees railroad cars up in my part of that area they are covered with graffiti because these trains stopped for hours or days negotiating their way through Chicago. And we understand still they take freight off one railroad, put it on trucks, drive it through Chicago to another railroad. In this age of ‘‘just in time’’ delivery and mobility, this is a significant burden on commerce,

Mr. BENNETT. You know, the story was it would take 2 days to go from Los Angeles to Chicago and 2 days through Chicago and then another 2 days to the east coast. Six of the seven major national Class I railroads come through the Chicago metropolitan area.

Ms. NORTON. And yet this is a crossroads of the United States, perhaps dramatically pointing to the need to create a stronger focus. We note that with the TIGER grants, which are probably the only lump sum we have for such intermodal projects, when freight competes with what people experience every day, which is getting in their own cars, freight sometimes loses out. So my question here goes to how do we get the focus on funding freight. When you consider, for example, that MAP–21 scratches the surface, if you will forgive the pun, of just daily transportation across the roads, of course freight uses that, too, but do you think, for example, that there should be a separate set-aside for freight? Do you think there should be a freight-only fund?

Ms. ALT. I do not think the consumers would accept an increase for freight because they do not appreciate the fact that it is the freight that brings them everything that they have every day.

Mr. MAIER. If you look at our business today, the fundamental change that is occurring is e-commerce, which means that, you know, 10 or 15 years ago packages went primarily to businesses. You know, with the growth of the World Wide Web and shopping online, more and more of our packages are going to people’s homes. And to be frank, I mean, that has changed the business. Package weights have come down, for instance, as shipments that used to be destined to a manufacturing facility or a distributor or to a retail store, those packages are now becoming smaller because they are going directly to somebody’s home. And in our business, our volume, and this would be LTL and certainly parcel express or ground, our business goes to where people are. So you have to look at population centers.

FedEx Ground is headquartered just outside of Pittsburgh. Last fall the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation imposed weight limits on approximately 1,000 bridges in the State. Now, they did that to slow deterioration and extend the operational life of the bridges pending the approval of transportation funding legislation that was subsequently signed last November. This requires transportation companies like ours to take alternate routes to go around those bridges and adds time and cost. We burn more fuel. We create more carbon emission. I mean, it requires us to engineer our network differently based on those changes, and that creates, you know, costs that we have to figure out how to cover somehow.

There are only 11 States in the country that allow the use of 33 footers within the border. We need Congress to change the policy so that we can use them nationwide.

Ms. ALT. Yes. So the Federal excise tax is 12 percent of the purchase price of the vehicle. Taking natural gas aside for a second, since 2010 the cost of the typical truck has gone up from an average of around $100,000 to $125,000.  And you add 12 percent to the purchase price, and the $25,000 increase has come from emission reduction control systems. So we have cleaner trucks. They are the cleanest they ever have been, and that is a great thing, but they cost a whole lot more to produce. So in the last 4 years, Federal excise tax went from $12,000 on a $100,000 truck to now another $3,000 more just to meet emissions. So the Federal excise tax already has been dramatically increased because the purchase price of the trucks has gone up so dramatically because of emissions. When we sell a truck with natural gas, primarily because the fuel tanks themselves are very expensive, you are now getting to sometimes as close to $200,000 for the cost of a truck, and regardless of a cleaner truck or a lower emission truck, you are paying 12 percent on the purchase price of that truck. So it is hard for the buyer to actually have to pay that extra tax. So they are being burdened.

Ms. HAHN. cargo leaves Los Angeles and takes maybe 48 hours to get to Chicago and then another 30 hours to get through Chicago. What do you think are some proposals out there? What are the best proposals we have out there for that last mile before it leaves or meets its destination of our cargo? And what can we do to really ease congestion, which in my mind will certainly help you on your own time deliveries? It also reduces pollution. We know that when trucks line up for that last hour queue getting in and out of ports, that is sometimes the worst pollution in those neighboring communities.  What is a proposal out there or a recommendation that we could make to ease congestion in the last mile?

Ms. ALT. We have electric trucks, but the big, heavy ones we would not be able to haul any load because we would have 50,000 pounds of batteries unfortunately.

Mr. BENNETT. grade crossings are very expensive, around $50 million per grade crossing,

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. People cannot afford $125,000 with the new equipment for environmental purposes. So they buy used ones and so we continue to pollute.

Mr. BARLETTA. I understand completely the impact that freight has on our local roads. And my question to you would be: how can we better assist the States as they support these critical roads and bridges, especially in light of Mr. Maier’s observation that the volume of freight moving by truck is expected to more than double by 2035? And then putting hard hat and mayor’s hat back on, being in a construction industry, I also know the difference between an interstate highway and a local road. I know there is up to 12 inches of concrete on an interstate, and I also know there is only a few inches of asphalt on the local road. My question to Mayor Bennett is: can you discuss the impact of freight on the first and last mile? And how do localities bear this burden?

Mr. BENNETT. It is obviously a lot of money, and as far as the situation in our community, and I think it was mentioned in California also, is that the last mile literally is most of these grade separations need to be fixed around the intermodal system of trains and freight or transport of freight from those trains to the highways, and it is in and around those rail yards. So it is all tied together. The cost of doing that for a local community is unbearable. It is a $50 million cost. It is not so much the roadway itself. It is the overpass or underpass that costs the huge amounts of money for the local government.

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Thank you. The first and last mile connections are critical and vital to have an effective network, and one of the things we have had happen in our State is we have become a leader in the production of frack sand for hydraulic fracturing, and we are sort of a hub for it in the western part of the State. And one of the things we have found as we have looked at the increasing demand for the transportation of frack sand both by rail and on the highway system is that we do not really have a big problem on our system, but when you get off of the State system and you get close to these facilities, then there can be problems.

 

 

Posted in Trucks, U.S. Congress Transportation | Tagged , , | Comments Off on U.S. House looks at how to improve the nation’s highway freight network

Water as a geopolitical threat. U.S. House of Representatives

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is water-wars.jpg

Preface. Water scarcity is causing unrest and could led to war in Asia and the Middle East.

There’s a website that keeps track of conflicts over water going back for 3,000 years here — 655 of them.   The prevalence of conflict is increasing, from 2010 through 2018 there were 279 fights over water, 45% of all water conflicts in history.

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report

***

House 113-127. January 16, 2014. Water as a geopolitical threat. U.S. House of Representatives,

EXCERPTS:

DANA ROHRABACHER, CALIFORNIA.  We examine the topic of water as a strategic resource and its potential use as a threat.

Those of us who have lived around water our whole lives may be unaware of how water may be manipulated maliciously for both material gain and for political coercion. Although in our country’s history, I think it is very clear that there were water wars and people in conflict or people in great accomplishments of people working together, that our country’s history is filled with focusing on the issue of water.

Our witnesses today made clear such conduct is routine when it comes to countries like Communist China that routine conduct is manipulation of water for power’s sake. As our witness today, Gordon Chang will explain, China’s illegal occupation of Tibet puts it in control of the roof of the world and thus, the headwaters that service half the world’s population. We could be confident that resulting water disputes would be handled responsibly and reasonably, perhaps solved in international forums or in agreements like many other countries do, if that is we could be confident in that if China were a country that wasn’t the world’s worst human rights (1) abuser that has had no political reform whatsoever in these last 20 years when we have seen such incredible reform in other and former communist countries. Our Congressional Research Service testimony makes clear that most of these matters in terms of water are resolved through negotiations and peaceably and I might say remarkably these issues are solved by people acting responsibly and providing leadership and reaching out to people and to find solutions. Some of the 300 agreements over the last 70 years have unfolded in that way. Today, a warning alarm is sounding about China’s control of such water resources because we have seen that China, even in the last few months, is not so reasonable when it is making its territorial claims. China isn’t the only flash point for the water issue, however, and water controversies are nothing new.

Water is a volatile issue in the Middle East today, for example, but if you read the history, water played a very significant role in creating the environment that led to the Six Day War back in 1967. Basically, that conflict began when the Syrian Government decided to dam up waters that were flowing into Israel followed by an Israeli air attack which destroyed those dams. Then Egypt and other Arab neighbors were called into the conflict and it almost led to a superpower confrontation which would have been a disaster for the whole planet. And that all began with what, a water controversy over how much water was going to be flowing into Israel and the attempt by Syria to dam up that water. Today, there are heartening signs, however,

The situation involving the basin countries in the Nile River, for example, deserves watching and we need to look at this very closely because the Nile, of course, flows through ten different countries and Egypt is one of the final ones and basically Egypt views the Nile as its primary national security and economic lifeline. So with so many countries upstream, that is an area we have got to look and try to work with these powers to make sure that there are again efforts made for cooperation, rather than confrontation. This subcommittee held a hearing in July of last year on the dam controversy between Tajikistan and Uzebekistan and that was a controversy that is now at the high level international conference of water cooperation which opened up in August. The Uzbeks are arguing that the proposed Rogun Dam in Tajikistan would cost them some $600 million a year. Since this issue has not been resolved, we will continue to monitor it closely.

I have studied the history of water between California and the other border states and Mexico. And I think we have played pretty hardball with the Mexicans on this. And I think there have been very legitimate complaints on the part of Mexico in the past that the United States was not operating with them with the same type of sincerity and the same type of respect that we should have been doing to a country that is our neighbor that we wanted to maintain a peaceful relationship with.

According to the State Department, nearly 800 million people around the world do not have access to clean water. More than 1.5 billion still lack access to improved sanitation facilities. Each year, more than 4 billion cases of diarrhea caused 2.2 million deaths. Most are in children under the age of 5. In addition to the lives lost, the total economic losses associated with inadequate clean water supply and sanitation is estimated at more than $250 billion annually. The scarcity of clean water and sanitation disproportionately affects women and children. In many countries, women and young girls bear responsibility for meeting the water needs of the entire family. Collecting water can consume up to 5 hours a day, time that could be spent in school or improving their families’ livelihoods.

Mr. BLUMENAUER.  What we are seeing in Syria today, the experts tell us, is in no small measure a result of sustained drought that drove almost 1 million farmers to migrate to urban areas, hungry, jobless, and was a flash point for that initial protest against the regime as Assad had no interest or ability to deal with it.

Over the next 20 years, we are going to see more urban instability due to population increase, disease, poverty, and social unrest. We have been working with the United States and international partners making some progress, but we risk reversing that progress that we have made due to the explosive population growth that is going to occur in sprawling urban slums which is difficult and expensive to provide sanitation, quickly leading to pollution and disease.

JEREMY M. SHARP, SPECIALIST IN MIDDLE EASTERN AFFAIRS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENSE, AND TRADE DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

I will provide an overview of the so-called Red-Dead Canal and its potential implications for U.S. policy. To the surprise of many outside observers, just over a month ago, the World Bank Headquarters here in Washington, Israeli, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon, and the Palestinian Authority signed a tri-lateral Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU. This MOU outlines a series of water-sharing agreements which includes the initial phase construction of what has been informally referred to as the Red-Dead Canal. The Red-Dead Canal is a decades-old plan to provide fresh water to water-scarce countries in the surrounding area while simultaneously restoring the Dead Sea, which has been shrinking at an alarming rate. The original Red-Dead concept was to pump water from the Red Sea and desalinate it for use by the participating countries. The leftover brine would then be gradually channeled to the Dead Sea, helping restore the sea’s receding water levels. Regional environmentalists have long criticized plans to restore the Dead Sea using Red Sea water. They warn that the transfusion of water from the Red Sea into the Dead Sea could have serious ecological consequences that would negatively impact both Dead Sea tourism and industry. In 2005, the World Bank sponsored what became an 8-year-long feasibility study of the Red-Dead Canal concept. Almost a year ago to the day, various media outlets reported that construction firms involved in the feasibility study had declared that the project was technically feasible, although it would come with a steep price tag, costing at least $10 billion and take years to construct. The Kingdom of Jordan has vigorously pursued the Red-Dead Canal concept. Jordan is one of the most water-deprived countries in the world and is constantly searching for new water resources. The civil war in neighboring Syria is exacerbating Jordan’s water crisis as over 1/2 million Syrian refugees have fled to Jordan increasing the population by 9 percent within just 2 years. In August 2013, the Jordanian Government announced its intent to construct a scaled-down version of the canal entirely on Jordanian territory. In terms of scale and cost what the Jordanians have announced and agreed on with Israel and the Palestinian Authority is far less ambitious than the initial Red-Dead concept. Estimates suggest that construction of the desalinization plan and pipeline under the new MOU may cost between $450 million to $1 billion. However, it is unclear who will pay for the new project.

For Jordan, the MOU could be considered a major diplomatic achievement. Though the current plan is a scaled-down version of the original concept, the Kingdom will receive additional fresh water resources at a time of heightened scarcity, owing to the Syrian civil war. Nevertheless, as the title of this hearing suggests, security and political challenges remain. Arab cooperative infrastructure projects with Israel could be possible targets for extremist violence as has been the case in Egypt, where gas pipelines traversing the Sinai peninsula to Israel and Jordan have been repeatedly sabotaged by terrorists.

Regional environmentalists have long criticized plans to restore the Dead Sea using Red Sea water. They warn that the transfusion of water from the Red Sea into the Dead Sea could have serious ecological consequences, including large scale growth or algae and formation or gypsum that would negatively impact both Dead Sea tourism and industry. Some of these environmentalists propose instead that countries should stop diverting water from the Jordan River, which feeds into the Dead Sea.

There are also risks associated with doing nothing, such as potential instability in a water-deprived Jordan. If living conditions in Jordan deteriorated further, one could argue that tile stability of a dependable Arab partner for tile United States and a reliable peace partner for Israel would be jeopardized. Over the past few years. rural southern Jordan has witnessed repeated protests coming from within tribal communities that serve as the bedrock of the monarchy. These areas require economic development if they are to remain stable.

MAURA MOYNIHAN, AUTHOR & ACTIVIST

Below is the text from her slides: CLIMATE CHANGE IN TIBET ASIA’S RIVERS AT RISK Maura Moynihan

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA14/20140116/101658/HHRG-113-FA14-Wstate-MoynihanM-20140116.pdf

The Tibetan Plateau is a unique geomorphic entity, its 46,000 glaciers comprise the Earth’s third largest ice mass. This “Third Pole” is a vital component of the planet’s ecosystem, filled with minerals, timber and above all, water; Tibet is the fount of the Yangtze, Yellow, Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Chenab, Sutlej, Salween and Mekong, which flow through 11 nations, nourishing three billion people from Peshawar to Beijing. The preservation and management of Tibet’s glaciers and the rivers they sustain is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity in the 21st century. Tibet’s waters flow through eleven countries, where population growth and industrial development is projected to double within 50 years. The combined effects of rapid development, desertification and water scarcity has already created extreme cycles of droughts and floods, food shortages and pandemics.

SHRINKING GLACIERS, DEPLETED AQUIFERS

  • In 2009 the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change reported that the glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau, the source of fresh water for a fifth of the world’s population, are receding at an alarming rate. Temperatures in Tibetan are rising 7 times as faster than in China. Scientists predict that most Tibetan glaciers could vanish by 2035 if present levels of carbon gas emissions are not reduced. Carbon emissions must be cut by 80% by 2030 to preserve the glaciers, of Tibet, the source of water for, China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos.
  • Asia is now facing a shrinkage of river-based irrigation water supplies, which will disrupts grain and rice harvests. Overpumping is swiftly depleting underground water resources in India and China. Water tables are rapidly falling in the North China Plain, East Asia’s principal grain producing region. In India, wells are going dry in almost every state.
  • The United States international climate negotiator Todd Stern stated “the science is clear, and the threat is real. The facts on the ground are outstripping the worst case scenarios. The costs of inaction-or inadequate actions-are unacceptable.”

Industrial Development in an Age of Scarcity

70% of the world’s irrigated farmland is in Asia. China and India, the world’s most populous nations and largest grain producers, have millions of new irrigation projects that are rapidly depleting aquifers. Satellite images released in August 2009 by the National Aerospace and Space Administration (NASA) of the United States show massive depletion of groundwater storage in Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana during the 2002-2008. Indian government data shows that major reservoirs have shrunk by 70% since 2000. Deglaciation on the Tibetan Plateau, combined with depletion of underground water resources, could create “permanent famine conditions”, as described by the environmental scientist Lester Brown in his 1995 Worldwatch Institute report “Who Will Feed China?” China’s growth has pushed rivers system to a dangerous tipping point. Two thirds of all cites in China are short of water, agricultural runoff from chemical fertilizers, industrial effluent and urban waste have poisoned reservoirs. China’s Environmental Protection Administration reports that that environmental protests are rising by 50% a year. Since 1949, two-thirds of the Yangtze Valley lakes have disappeared, today the total surface area of lakes in the middle and lower Yangtze Valley has shrunk from 18,000 square kilometers to 7,000 in 50 years.

Today, all but one Asia’s major rivers – the Ganges – are controlled at their sources by the Chinese Communist Party

  • In a mere quarter century the People’s Republic of China has risen from poverty and isolation into the 21st century’s emergent superpower. China’s rise as an industrial and military super power has dramatically altered the global balance of power in the quest for what remains of the planet’s resources. The Chinese government dismisses concerns of its own scientists and those of neighboring states, alarmed by a sudden decline in water levels and fish stocks, caused by hydro dams. China has increased militarization of the Tibetan Plateau and strictly controls journalists, scientists and international observers who seek to research conditions in Tibet.
  • Few international agreements exist for sharing data and coordinating usage of these rivers. As developing nations manage water supplies as economic commodities in an age of scarcity, water rights and laws must be reappraised in the context of the climate crisis. The effects of receding glaciers and rivers choked by hydro dams will be felt well beyond the borders of the Tibetan Plateau, with profound impacts over a wide area in Asia and great risks of increased poverty, reduced trade and economic turmoil. In the 1990’s China refused to sign the UN treaty on transboundary rivers.
  • Since Chairman Mao invaded Tibet in 1951, China has administered a huge military infrastructure across the Tibetan Plateau, which gives China a continuous border with Thailand, Burma, Bhutan, India, Nepal and Pakistan, and is now filled with military airfields and PLA battalions. In the coming age of “water wars”, China has a firm hand on the water tower of Asia.

THE THREE PHASES of the CHINESE COMMUNIST OCCUPATION of TIBET

PHASE 1: 1950’s – 1960’s: MILITARY INVASION

From 1951-56, Khampa Warriors fight back against Chinese aggression. THE PLA sends reinforcements, thousands of survivors from Kham and Amdo are driven into Utsang. In 1957 HHDL and Panchen Rinpoche go to Varanasi for Buddha Jayanti: HHDL asks Nehru for refuge to expose Chinese atrocities in Tibet. Cho EnLai tells Nehru to send HHDL back to Tibet. Two years later, the Chushi Gandruk delivers HHDL to Indian custody. Nehru’s Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai policy, which gave China control of Tibet, becomes one of the great blunders of the 20th century. 1959; HHDL escapes to India. PLA troops slaughter Tibetan civilians and commence looting and razing of over 6,000 monasteries. The PLA advances to the borders of India, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal and Ladhak.

  • In 1962 China invades India from the Tibetan Plateau and occupies large swaths of Indian territory, India is defeated, China commences its military consolidation the plateau, unhindered.
  • 1963: Tibet is sealed behind the Bamboo Curtain and caught in the catastrophe of the Great Leap Forward, wherein 60-80 million people die under Mao’s adoption of the Soviet model of collectivized farming. 1.2 Tibetans, likely more, are killed through armed conflict and famine. NO news of conditions inside China Tibet reaches international governments or media. US launches the Vietnam War to contain Chinese expansionism, while millions in China are starving to death.
  • Chinese Military Engineers build roads across and install military bases and armed encampments across the Tibetan Plateau. Millions of acres of virgin forest is clear-cut and shipped to the mainland

CHINA IN TIBET: Phase 2: 1970-1980’s: The DEATH of MAO and the rise of DENG

  • ORPHANS OF THE COLD WAR: The Tibetan people are imprisoned behind the Bamboo Curtain throughout the Cultural Revolution, which is extremely vicious in Tibet.
  • 1976 Mao Zedong dies. 1981 Deng Xiaoping comes to power. Deng launches the policy of “Reform and Opening Up”. China builds the Friendship Highway linking Lhasa and Kathmandu.
  • 1980; Yu Habong visits Tibet and writes his famous White Paper condemning China’s treatment of the Tibetan people. The Deng regime relaxes restrictions on Tibetan religion and culture. In 1981, China issues the first tourist visas to Tibet for western travelers.
  • MILITARY ROADS built by the PLA across Tibet in Phase 1 of the occupation, allow massive population transfer of Han Chinese onto the Tibetan Plateau.
  • The roads also facilitate a 2nd exodus of refugees to escape from Tibet: since the 1980’s over 20,000 people have escaped from Tibet.
  • 1987: Anti-Chinese demonstrations break out in Lhasa. For the first time since the Chinese invasion, tourists capture images of extreme military repression.
  • These images reach the international press; China’s Tibet is at last EXPOSED – and CHINA DECLARES MARTIAL LAW

CHINA IN TIBET: Phase 3: 1990’s 2000’s MINES, DAMS and WAR GAMES

  • 1988-1989; MORE demonstrations in Lhasa are captured by tourist cameras. China starts restricting western tourists by periodically banning western tourists.
  • 1989: The Berlin Wall goes down, but the Tiananmen Square Massacre follows: The death of Hu Yabong summons millions of Chinese mourners into the streets of Beijing. Gorbachev arrives in Beijing, students from Beijing University launch a hunger strike in support of democratic reforms in China’s government. After a month-long stand-off, Deng orders PLA troops into the square to crush the protestors. Thousands of unarmed Chinese citizens are slaughtered.
  • In response to the Tiananmen Square Massacre, HH Dalai Lama is awarded the 1989 Noble Peace Prize. The true history of the China’s rape and pillage of Tibet is exposed. BUT as HHDLs’ start rises, China cracks down harder on the people of Tibet.
  • 1995 : Despite pressure from the US congress and rights groups, US President Bill Clinton grants China MFN: Most Favored Nation Trading Status, removing all trade sanctions imposed on the PRC after The Tiananmen Square Massacre. China implements the Strike Hard” Policy: banning all images of HH Dalai Lama, enforcing Communist Re-education at monasteries, aggressive suppression of Tibetan ethnic identity.

CHINA IN TIBET: Phase 3: 1990’s 2000’s Mines, Dams and War Games continued…

2000: China is granted entry into the World Trade Organization and launches XI BU DAI FA: ”The Opening Up of the Western Regions” a vast industrial development plan, to exploit and extract Tibet’s vast natural resources, facilitated by rail and roadway expansion.

2001: 9/11 strikes New York City. China fades from international attention and scrutiny, and accelerates exploitation of Tibet’s natural resources. Chinese engineers launch construction of huge mining operations and hydro dams on Tibet’s rivers, which flow into South and Southeast Asia.

2006: The Qinghai–Xizang railway OPENS in LHASA, bringing millions of tourists into Tibet. The railroad also facilitates the transport of minerals, stone and lumber from Tibet, and brings over 250,000 Chinese engineers into Tibet.

2010: China announces that it has built 6 military airfields in Utsang, and debuts a new fleet of drone aircraft, with technology the US claims has been stolen by Chinese spies. A 2012 US Dept. of Defense report to Congress on China’s military capabilities notes Beijing’s push to develop longer-range unmanned aircraft, including armed drones, “expands China’s options for long-range reconnaissance and strike.”

In 2000 China launched a vast development project entitled “Xi bu dai fa”, the “Opening and development of the Western Regions” of Xinjiang and Tibet, which together comprise half of China’s land mass.

POPULATION TRANSFER: A massive influx of Chinese settlers, urbanization and forced relocation of nomads swiftly followed. The Xizang railway, which opened in 2006, transports Tibet’s vast supplies of minerals, stone and lumber to the mainland and brings in a flood of Chinese engineers and laborers who have built at least 160 hydro dams across Tibet and have plans for hundreds more.

The Chinese government is aggressively re-settling Tibetan nomads and pastoralists into concrete housing complexes. Xinhua, the Chinese state run media, claims the resettlement is necessary to protect the source area of key Chinese rivers in north-west China’s Qinghai province. Dr. Andreas Schild, the Director General of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development said; “Mountains without mountain people will be not sustainable.”

MINES and DAMS: Chinese engineers now operate multiple dams and mines all across Tibet, polluting the rivers at their source – you can find images on Google Earth and on Michael Buckley’s comprehensive website www.meltdownintibet.com The Chinese mainland is also imperiled: in April 2013, Yangtze River water flows were at their lowest level in record. Dams and industrial waste have caused the Yellow River to dry up before it reaches the sea. Large swaths of northern China have had no snow or rain since 2008. Nearly half of China’s wheat crop, covering of 9.5 million hectares, was afflicted by drought. In 2008 China’s State Council admitted: “ By 2030, China will have exploited all its available water supplies to the limit”.

To date, at least 131 people inside Tibet have self-immolated to protest of Chinese Communist assaults on Tibetan religion and culture and the desecration of Tibet’s ancestral lands. There is another potent source of this explosion of Tibetan outrage, which receives negligible international coverage; the covert history of China’s rape and pillage of Tibet’s ancestral lands and waters. The elemental facts about Tibet’s size, wealth of natural resources, and its strategic location on the Eurasian Continent, are not widely understood, but satellite images, maps and environmental studies of the Tibetan Plateau reveal the enormous resource and strategic advantage gained by its capture. and explains why China refuses to enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama, or share information with the nations of South and Southeast Asia about the exploitation of Tibet’s lands and waters. CHINA’S OCCUPATION of TIBET has created a looming environmental catastrophe for the nations of South and Southeast Asia, but China refuses to discuss its development plans with neighboring states.

TIME MAGAZINE states that despite the wave of self-immolations in Tibet is the “Most under-reported story of 2013

CHINA’S ATTACKS on the DALAI LAMA SUBVERT DISCUSSION of the EXPLOITATION of TIBET’S RESOUCRES

China has succeeded in its mission to isolate and discredit the Dalai Lama by punishing heads of state who meet with the Tibetan leader and threatening any institution that invites him to speak, thereby stifling any discussion of China’s oppressive and destructive governance of Tibet. A study from the University of Gottingen in Germany of countries whose top leadership met with the Dalai Lama, showed that they incurred an average 8.1 percent loss in exports to China in the two years following the meeting. Called the “Dalai Lama Effect,” the found the negative impact on exports began when Hu Jintao took office in 2002. China’s obsessive demonization of the Dalai Lama, the distinguished Nobel Peace Prize Laureate who has lived in exile in India since 1959, has succeeded in subverting all rational and increasingly urgent discussion of China’s exploitation of Tibet’s resources, and how Chinese mining and hydro dams projects across Tibet have created a looming environmental catastrophe in Asia, the world’s most populous continent. Despite irrefutable evidence of the dangers of over-exploiting Tibet’s water resources, the Chinese government will not modify or downscale plans for dams, tunnels, railroads and highways across the Tibetan plateau. Of all the countries which depend of Tibet’s waters, the People’s Republic of China alone, can finance any project it chooses without recourse to international lenders.

TIBET IS A WAR ZONE

In 2012, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie stated: “In the coming five years, our military will push forward preparations for military conflict in every strategic direction…We may be living in peaceful times, but we can never forget war, never send the horses south or put the bayonets and guns away.” In 2009, computer analyst Greg Walton examined computers in the Dalai Lama’s Private Office in Dharamshala and uncovered “Ghost Net”, a massive Chinese cyberespionage hacking system which penetrated 103 countries, as far as the personal laptop of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Sec. of Defense Robert Gates stated that “Chinese cyber espionage intrusions into US defense networks is nothing less than an act of war”. Tourists who have visited Tibet provide witness: A physician from Boston who went to Tibet in Nov. 2013, observed; “The Tibetan people appeared totally dominated by a chilling degree of militarization and repression. I did not see any ways or means by which the Tibetans could fight back against such overwhelming force. I could see people wanted to talk to me but were too afraid…I have never seen such a ruthless, cruel and effective police state in my life.”

The Chinese Communist leadership is facing a crisis of legitimacy, at home and abroad

  • The Chinese economy is in decline. For decades CCP propaganda has been highly effective in promoting China as the new military and economic super power of the 21st century, but financial analysts are concerned about bad debt, a real estate bubble and declining exports.
  • There are violent uprisings in China EVERY DAY: in 2010 over 100,000 “incidents” occurred. The CCP propaganda machine is weakening. Chinese netizens are subverting Xinhua and censorship: images of police brutality are now widely circulated.
  • China’s “Peaceful Rise” is now seen as a threat to global stability. China has installed a formidable military-industrial infrastructure across the high ground of the Tibetan Plateau, with military roads, airfields, army bases, dams, mines bordering Burma, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Pakistan. At the ASEAN Conference in Bali in Nov. 2011, representatives from Vietnam and Cambodia vehemently criticized Chinese aggression in Southeast Asia and asked for American protection from the “Chinese Threat.”
  • In 2013 Chinese Troops made over 200 incursions into Indian territory from TIBET. Chinese soldiers planted the Chinese flag in three regions of Bhutan that border Tibet, and are now claiming sovereignty over “Southern Tibet”, all Tibetan cultural zones in India, Nepal and Bhutan.

THE PRICE OF APPEASEMENT For six decades the People’s Republic of China has raped and pillaged Tibet without impediment or penalty But the world will pay a high price for IGNORING the Chinese Communist occupation of Tibet….So goes the old saying:

HE WHO CONTROLS TIBET CONTROLS THE WORLD

Moynihan testimony at the house session

This is a NASA astronaut photograph of Tibet. One great success of Chinese propaganda is to persuade the world that Tibet is insignificant, that it is a lot smaller than it is, but it wasn’t until the 20th century, the era of armed warfare, airplane, and the tank that Tibet could be conquered. Even Ghengis Khan failed. So here is another NASA astronaut photograph of the Tibetan Plateau which is considered the third pole. It is the third largest ice mass concentration on planet Earth after the North and the South Pole. And in Asian folklore, it is known as the western treasure house because it is also one of the world’s largest suppliers of minerals. Next slide. This is a 1920s British map of independent Tibet and as you can see in the insert just how large the Tibetan Plateau is. Tibetan Plateau is a unique geomorphic entity with 46,000 glaciers comprising the world’s third largest ice mass, but what is significant about this in the age of water scarcity is that it is the source of the great rivers of Asia, the Yangtze, the Yellow, the Indus, the Ganges, the Brahmaputra, the Chenab, the Sutleg, the Salween, and the Mekong which flow through 11 nations, nourishing 3 billion people from Peshawar to Beijing. They all rise in Tibet. And the preservation and the management of Tibet’s glaciers and the rivers they sustain is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity in the 21st century because Asia is the most populist nation and industrial development and population growth is projected to double within the next 50 years. The combined effects of rapid development, decertification, and water scarcity has already create cycles of droughts and flood, food shortages and pandemics. But what is China doing about this? Shrinking glaciers, depleting aquifers. I am going to skip over some of this in the interest of

Asia is now facing a very serious water crisis.

Today, all of Asia’s rivers except one, the Ganges, are controlled at their sources by the Chinese Communist party. There are very few international agreements that exist for sharing data and coordinating usage of these rivers. As developing nations manage water supplies as an economic commodity in the age of scarcity, water rights and laws must be appraises. However, China has refused to engage in any negotiations with the downstream riparian nations on the use of Tibet’s waters. Here is a map which shows where the major rivers come from. There is four that come from eastern Tibet and four that come from western Tibet from Mount Kailash. Again, the Ganges originates just a few kilometers outside of control of the Chinese Communist Party. Now, most maps will only show U-Tsang Province which is in yellow as being Tibet, but in the 1950s and into the early 1960s, the Chinese partitioned Tibet as it moved from east to west. Amdo Province, Kham Province have all been partitioned into Quinghai, into Ganze, into all these other provinces, but this is historical Tibet, so you can see how large it is. It comprises almost one third of Communist China’s land mass. As you can see, this is another important map. It shows China’s grip on Asia and the occupation of Tibet gives China an enormous strategic and resource advantage. This is a map I got next from a Japanese Web site which—next slide, which shows the major ethnic regions. And of course, China learned a lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union which my father predicted would happen through the forces of ethnicity. China is, in fact, a multi-ethnic state. The one star of the Han and the four stars of the other groups declares that it is a multi-ethnic state. And as you can see in yellow that is East Turkestan, the Uighur people; Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Manchuria. So there is potential for ethnic conflict also again over exploitation of resources. There are the three main faces of the Chinese Communist occupation of Tibet. Phase 1, 1960s, military invasion. And that is when the deforestation, especially of eastern Tibet began. Millions upon millions of acres of first-growth forest were destroyed at this time which had for many centuries functioned also as a barrier to prevent flooding into Southeast Asia and Southwest China. Phase 2, the death of Mao, the rise of Deng and these are details you can go into later when you have more time.

Now we are into Phase 3 which is mines, dams, and war games. In Phase 2, a lot of military roads were built across Tibet. I have traveled over Tibet several times. As my friend and colleague, Paul Berkowitz said, it is very, very remote and you can see that there is no one to stop the Chinese. There will be no NATO. There will no NATO troops. There will be no U.N. peacekeeping forces. They control the roof of the world. And now because of the population transfer of Han Chinese onto the Tibetan Plateau, and the military infrastructure that they installed, they have been able to now in Phase 3 build thousands upon thousands of hydro-electric dams and mines and military airstrips and military garrisons. In 2000, China launched a vast development project called Xi Bu Dai Fa, opening a development of the western regions of Xizang and Tibet which together comprise half of Communist China’s land mass.

Here is a hydro dam on the Sengye Kabab which means mouth of the lion. Before these were Chinese rivers, Indian rivers, they were Tibetan rivers and there is an enormous body of folklore and mythology associated with all these rivers. Sengye Kabab means mouth of the lion. This is the Indus which flows through India and Pakistan. This is one of the many, many—okay, this is one of the most serious sources of conflict between Communist China and democratic India which is diverting the Yarlung Tsangpo, a Tibetan name, which is the Brahmaputra in the north south water transfer program. The Chinese are building a tunnel to divert the waters of the Brahmaputra to northern China which has been suffering from extreme drought conditions for many, many years.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could you please repeat where you said the water is being diverted from where to where?

Ms. MOYNIHAN. From the bend in the Brahmaputra as it flows down into northern India and into Bangladesh.  Here is a dam on the Mekong. There are over seven hydro-electric dams on the Mekong which is the main source of fresh water for all of Southeast Asia.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is that actually affecting the amount of water that flows into Southeast Asia then?

Ms. MOYNIHAN. Absolutely. Water flows on the Mekong are said to be down 40 to 50 percent and fish stocks have also declined dramatically. And I met with several Thai senators who were flown by the Chinese Government to northern Tibet to look at the dam projects of which they are very proud and the Thai senators——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And that water is going to be used in China?  The water then, rather than flowing into the Mekong which is a very wide river, now you say the water is being diverted from there to and it is staying in China then?

Ms. MOYNIHAN. Yes. It is being used to create reservoirs that mostly serve southern Tibet and southwestern China and to create hydro-electric. This is a very important map created by my friend, Michael Buckley, whose Web site meltdown in Tibet, I encourage everybody to visit. This shows some of the hydro dams on the Drichu, the Zachu, and the Gyalmo Ngulchu which are the Mekong, the Salween and the Yangtze. Just look how many hydro-electric dams. There are dams that are 10 to 15 feet high and the tallest dam in the world is on the Mekong. The widest dam is at Three Gorges on the Yangtze. But you can ese this is creating a looming environmental crisis in all of South and Southeast Asia. Next slide. China has over 300,000 dams. It is the world’s number one dam builder. You can see most of the concentration of dams are in Tibet, the four rivers of eastern Tibet. Tibet was always called in the nation’s folklore the western treasure house because of the mineral, oil, gas, and salt deposits. Again, you can study these maps in detail. Another important issue is the decline of permafrost in Tibet which will release methane gas and the shrinking glaciers are also of tremendous concern. If we go to the next, there is the map of the melting permafrost. Next slide. This is a glacial lake created near the Rongbuk glacier on the northern side of Mount Everest in Chinese-occupied Tibet. In the last 90 years, the glacier’s tail has lost 90 vertical meters in depth.

Why is this one of the most under reported stories in the world? China spends so much time attacking the Dalai Lama, the distinguished Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has lived for almost 55 years in exile in India. What has this done? It confused diplomats, but it subverts all discussions of the exploitation of Tibet’s resources. My dad always said the Chinese have a perverse obsession with the Dalai Lama, but it works because it diverts everyone’s attention to this strange obsession they have and we are not talking about what is going on in Tibet—next slide, please—because Tibet is a war zone. In 2012, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie said, ‘‘In the coming 5 years, our military will push forward with preparations for military conflict in every strategic direction. We may be living in peaceful times, but we can never forget war, never send the horses south or put the bayonets and guns away.’’

The Chinese are not about to engage in any negotiation, which you see are possible in the Middle East and other conflict zones, about the use of Tibet’s waters. There is a map next of China’s military investment and expansion. Tibet is also a strategic launching pad for drones. The Chinese have stolen drone technology from American firms and an American State Department official went to an air show in southern China and was alarmed to see all these drones. And they have installed many of these drones in six new military airports they have built in southern Tibet. They can reach India. They can reach New Delhi in 20 minutes.

What is the price of appeasement? For six decades the People’s Republic of China has raped and pillaged Tibet without impediment or penalty, but the world will pay a high price for ignoring the Chinese Communist occupation of Tibet. Ghengis Khan is said to have uttered the famous phrase, ‘‘He who controls Tibet, controls the world.’’

In 2009 the United Nat ions Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change reported that the glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau, the source of fresh water for a fifth of the world’s population, are receding at an a alarming rate. Temperatures in Tibetan are rising 7 times as faster than in China. Scientists predict that most Tibetan glaciers could vanish by 2035 if present levels of carbon gas emissions are not reduced. Carbon emissions must be cut by 80% by 2030 to preserve the glaciers, of Tibet, the source of water for, China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos.

Asia is now facing a shrinkage of river-based irrigation water sup lies, which will disrupts grain and rice harvests. Overpumping is swiftly depleting underground water resources in India and China. Water tables are rapidly falling in the North China Plain, East Asia’s principal grain producing region. In India, we ll s are going dry in almost every state.

70% of the world’s irrigated farmland is in Asia. China and India, the world’s most populous nation s and largest grain producers, have millions of new irrigation projects that are rapidly depleting aquifers.

Satellite images released in August 2009 by the National Aerospace and Space Administration (NASA) of the United States show massive dep let ion of groundwater storage in Rajasthan , Punjab and Haryana during the 2002-2008. Indian government data shows that major reservoirs have shrunk by 70% since 2000.

Deglaciation on the Tibetan Plateau, combined with depletion of underground water resources, could create ” permanent famine conditions”, as described by the environmental scientist Lester Brown in his 1995 Worldwatch Institute report ” Who Will Feed China?”

China’s growth has pushed rivers system to a dangerous tipping point. Two thirds of all cities in China are short of water, agricultural runoff from chemical fertilizers, industrial effluent and urban waste have poisoned reservoirs. China’s Environmental Protection Administration reports that that environmental protests are rising by 50% a year. Since 1949, two-thirds of the Yangtze Valley lakes have disappeared, today th e total surface area of lakes in the middle and lower Yangtze alley has shrunk from 18,000 square kilometers to 7,000 in 50 years. Today, all but one Asia’s major rivers – the Ganges – are controlled at their sources by the Chinese Communist Party In a mere quarter century the People’s Republic of China has risen from poverty and isolation into the 21st century’s emergent superpower.

Since Chainnan Mao invaded Tibet in 1951, China has administered a huge military infrastructure across the Tibetan Plateau, which gives China a continuous border with Thailand, Burma, Bhutan, India, Nepal and Pakistan, and is now filled with military airfields and PLA battalions.

Gordon G. Chang Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs

I am a writer and live in Bedminster, New Jersey worked as a lawyer in Hong Kong from 1981-1991 and Shanghai from 1996-2001. Between these two periods, 1 frequently traveled to Asia from California. 1 regularly go there now. I am the author of The Coming Collapse of China (Random House, 2001) and Nuclear Shutduwn: North Korea Takes On the World (Random House, 2006). 1 write regularly about China’s relations with its neighbors and the United States.

China’s Water Crisis The People’s Republic of China, over the course of decades, has grossly misused and mismanaged its lakes, rivers, and streams. The resulting freshwater crisis, in the words of senior Beijing leaders, even threatens the existence of the Chinese state. As Wang Shucheng, a former water minister, tells us, “To fight for every drop of water or die: that is the challenge facing China.” Beijing officials, unfortunately, act as if they believe their overblown rhetoric and are now fighting their neighbors for water. China, the world’s “hydro-hegemon,” is the source of river water to more countries than any other nation, controlling the headwater  needed by almost half of the world’s population, in Central, South, and Southeast Asia as well as Russia. The People’s Republic has 14land neighbors- 13 of them co-riparians-but is a party to no water-sharing treaties, refusing to even begin negotiations on water-sharing with other capitals. “No other country has ever managed to assume such unchallenged riparian preeminence on a continent by controlling the headwaters of multiple international rivers and manipulating their cross-border flows,” notes Brahma Chellaney in Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Glohal Water Crisis. As the noted water expert reports, the Chinese have commandeered Asia’s great rivers by completing on average one large dam a day since 1949. Until recently, those dams were located inside China’s borders. Now, however, Beijing is seeking to harness the water resources of one of its neighbors, Burma, for its own benefit. As it does so, it is encountering local resistance there, and as it encounters local resistance it is blaming the United States for its deteriorating relationships with that once pliant neighbor. The tendency of Chinese leaders to hold us responsible for their own failures can only worsen our ties with them in the years ahead.

The Myitsone Dam

In 2009, a Sino-Burmese consortium controlled by China Power Investment, a Chinese state-owned entity, began work on the Myitsone Dam, located at the headwaters of the Irrawaddy River. It will be the first dam on that vital waterway and a part of a seven-dam cascade, a $20 billion undertaking. Myitsone has been called Beijing’s attempt to export the Three Gorges Dam, and it is even more unpopular in Burma than that massive project is in China. The Burmese version has been called “a showcase” for the country’s former military government, which signed the deal with China without public consultation. Therefore, those who disliked the junta-an overwhelming majority in the country-came out against the dam. And to make matters worse for Myitsone’s Beijing backers, the project became a symbol of Chinese exploitation of Burma, which the junta renamed Myanmar. It does not help that, in a power-starved nation, 90% of the dam’s electricity will be exported to southern China. The Burmese have condemned Myitsone for other reasons as well The dam is located in Kachin State, a minority area, and the Kachins have been uniformly against it, not just the tens of thousands who have been or will be forced to move to avoid the waters. The dam will Hood historical and cultural sites, including what is considered to be the birthplace of the country.

The area that will be lost has been called one of the world’s “top biodiversity hotspots and a global conservation priority.” Downstream rice farmers expect that Myitsone will rob the river of crucial sediments. The dam is about 60 miles from a major fault line, and ifit failed, it would Hood Myikyina, the largest city in Kachin State. Says Ah Nan of Burma Rivers Network, an environmental

DAVID GOODTREE, CO–CHAIR AND FOUNDER, SYMPOSIUM ON WATER INNOVATION

I have studied China most of my life, been to China. China is a very wealthy country. It has wrapped its arms around capitalism and loves it. Still a dictatorship, a brutal country. Constantly violates human rights, has no concern for the environment. Possesses one half of the U.S. outside debt, spending money all over the world, investments we should call them, building its military at an unbelievable rate and buying gold up by the boatloads. Given all that, it is 1.3 going on 1.4 billion people, the Communist Party is still very strong and I think that in my lifetime I will not see that change. What do we do, what does the United States and its allies do to at least curtail the activities of China on a wide variety of bases? Mr. CHANG.

Ms. MOYNIHAN. Well, of course, the hydro dams do produce reservoirs and energy and in Chinese-occupied Tibet, most of that is going to industrial development. And there is one issue I wanted to mention is that China is also rapidly building mines at the source of a lot of the rivers so they are creating long-term pollution that will go downstream to the other riparian nations. And that could be a whole other hearing.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But that is very relevant, extremely relevant in the discussion of water in terms of countries that are permitting that type of pollution which then again eliminates that as a source for their neighbors and thank you for bringing that up. I think it is important.

Posted in Caused by Scarce Resources, Congressional Record U.S., Peak Water, Water | Comments Off on Water as a geopolitical threat. U.S. House of Representatives

Largest Mass Extinction caused by Mega-Eruptions in Siberia

Kerr, R.A. December 20, 2013. Mega-Eruptions Drove the Mother of Mass ExtinctionsScience  Vol. 342:1424 

[Excerpts]

After 20 years of trying, researchers have finally convicted massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia as the culprit in the greatest of all mass extinctions, one that destroyed 90% of marine species on the planet.

The key evidence came from geochronologists applying the latest dating techniques to both the basalt from the eruptions and the rock encasing fossils of creatures that went extinct about 252 million years ago.

“I’m excited by the very clean-looking dating,” says paleontologist Paul Olsen of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York. “It shows you could in fact have the Siberian eruptions cause the mass extinction.” Now, the question is which of the many possible ways that the volcanism could have wiped out species was actually at work.

Suspicion fell on the Siberian Traps—a vast volcanic landscape—more than 2 decades ago because of its enormous size and its age. In one of the greatest volcanic outbursts in Earth’s history, these eruptions carpeted a Western Europe–sized area of Siberia with several million cubic kilometers of basalt.

The best estimate for the initial eruptions is 252.28 million years, with the beginning of the extinction at 251.941 million years ago and its end at 251.880 million years ago. Uncertainties ranged from 0.031 million to 0.110 million years. That puts the volcanic and extinction events in the proper order and close enough to be cause and effect.

Now, researchers will focus on possible kill mechanisms.

Paleontologist Shuzhong Shen said one suspect should be dropped: sudden global warming caused by carbon dioxide pouring from the traps’ eruptions.

Analyses of temperature-sensitive oxygen isotopes in sediments deposited around the time of the extinction reveal a whopping 8°C to 10°C warming, but the rocks show the warming came just after the extinction, ruling out a role in the die-off.

This suggests that the extinction was “very short, only a few thousand years,” a rapidity that supports other potential kill mechanisms including acid rain from sulfur dioxide emissions.

Injecting 1.5 billion tons of volcanic sulfur dioxide into a computer model of the Permian atmosphere acidified rain across the Northern Hemisphere to pH 2, about that of lemon juice. That would have been disastrous for exposed vegetation and every animal that depended on it.

The volcanism may also have touched off toxic coal fires.

As it erupted, the magma that formed the Siberian Traps is known to have pierced coal deposits with a result of a vast, subterranean, coal-fired inferno that belched metal-bearing ash into the stratosphere, where the toxic debris sifted across the Northern Hemisphere.

Now that geochronologists have refined their dating tools, they hope to test suspicions that volcanism was at work in other mass extinctions. Dates for the huge eruptions at the opening of the Atlantic Ocean 201 million years ago and the mass extinction that cleared the way for the dinosaurs overlap, but their order is yet to be determined (Science, 21 December 2012, p. 1522). And several other possible pairings await.

Posted in Extinction | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

How burning biomass made us human

campfire-neanderthal

[ This is a book review of Wrangham’s “Catching Fire: How cooking made us human”.

Fire enabled us to have larger brains from the increased calories in cooked food, held carnivores at bay, killed bacteria, and gave us many other advantages.

But it was burning coal, oil, and natural gas that briefly allowed us to become Homo Giganticus, conquering more than half of the world’s land mass for our crops and animals, driving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of species extinct already or within the next few hundred years.  Fossil fuels exploded the human population from 1 billion to 7.5 billion people, each of us equivalent to hundreds of locusts, devouring the majority of the bounty created by solar energy to grow plants and animals.

We stand on the precipice of descent now that the peak of conventional oil, 90% of our oil supplies — over half of it from just 500 giant oil fields discovered over 50 years ago — is behind us (2005).  Within 50 years or less, those who survive will go back to the past (there’ll still be a trickle of oil, coal, and natural gas obtainable in politically stable areas that haven’t drained their reserves so much that a technologically simpler society can’t reach them.  Once again we will rely on muscle and biomass power as we always have, and always will after the extremely brief age of fossils, which some scientists propose to name the Anthropocene.  We’re more than on the way in some places: biomass is over half of Europe’s renewable power

Since agriculture was invented, the energy that came from using trees to build and burn to melt metals out of ores, ceramics, glass, bricks, steel, and other objects requiring heat.  Biomass in the past is what made civilizations rise to never-before-seen heights, and then fall after deforestation and consequent topsoil loss that drastically lowered crop production (1).

And hundreds of thousands of years before that, burning biomass enabled us to become human (2).  Our brains never could have gotten as large eating raw food all day.

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report ]

Richard Wrangham. 2009. Catching Fire: How cooking made us human.  

I’ve always loved creation myths.  How we came to be is a question all cultures ask and religions try to answer.  The Iroquois believed we were created by the Sky People. The Australian Aborigines by the Sun Mother, the African Bushmen that we emerged from the depths of the earth, and the Christian Bible believes in a God that made the universe in seven days and humans began with Adam and Eve.

It was only with the invention of science, which is basically a method of testing reality, that we have finally solved our true origin mystery of how the universe began and our own evolutionary history.  Wrangham adds to this evolving story by making the case that we couldn’t have evolved our large brains without fire.

Fire played a role in our evolution in many ways.  We could have never become the “Naked Ape” without fire, or we would have died of cold at night.

Becoming a naked ape opened a new niche. We became the best creature on earth at running long distances, and more importantly, could do this mid-day in heat that would kill furry creatures from overheating, and catch them (2).

Fire also kept dangerous animals at bay, killed bacteria so they didn’t sicken or kill us, made otherwise indigestible or poisonous food edible, reduced spoilage, dried our clothes, and signaled friends.  Cooked food tastes much better than raw food –just ask Koko the gorilla, who signed that she preferred cooked over raw food.  Children can be weaned earlier and grow faster. All of the above led to longer lives, which greatly shaped human societies.

A new and major finding of this book is that of all the ways fire has helped us, the most important may be cooked food, which has more usable calories that our body can digest fully than raw food, and that cooked food can be consumed much faster. So instead of spending over six hours a day chewing fruit and leaves like our chimpanzee relatives do, we only spend about an hour a day chewing.

Not only that, but you get more calories from cooked food than raw food.  This was only discovered recently when tests were done on people who’ve had their large intestines removed.  Food was taken out after the small intestine, which is where most of our ability to get nutrition takes place. After that, the bacteria in our large intestine steals most of the remaining food for themselves.

When you ask people what’s essential to survival, they’ll usually say food, water, and shelter.  But by the end of this book, most will add fire to the list.  And the soon to be 9 billion of us depend on fire far more than our ancestors did to stay alive, we are utterly dependent on the “fire” of the fossil fuels we burn to power transportation, the electric grid (coal and natural gas provide two-thirds of our electricity in the U.S.), heat and cool our homes, cook with, to make every product around us — try to think of anything in your life that doesn’t depend on energy.
For example, your body can digest 94% of the protein in cooked eggs, but only 65% raw.  This is because heat increases the digestibility of protein.  Besides heat, proteins are more digestible if denatured in acids like lemon juice – think of ceviche, pickling, marinades, salt, or drying.

If you’re a food geek, you’ll love all the details Wrangham has about what cooking does to food, why we get more calories from cooked than raw food, or the minutiae of your digestive system.  Perhaps you’ll even become a better cook learning how heat breaks down starches and protein, at what temperatures meat is most tender, food safety, and so on.

Wrangham makes the case we’re adapted and dependent on cooked food in the first few chapters showing how we’ve lost the ability to survive on raw food alone.  Although more studies need to be done, the current scientific consensus is that a strict diet of raw food does not provide an adequate energy supply.  Dieters take note!  Yes, there are raw food consumers who are alive and well, so you’ll need to read the details to find out why their food is quite different from what our ancestors would have found in the wild.

Rumors that tribal people like the Inuit ate their food raw turned out not to be true.  Certainly some food is eaten raw, especially the softer organs like liver or stomach, but most of the calories the Inuit eat are cooked.  Women use twigs in summer, and seal oil or blubber to boil meat in the winter.

All species of mammals digest cooked food easier.  Farmers like to give cooked swill to their animals because they gain weight much faster.  That’s why your pets get so fat, all pet food is cooked.

Our anatomy shows that we’ve adapted to cooked food.  We have weak jaws, and really small mouths and lips compared to our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, who need big mouths, lips, and strong jaws to digest leaves and fruit.

We use 20% of our energy to fuel our brains, which are only 2.5% of our body weight.  The average primate uses 13% and mammals 8 to 10% of their energy to fuel their brains.

That energy came from smaller guts, because with cooked food we didn’t need to have a large digestive system.  Birds also evolved a small gut system, but they put their extra energy into wing muscles.  We used the extra energy for brain power, because social intelligence helped people survive longer.

The shorter gut, bigger brain theory is far from proven, so stay tuned to whether this ends up being completely, or partially true, as an explanation of how we evolved.

The average human diet is two-thirds starchy food.  The finer the flour, the more it’s digested, and modern white flour is basically a starchy powder, which is why so many Americans are overweight.  Worse yet, these calories are empty since wheat and corn flour has been stripped of protein, essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals.

The scientific human origin story unfolds like a mystery novel as each riddle is solved. One riddle that needs to be figured out is when humans first used fire. Unfortunately the evidence of the most ancient fires hasn’t survived, but archeologically there is good evidence of fires going back for 790,000 years.

Another riddle is when did we first control fire?  We couldn’t have depended on cooked food until we could make fire from scratch, which probably happened first in a place where both flint and pyrite rocks existed.  When struck together, they make excellent sparks and this method is used by hunter gatherers from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego.

We can also look at the skeletons of our ancestors going back 2 million years to see what and when changes in our anatomy happened.  We know from the Grant’s study of finches in the Galapagos and other research that evolution can happen very fast.   It’s likely that we evolved quickly once we became dependent on cooked food.

There have only been three times in the past 2 million years when evolution was so fast that our ancestor species names changed.  Atello and Wheeler believe that cooking was responsible for the transition from Homo erectus to homo heidelbergensis 800,000 years ago, but Wrangham believes this transition was much earlier, when Homo erectus emerged over 1.5 million years ago, and explains why and alternative theories for the other times we evolved quickly.

Years ago         Species    Brain size  (cubic inches)      Weight (lbs)

2,300,000     Homo habilis                    37                   70- 81

1,800,000     Homo erectus                   53                123-145

800,000        Homo heidelbergensis       73

200,000        Homo sapiens                  85

It’s the social ramifications of eating cooked food that may be of the most interest.  A division of labor between men and women dramatically changed how we lived and related to one another, freed up time to pursue cultural activities, and made a much higher standard of living possible.

But the dark side is that men used their larger size to get out of the most boring chores.  In 98% of all societies, past and present, women do most or all of the cooking.  Even in the most egalitarian societies that have ever existed, like the Vanatina of the South Pacific, women did the cooking, washing dishes, fetching water and firewood, sweeping, and so on.  Meanwhile the men sat on verandahs chewing betel nuts.

It may have all started as a protection racket – men protected women from being robbed of their food by hungry groups of men in exchange for women cooking their meals.

Bonobo females form fighting alliances to protect themselves from male bullying, but in all other great ape species, including ours, women lose out to men.  Although Wrangham says that women can try to use their cooking as a form of empowerment by threatening to leave or not cooking if their husband is too abusive.

In Inuit societies, wives made warm, dry hunting clothes, and spent many hours cooking.  A man didn’t have time to hunt, make clothes, and cook, so a wife was essential to survival.  Desperate bachelors often tried to steal other men’s wives, usually killing the husband.  So men killed strangers on sight to prevent their wives from being stolen.

In the Tiwi culture, old men got the young wives, so 90% of men’s first marriages were to widows as old as sixty.  But the young men didn’t mind, because the wives cooked for them.  In most societies, bachelors are miserable.

In the end, Wrangham unravels far more than some of the riddles of the mystery of our creation, but also why we are getting so fat today, and the way that cooking and eating created how humans live and how men and women relate to each other.

References

(1) John Perlin. 2005. A Forest Journey: The Story of Wood and Civilization.

(2) Jared Diamond. 2006.The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal“.

(3) Nina Jablonski.  2006. Skin, A Natural History.  University of California Press.

 

Posted in Energy Books, Evolution, Health, Wood | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on How burning biomass made us human

North American freshwater mussels are going extinct

Stokstad, E. 2012. Nearly Buried, Mussels Get a Helping Hand. Science Vol. 338, Issue 6109, pp. 876-878

[excerpts]

Freshwater mussels are in trouble. They are the most endangered group of organisms in the United States, with most of their river and stream habitats devastated by dams, pollution, and invasive species such as the zebra mussel.

Thirty-five species have been declared extinct, others are likely gone, and more than 70 species are teetering on the brink. “It’s the biggest conservation crisis in the U.S. that no one talks about,” says Paul Johnson, who directs the Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center in Marion.

Lab studies show that mussels are sensitive to a number of common but poorly regulated water contaminants, such as the surfactants in the common herbicide glyphosate. In a detailed field study, it was found that the absence of juveniles was highly correlated with ammonia—likely from fertilizer or manure—in the sediment where the mussels burrow. Spikes in ammonia concentrations may be responsible for widespread declines of freshwater mussel populations, especially in agricultural areas. Some ecologists suspect that the current level permitted in surface water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is dangerous for mussels.

The accelerating disappearance of mussels “really is a strong statement about what we’ve done to rivers,” Bringolf says. In the Mississippi River Basin alone, perhaps less than 10% of the original habitat of endangered mussels remains unaltered by dams.

North America is home to a record diversity of freshwater mussels with dazzling reproductive strategies and key ecological roles. But can they withstand the hard knocks of a modern world?

North American has the world’s greatest number of mussel species — 297– more than two-thirds of which are concentrated in the southeastern United States. Some rivers have more species of mussels than are found in all of Europe.

North America owes its astounding freshwater biodiversity in large part to unique geology, which has provided a stable environment that enabled mussels to thrive and diversify for 60 million years. Historically, expansive shoals of mussels served as habitat for other aquatic organisms. By filtering water, mussels move nutrients through the food web, supporting nearby terrestrial ecosystems as well.

People have also long benefited from mussels. Massive middens hint at the untold numbers harvested by Native Americans for food.

What has caused serious harm is widespread fragmentation and loss of habitat. Mining and deforestation, which polluted streams and clogged them with sediment, were already problems by the late 19th century. The worst trouble started in the early 1900s, when engineers built locks and dams in large numbers. These efforts culminated in the gargantuan dams constructed across the southeastern United States by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in the 1930s and ’40s. Most mussel species can’t live in the slow, muddy water and silty bottoms of the reservoirs formed by these dams. Nor can half the fish species that mussels need as hosts for their larvae.

The Snuffbox mussel

Every spring, a freshwater mussel called the snuffbox emerges from gravel stream bottoms for a violent bout of reproductive deception. The females have spent months buried in the sediment, brooding thousands of larvae that require a certain host to mature. Now the mussels lie on the streambed, their shells open wide. Playing dead, they wait for just the right fish to approach.

That fish, the logperch, spends its days hunting for insect larvae and fish eggs, rummaging under small stones and empty shells. When a logperch pokes its snout inside a snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), the mussel snaps shut. The fish is trapped between the serrated edges. For other fishes, this mistake would be fatal, but the logperch has a reinforced skull. As the fish struggles, the mussel pumps out its larvae, which clamp their tiny shells onto the filaments of the logperch’s gills. Then the mussel lets go. After several weeks of hitchhiking, the juvenile mussels drop from the gills and settle into their new habitat.

This aggressive tactic is just one of the remarkable behaviors that freshwater mussels use to reproduce and spread upstream. Other species attract their fish hosts with lures that resemble fish eggs, crayfish, or even swimming minnows. “It’s some of the most amazing mimicry in the world,” says restoration biologist Jess Jones of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in Blacksburg, Virginia.

The snuffbox was put on the U.S. endangered species list this past February; biologists estimate its population has declined by 90% over the past century. This month, FWS added another eight mussel species to its list.

 

 

Posted in Biodiversity Loss | Tagged , | Comments Off on North American freshwater mussels are going extinct

Corruption and economic instability in the news

[ I can’t keep up with the flood of news about corruption, fraud and economic instability, which is just a symptom of the real problem: the end of growth. In a credit/debit system, lenders won’t lend if they think the money won’t be repaid. That hasn’t been a problem for the last 100 years as we exponentially produced more oil, coal, and natural gas.  But that ended in 2005 when peak conventional oil was reached and it is likely we’ve reached global peak coal as well.  

If we have another crash, there goes to the credit for oil companies to explore and drill for more oil, and there goes the ability of the rest of society to grow businesses and repay creditors. It’s already happening, only 2.4 billion barrels of oil were found in 2016 but we burn 30 billion barrels a year. In fact, we’ve been using more oil than’ we’ve found for decades. This is why the financial system is included in the Fast Crash category, even though it’s obviously peak energy and resources limiting growth.  Also, to most people it will appear that the financial system was at fault, not lack of energy.

Below are links to just a few of the “crash coming” articles I run across, just like I did long before 2008. This time we’ll be in much worse shape since the central banks can’t keep printing money forever.

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report ]

Fraud, corruption, and economic instability

Crash coming   Also see posts in category Crash Coming Soon

Wall Street

Banks

2016-04-09 Wells Fargo “Admits Deceiving” U.S. Government, Pays Record $1.2 Billion Settlement

Fracked oil and gas “tight” bubble

Housing Bubble

Auto loan bubble

Student debt bubble

2016-04-07 Shocking statistic: Over 40% of student borrowers don’t make payments

Debt

Distribution of Wealth

Tax Havens

Money

Unemployment

2016-12-2 What ‘are so many of them doing?’ 95 million not in US labor force

Capital controls and the war on cash

Negative interest rates

Helicopter money to keep economy going

2016-04-07 JPM, ECB Hint at Arrival of “Helicopter Money” in Europe Following Next “Significant Downturn”

Economists are idiots

The new astrology. By fetishizing mathematical models, economists turned economics into a highly paid pseudoscience

Defense Department

2015-04-21 F35, The jet that ate the pentagon ($1.5 trillion so far)

Pensions

China

China produces 99% of some of the rare earth metals essential for computers, cars, wind, solar, and electronic gadgets.  And cheap products that the U.S. and other nations depend on.  If their financial system crashes, it will take the world down with it.

 

 

 

 

Posted in ! About Corruption, Economic Decline, Other Experts | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Millions of Americans have tropical diseases they’re unaware of

MacKenzie, D. December 14, 2013. America’s hidden epidemic. NewScientist.

Increasing climate change and poverty are likely to increase the numbers of people with these diseases.

An estimated 330,000 US citizens, and possibly as many as a million, carry the parasite that causes Chagas disease. It is a chronic, silent infection that leads to lethal heart or gut damage in 40 per cent of cases. It is the most common parasitic disease in the Americas, and it can be treated – if the doctor is aware of it. Most US doctors aren’t.

Then there are intestinal worms, a chronic infestation that spreads in faeces and drains energy and nutrients from children across Africa. Cases aren’t supposed to occur in rich countries. Yet Toxocara canis, an intestinal worm that can cause asthma and epilepsy, is carried by 21 per cent of black people in the US – compared with 31 per cent of people in central Nigeria.

Under the radar

Diseases commonly associated with tropical climates and impoverished countries are hurting the US too. There is inadequate research to provide confident numbers, but the best estimates suggest that millions of US citizens are affected.

Parasitic worms

Toxocariasis 1.3-2.8 million cases
Strongyloidiasis 68,000–100,000
Ascariasis 4 million
Cysticercosis 41,000–169,000
Schistosomiasis 8,000

Protozoan parasites

Chagas disease 330,000
Toxoplasmosis 1.1 million
Trichomoniasis 7.4 million

Virus

Dengue fever 110,000-200,000 (acute cases annually)

Posted in Disease, Poverty | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Millions of Americans have tropical diseases they’re unaware of

Germany’s “Energiewende” may need to be rescued with nonrenewable coal power

[ Below is my summary of The Energiewende is Running Up Against Its Limits (October 24, 2016) by Jeffrey Michel at the Energy Collective. Wealthy, well-educated Germany has tried harder and longer than most nations to make a transition to renewables. If Germany can’t pull it off, that doesn’t bode well for other nations.

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report ]

Germany’s “energiewende” is a plan to switch from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas) to renewable, sustainable energy.  But this goal will be even harder to reach after the decision to abandon nuclear power, adding another 22% required from renewable generation. South Germany, where most of the industry lies, doesn’t have enough solar or wind to power their region, so a massive expansion of the grid will be required to get power from elsewhere, which may prove to be too expensive:

Posted in National Super Grid, Renewable Integration | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Are biofuels a sustainable and viable energy strategy?

Preface. In 2000, Melanie Kenderine at the U.S. Department of energy stated that: “This nation has abundant biomass resources (grasses, trees, agricultural wastes) that have the potential to provide power, fuels, chemicals and other bio-based products” (136).

That’s a good point — biofuels are the only sustainable choice after fossil fuels are gone for transportation, but they’re ALSO the only sustainable source to generate electricity, to cook and heat with, make and provide the feedstock for half a million products now made out of natural gas, oil, and coal, and the heat source for manufacturing to make new wind turbines and solar panels.  Steel and cement are essential, the backbone of our infrastructure, but require high heat, which electricity is not efficient at generating.

But is there enough biomass to do all of that? The main reason past civilizations fell with just millions, not billions of people, was because they’d run out of wood for their war ships, iron, glass, brick, ceramics, construction and so on (plus deforestation leads to the erosion of topsoil essential for growing food).

Both papers below explain why biomass can’t scale up to provide more than a small fraction of energy in the future for transportation, let alone all the other needs.

Nearly all heavy-duty trucks run on diesel exclusively because there is no other kind of engine powerful enough to do the hard work required.  Diesel engines can’t burn ethanol, diesohol, or gasoline, and most engine warranties allow zero to at most 20% biodiesel to be mixed in with petroleum-derived diesel. So making ethanol out of biomass does nothing to keep trucks running, and biodiesel scales up even less than ethanol.  Both ethanol and biodiesel have a break-even energy return on invested at best, many researchers have found a negative return.

If we scale up biofuels then we crash civilization in other ways– eroded topsoil, exhausted aquifers, pollution from pesticides, eutrophied waterways from fertilizer runoff.

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy”, 2021, Springer; “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report

***

Gomiero, Tiziano. June 30, 2015. Are Biofuels an Effective and Viable Energy Strategy for Industrialized Societies? A Reasoned Overview of Potentials and Limits. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8491-8521.

Excerpts from this 31 page article follow.

For our industrial society to rely on “sustainable biofuels” for an important fraction of its energy, most of the agricultural and non-agricultural land would need to be used for crops, and at the same time a radical cut to our pattern of energy consumption would need to be implemented, whilst also achieving a significant population reduction.

Some scholars questioned the energy efficiency of biofuels, claiming that it was an unproductive enterprise (e.g., [2–13]), a point already made in the 1970s by energy experts such as Prof. David Pimentel [2], and Prof. Vaclav Smil [4].

Biofuels, in fact, call for the adoption of those very same agricultural practices that for decades have been blamed for being highly energy inefficient and water consuming, and for contaminating the environment and threatening biodiversity and soil health [2–5,14–17].

Other works highlighted that, contrary to current belief, biofuel production may cause net CO2 emission, in particular when tropical forests and pristine land are converted to plantations and crops for biofuel production [18–20].

The interest in biofuel as a potential sustainable and renewable energy source is still high, as is attested by numerous scientific journals recently created in its name, and the number of funded research projects that focus on this topic. Private investments and public subsidies are still poured into this sector. Since the crisis, however, the focus shifted from first-generation biofuels (or the use of fuel crops) to second-generation biofuels, i.e., the use of cellulosic ethanol (crop residues, woody biomass), and then to third-generation biofuels, i.e., oil from algae.

Palm oil is also becoming of high interest for the biofuel market, and  there is a risk that palm oil plantations may further increase the displacement of native forests in tropical countries (as happened for sugarcane plantations in Brazil), or replace other food crops, without providing any benefits to farmers. After the plantation is discontinued (20–25 years), the soil is then ruined and cannot easily serve for further agricultural activities.

Findings from different experts, however, diverge considerably. Some authors claim that biofuels may represent an efficient alternative to oil, some of them referring to fuel crops, while others only refer to cellulosic ethanol. Other authors claim that biofuels and biomass in general are instead an inefficient alternative to fossil fuels. So, how is it possible that highly respected scholars can reach such opposing conclusions?

We have to face the fact that data-gathering systems rely on different approaches and methodologies, involving different focuses, models, assumptions and scale of analysis. To begin with, a major problem arises with the choice of system boundaries, the “boundary dilemma” as Smil [32] (p. 275) put it. The choices over where to make our system end can lead to large differences in the results [12,28,32]. Borrion et al. [34], in their extensive review of environmental LCA of lignocellulosic ethanol conversion, conclude that results strongly depend on system boundary, functional unit, data quality and allocation methods chosen. The authors also make an important remark stating that “The lack of available data from commercial second generation ethanol plant and the uncertainties in technology performance have made the LCA study of the lignocellulosic ethanol conversion process particularly difficult and challenging.” [34] (p. 4648).

Assessments are scale dependent (and of course value laden, a matter which scientists often prefer not to confront). This means that before the assessment exercise takes place we have to frame properly the context in which we are operating. To put it simply, do cars pollute? It depends on how many cars we are talking about, the performance of their engines, their average speed, the quality of the fuel, etc. New “clean” engines on many new cars may cause more pollution than old dirty engines on few old cars; scale matters. But the scale has to be decided before carrying out the assessment. There is a very telling example concerning the calculation of biofuel efficiency presented by Shapouri et al. [36] vs. Giampietro et al. [26], on how to account for co-products. I quote [3] (p. 33)

Prof. David Pimentel was also a co-author of the paper [12]), as it is explained very clearly: “Shapouri et al. reported a net energy return of 67% after including the co-products, primarily dried distillers grain (DDG) used to feed cattle. These co-products are not fuel!

Giampietro et al. (1997) observed that although the by-product DDG may be considered as a positive output in the calculation of the output/input energy ratio in ethanol production, in a large-scale production of ethanol fuel, the DDG would be many times the commercial livestock feed needs each year in the U.S. (Giampietro et al. 1997).

It follows then that in a large-scale biofuel production, the DDG could become a serious waste disposal problem and increase the energy costs.” For issue of scale was also pointed out by Smil [4], in his assessment of the program PROALCOL, launched by the Brazilian government. Apart from a number of problems identified by Smil [4], (e.g., soil erosion, land conversion, productivity-related issues, economic viability), the author stressed that in order to achieve the production of ethanol from sugarcane forecast by the government, the process would have to also produce each year more than 150 million m3 of vinhoto, the residue of the process. Such a byproduct can be dried up and used as feed, but that is a highly energy-intensive process. The liquid may be used as fertilizer, but it requires logistics for concentrating it, transporting it around the country, etc. So the usual solution is dumping the fluid into the nearest water bodies, and in that context, vinhoto is a very serious pollutant.

For more examples on how the scale issue matters, I refer the reader to [12,37].

On the energy analysis of biofuels, a fierce debate surrounds the issue of providing an accurate EROI estimate for biofuels, but this really has to do with a few decimals below or above one, as the EROI for biofuels is between 0. 8 and 1.6.

This issue should not be a matter of concern, as fossil fuels, which fuel industrial societies, generate an EROI of 20–30 or more [12,27,29]. The fact that there are cases where biofuels can be produced at higher EROI does not really change the judgment over the low performance of biomass.

The power density of the energy source, that is to say the rate of energy flux per unit of area (W/m2), is a key indicator [4–7]. Concerning power density, fossil fuels perform from 300 to 3000 times better than the best biofuel.

See also Smil [7] (p. 265), for data about the power density of various kinds of biomass energy production.

Giampietro and colleagues [12,26] argue that developed societies, in order to sustain their level of metabolism, require an energy throughput in the energy sector ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 MJ per hour of labor. The fact that the range of values achievable with biofuel are just 250–1600 MJ per hour of labor says it all. Of course, we may argue that this is a positive outcome, as it allows the creation of more jobs and reduce unemployment. Nevertheless, if wages in those jobs have to be comparable to those in other sectors of society, the cost of energy will skyrocket

On the biophysical side, one of these indicators is energy density. The final cost of energy in economic terms is, of course, another key issue. Biofuels can be produced only thanks to subsidies. A number of qualitative indicators are also highly relevant such as: the level of contamination produced, the reliability of the supply, and the level of risk involved [5–7,12,13,29].

It should be clear, therefore, that to perform a sound and effective assessment of an energy source is far from being a simple task, and requires the adoption of a number of different indicators related to different criteria and scales. The narrative about biofuels, instead, has been and still is, dangerously simplistic.

At present, the energetic discourse on biofuels is focused on the EROI, but, as we have seen, the EROI is just part of the story. The main problem with biofuels is that they have a power density that is simply too low and this requires handling an enormous quantity of biomass, costing society a lot of working time and capital. Those characteristics make biofuels unable to supply energy to match the metabolic rate of energy consumption of developed countries [5,6,12,26,32].

For our industrial society to rely on “sustainable biofuels” for an important fraction of its energy, it would require a complete reshaping of its metabolism:

  • cropping most of the agricultural and non-agricultural land, affecting food supply and food affordability, increasing the impact on natural resources (water, soil health, pollution, loss of biodiversity);
  • implementing an amazing occupational shift by sending millions of people back to the fields, which will increase the cost of energy (or at least drastically reduce the wages of those working in the sector);
  • cutting our pattern of energy consumption, given the reduced flow of net energy;
  • a consistent reduction of population size and consumption would be required;
  • dealing with a continuous risk of running out of energy due to climate extremes, pests, etc.;
  • such a massive amount of biomass may not be sustainable in the long term, and in the short run, it would require increasing amounts of input.

In summary, for a society (as for any living organism) the energetic supply is a matter of vital importance. The key factors being: (1) the quality of the energy source (fossil fuels are much better than biomass as most of the work has already been done by the Earth’s ecosystems and geological forces over hundreds of millions of years); and (2) the overall efficiency of the supply process (extraction, transformation, etc.), that is to say, the net energy supplied to society at the proper rate of delivery, able to match the rate of energy demand. If the supply of energy cannot match the rate of metabolic energy consumption, society will reduce its metabolism accordingly.

Subsidies: Are They the Key for Biofuel Sustainability?

Pimentel, Smil and Youngquist, were critical towards the real efficiency of biomass as an energy source, and posed important questions concerning its economic efficiency and environmental impact (e.g., soil, water, use of agrochemicals). Youngquist claims that ethanol policy in the USA is a mere political issue, with politicians granting subsidies for inefficient ethanol production in order to secure the votes from Corn Belt electors: “The answer is that it is an example of politics overriding reason. The political block of the corn belt states holds votes crucial to elections, and companies which produce ethanol in the United States have been some of the largest contributors to political campaign funds in recent years” [43] (pp. 243–244).

Subsidies are still the main driving force shaping biofuel policy and trade, and ultimately they keep all this going. Even with oil at 100US$/barrel, biofuels were still not competitive and needed subsidies (and that can also be expected, as a lot of fossil fuel is required to carry out intensive agriculture) [12,44,45].

Koplow and Steenblik [45], estimate that in 2008, in the USA, total support towards ethanol production ranged between 9.0 and 11.0 billion US$, with subsidies between 2009 and 2012 accounting for about 50% (up to 80% in 2007) of the ethanol market price. These figures are likely an underestimate, given the many faces economic support can take (from tax exemption to price premium), rendering precise subsidy assessment a difficult task [44,45].

According to the IEA, biofuel subsidies amounted to about US$22 billion in 2010, and are projected to increase to up to US$67 billion per year in 2035 [44]. Note that fossil fuel benefits from subsidies, too. Fossil-fuel subsidies are estimated at between US$45–75 billion a year in OECD countries and at US$409 billion in 2010 in non-OECD countries [44]. Some authors (e.g., [46]) back subsidy policy of biofuels on the basis that “In any case, the size of the support of biofuels is small (the authors are referring to the figure of US$ 20 billion they present earlier), in relation to the cost of fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $312 billion worldwide in 2009”. This reasoning is evidently flawed. The comparison refers to the total value, but has to be done on a per-unit basis instead. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy [47], in 2009 fossil fuel consumption amounted to about 10,000 Mt oil equivalent (3809 Mt oil, 2690 Mtoe gas, 3547 Mtoe coal), while biofuel amounted to about 52 Mt oil equivalent.

Subsidies turn out to be 3.1 million US$ per Mt oil eq. in the case of fossil fuels (US$ 3/t), and 423 million US$ per Mt oil eq. in the case of biofuels (US$423/t), 136 times more. We may well wonder what are we doing with biofuels!

Who benefits most from these subsidies? In the USA, federal and state subsidies for ethanol production, that total more than US$7 per bushel of corn, have been always mainly paid to large corporations [9,45,49]. It thus seems that those who will gain from subsidies are large corporations that sell the fossil-fuel-derived inputs, and the losers are the farmers, the consumers and the tax payers! And the environment, of course.

The USA population, 310 million in 2009, will reach 440 million by 2050 (US Census Bureau, 2009). According to Nowak and Walton [73], the rate of rural land lost to development in the 1990s was about 0.4 million ha per year and the authors warn that if this rate continues until 2050, USA will have lost an additional 44 million ha of rural countryside. Such areas will be lost mostly at the expense of agriculture or conservative land programs. Brown [74] points out that the USA, with its 214 million motor vehicles, paved an estimated 16 million ha of land (in comparison to the 20 million ha that US farmers plant in wheat). About 13% of U.S. land area is currently dedicated to highways and urbanization, so adding other 150 million people will dramatically affect both the demand for food, as well as the demand for space (e.g., urbanization and highways).

Promoting the extensive cultivation of species suitable for biofuel production would increase two of the major causes of biodiversity loss on the planet, namely the clearing and conversion of yet more natural areas for monocultures, and the invasion by non-native species.

“Carbon Debt”: Biofuels and Increasing Carbon Emissions

The belief that burning biomass is carbon neutral has been questioned. Such an idea is founded upon the rather simplistic reasoning that CO2 released in the burning is picked up again by plants, giving a net release of zero. There are a number of reasons why this is not so. Displacing tropical ecosystems in favor of plantations causes the loss of aboveground biomass, and also the release of a huge amount of carbon stored in the soil (about 50% of the total carbon in tropical forests is stored in the soil). Plantations will never store as much biomass as native ecosystems, and that leads to net carbon emissions. Converting grasslands into fuel crops will cause the net emission of the carbon stored in the native ecosystem.

Estimates concerning the “carbon debt” (the carbon that is lost in land use change) have been already published (e.g., [18,19]:

  • the conversion of rainforests, peatlands, savannas. Brazil and Southeast Asia may create a “biofuel carbon debt” by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual GHGs reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels;
  • in the USA, corn-based ethanol will nearly double GHG emissions over 30 years, while cropping grasslands to produce biofuels (e.g., with switchgrass), will increase GHG emissions by 50%. Some USA public institutions concluded that much worse problems may be caused by fuel crops than by fossil fuels, due to corn ethanol and biodiesel made from soybean oil causing a large amount of land conversion to create a high “carbon debt” [88,89];
  • in a meta-analysis carried out by Piñeiro et al. [90] on 142 soil studies, the authors conclude that soil C sequestered by setting aside former agricultural land was greater than the C credits generated by planting corn for ethanol on the same land for 40 years, and that C releases from the soil after planting corn for ethanol may, in some cases, completely offset C gains attributed to biofuel generation for at least 50 years.

It has been suggested that agricultural intensification may help reduce the expansion of plantations into pristine ecosystems. However, recent analysis found that using high-yielding oil palm crops to intensify productivity and then preserving the remaining biodiversity may not work either. Carrasco et al. [95], for example, argue that using high-yielding oil palm crops could actually lead to further tropical deforestation. That is because palm oil will become cheaper on the global food markets and will outcompete biofuels grown in temperate regions. That in turn will increase the planting of oil palm in tropical regions. In fact, paradoxically, while developed countries are claiming to import biofuels from tropical regions in order to reduce their CO2 emission, they are actually contributing to an amplification of the problem, and concurring to fuel the process of tropical deforestation [18,19,44,96,97]. Houghton [98] warns that, between 1990 and 2010, forest degradation and deforestation accounted for 15% of anthropogenic carbon emissions and argues that we have to work to stop this trend. The author is rather critical about the international biofuel trade, which, he claims, is driven by distortions generated by the high subsidies in place in the USA and the EU, and is not going to work towards halting deforestation.

The greater availability of crop residues and weed seeds translates to increased food supplies both for invertebrates and vertebrates, which play important ecological functions in agro-ecosystems, influencing, among other things: soil structure, nutrients cycling and water content, and the resistance and resilience against environmental stress and disturbance [57,115–120].

When compared to corn grain, it takes 2 to 5 times more cellulosic biomass to obtain the same amount of starch and sugars. This means that 2 to 5 times more biomass has to be produced and handled in order to obtain the same starches as for corn grain [9].

Tilman et al. [21] suggest that all 235 million hectares of grassland available in the USA, plus crop residues, can be converted into cellulosic ethanol, recommending that crop residues, like corn stover, can be harvested and utilized as a fuel source. I have already mentioned residues; as for the use of grassland, this cannot be considered an empty space. There are tens of millions of livestock (cattle, sheep, and horses) grazing on that land, as well as all the wild fauna and flora living in those ecosystems [122];

Some energy analysts consider the biofuel “solution” so completely unrealistic that it should not even be worth any attention (e.g., [4,6,10,12]). Pimentel in his edited book on renewable energies [10], closes the work with chapter 20, on algae, consisting of two pages, summary and references included [126] (pp. 499–500). Pimentel claims that properly accounting for all the costs and assuming a realistic energy production level would lead to an estimated algal oil barrel cost of 800 US$.

References

  1. HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts). Biofuels and Food Security; A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security; FAO, Rome, Italy, 2013. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-5_Biofuels_and_food_security.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2015).
  2. Pimentel, D.; Moran, M.A.; Fast, S.; Weber, G.; Bukantis, R.; Balliett, L.; Boveng, P.; Cleveland, C.; Hindman, S.; Young, M. Biomass energy from crop and forest residues. Science 1981, 212, 1110–1115.
  3. Pimentel, D.; Patzek, T.; Cecil, G. Ethanol production: Energy, economic, and environmental losses. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2007, 189, 25–41.
  4. Smil, V. Biomass Energies; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
  5. Smil, V. Energy at the Crossroads; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. 6. Smil, V. Energy: Myths and Realities; The AEI Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
  6. Smil, V. Power Density Primer, 2010.http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wpcontent/uploads/docs/smil-article-power-density- primer.pdf
  1. Ulgiati, S. A comprehensive energy and economic assessment of biofuels: When green is not enough. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2001, 20, 71–106.
  2. Pimentel, D.; Patzek, T. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood: Biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Nat. Resour. Res. 2005, 14, 65–76.
  3. Pimentel, D. (Ed.) Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems: Benefits and Risks; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
  4. Patzek, T. Thermodynamics of agricultural sustainability: The case of US maize agriculture. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2008, 27, 272–293.
  5. Giampietro, M.; Mayumi, K. The Biofuel Delusion: The Fallacy of Large Scale Agro-Biofuels Production; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009.
  6. MacKay, D.J.C. Sustainable Energy—Without the Hot Air; UIT Cambridge Ltd.: Cambridge, UK 2009.http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html (accessed on 20 December 2014).
  1. MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
  1. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development). Agriculture at the Crossroad; Synthesis Report; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. http://apps.unep.org/publications/pmtdocuments/Agriculture %20at%20a%20crossroads%20-%20Synthesis%20report-2009Agriculture_at Crossroads_Synthesis_Report.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2014).
  2. WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change). Future Bioenergy and Sustainable Land Use; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009. http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/ dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2008/wbgu_jg2008_en.pdf
  3. Gomiero, T.; Pimentel, D.; Paoletti, M.G. Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture? Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2011, 30, 6–23.
  4. Fargione, J.; et al. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008, 319, 1235–1238.
  5. Searchinger, T.D.;.; et al. Fixing a critical climate accounting error. Science 2009, 326, 527–528.
  6. Robertson, G.P.; Dale, V.H.; Doering, O.C.; Hamburg, S.P.; Melillo, J.M.; Wander, M.M.; Parton, W.J.; Adler, P.R.; Barney, J.N.; Cruse, R.M.; et al. Sustainable biofuels redux. Science 2008, 322, 49–50.
  7. Tilman, D.G.; Hill, J. M.; Lehman, C. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 2006, 314, 1598–1600.
  8. Tilman, D.G.; Socolow, R. ; Foley, J.A.; Hill, J.; Larson, E.; Lynd, L.; Pacala, S.; Reilly, J.; Searchinger, T.; Somerville, C.; et al. Beneficial biofuels—The food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 2009, 325, 270–271.
  9. EU (European Union). Environment Committee Backs Switchover to Advanced Biofuels. 2015. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/ 20150223IPR24714/html/Environment-Committee-backs-switchover-to-advanced- biofuels (accessed on 25 March 2015).
  10. EIA (Energy Information Administration). U.S. Ethanol Exports in 2014 Reach Highest Level since 2011. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20532
  11. EIA (Energy Information Administration). U. S. Ethanol Imports from Brazil down in 2013.http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16131(accessed on 15 March 2015).
  1. Giampietro, M.; Ulgiati, S.; Pimentel, D. Feasibility of large- scale biofuel production: Does an enlargement of scale change the picture? BioScience 1997, 47, 587–600.
  2. Hall, C.A.S.; Lambert, J.G.; Balogh, S.B. EROI of different fuels and the implications for society. Energy Policy 2014, 64, 141–152.
  3. Hall, C.A.S.; Dale, B.E.; Pimentel, D. Seeking to understand the reasons for different Energy Return on Investment (EROI) Estimates for Biofuels. Sustainability 2011, 3, 2413–2432.
  4. Hall, C.A.S.; Cleveland, C. J.; Kaufmann, R. Energy and Resource Quality; Wiley-Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 1986.
  5. Brody, S. Bioenergetics and Growth; Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1945.
  6. World Bank, 2015. Energy Use (kg of Oil Equivalent Per Capita). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE
  7. Smil, V. Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008.
  8. Ridley, C.E.; Clark, C.M.; LeDuc, S.D.; Bierwagen, B.G.; Lin, B.B.; Mehl, A.; Tobias, D.A. Biofuels: Network analysis of the literature reveals key environmental and economic unknowns. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 1309–1315.
  9. Borrion, A.L.; McManus, M.C.; Hammond, G.P. Environmental life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic conversion to ethanol: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 4638–4650.
  10. Searchinger, T.; Edwards, R.; Mulligan, D.; Heimlich, R.; Plevin, R. Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? Science 2015, 15, 1420–1422.
  11. Shapouri, H.; Duffield, J.; McAloon, A.; Wang, M. The 2001 Net Energy Balance of Corn- Ethanol (Preliminary); U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/net_energy_balanced.pdf
  1. Giampietro, M. Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Agro-Ecosystems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004.
  2. Georgescu-Roegen, N. Energy and economic myths. Southern Econ. J. 1975, 41, 347–381.
  3. Georgescu-Roegen, N. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971.
  4. Brown, L.R. Food or fuel: New Competition for the World’s Cropland. Worldwatch Paper 35, Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C., USA, 1980. http://www.fastonline.org/CD3WD_40/JF/424/19–414.pdf
  5. Lockeretz, W. Crop residues for energy: Comparative costs and benefits for the farmer, the energy facility, and the public. Energy Agric. 1981, 1, 71–89.
  6. Pimentel, D. Ethanol fuels: Energy security economics and the environment. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 1991, 4, 1–13.
  7. Youngquist, W. GeoDestinies: The Inevitable Control of Earth Resources over Nations and Individuals; National Book Company: Portland, OR., USA, 1997.
  8. Gerasimchuk, I.; Bridle, R.; Beaton, C.; Charles, C. State of Play on Biofuel Subsidies: Are Policies Ready to Shift? The International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 2012. http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/bf_stateplay_2012.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2015). 45. Koplow, D.; Steenblik, R. Subsidies o ethanol in the United States. In Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems: Benefits and Risks; Pimentel, D., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany; Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 79–108. 46. Valentine, J.; Clifton-Brown, J.; Hastings, A.; Robson, P.; Allison, G.; Smith, P. Food vs. fuel: The use of land for lignocellulosic “next generation” energy crops that minimize competition with primary food production. GCB Bioenergy 2012, 4, 1–19. 47. BP. Statistical Review of World Energy. 2015. http://www.bp.com/en/global/ corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/2013- in-review.html (accessed on 10 March 2015).
  9. Myers, N.; Kent, J. Perverse Subsidies: How Tax Dollars can Undercut the Environment and the Economy; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
  10. Peterson, E.W.F. A Billion Dollars a Day: The Economics and Politics of Agricultural Subsidies; Wiley- Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.
  11. Von Braun, J. The food crisis isn’t over. Nature 2008, 456, 701. 51. Mitchell, D. A Note on Rising Food Prices. The World Bank Development Prospects Group July 2008http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/ WDSP/IB/2008/07/28/000020439_20080728103002/Rendered/PDF/WP4682.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2014). 52. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Soaring Food Prices: Facts, Perspectives, Impacts and Actions Required.http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-1-E. pdf
  1. International Monetary Fund. Reaping the Benefits of Financial Globalization. 2007.http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/docs/2007/0607.htm
  1. Trostle, R. Global Agricultural Supply and Demand: Factors Contributing to the Recent Increase in Food Commodity Prices. http://www.ers.usda.gov/PUBLICATIONS/ WRS0801/WRS0801.PDF
  2. Gallagher, E. The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production.http://www.renewablefuelsagency.org/_db/_documents/Report_of_the_Gallagher review.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2015).
  1. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). The Environmental Food Crisis the Environment’s Role in Averting Future Food Crises a UNEP Rapid Response Assessment.http://www.grida.no
  1. Gomiero, T.; Paoletti, M. G.; Pimentel, D. Biofuels: Ethics and concern for the limits of human appropriation of ecosystem services. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2010, 23, 403–434.
  2. Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision.http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap106e/ap106e.pdf
  1. Bardgett, R.D.; van der Putten, V.H. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 2014, 515, 505–551. 60. UN (United Nations). World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York, 2013. http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf
  2. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Global Agriculture towards 2050. High Level Expert Forum—How to Feed the World in 2050. Office of the Director, Agricultural Development Economics Division, FAO, Rome, 2009.http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/ templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf
  1. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). The State of Food and Agriculture 2008.http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0100e/i0100e00.htm (accessed on 10 February 2009).
  1. Montgomery, D.R. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. PNAS 2007, 104, 13268–13272.
  2. Brown, L.R. Outgrowing the Earth; Earthscan: London, UK, 2005.
  3. Smil, V. Feeding the World: A Challenge for the Twenty- First Century; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008.
  4. Eide, A. The Right to Food and the Impact of Liquid Biofuels (Agrofuels). http://www.fao.org/ docrep/016/ap550e/ap550e.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2009).
  5. ActionAid. Biofuels and Lad Grabs 2015. http://www.actionaid.org/eu/what-wedo/biofuels-and-land-grabs (accessed on 5 March 2015).
  6. Oxfam. Biofuels. 2015.http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/pressreleases/tag/biofuels
  1. Cotula, L.; Dyer, N.; Vermeulen, S. Fuelling exclusion? The Biofuels Boom and Poor People’s Access to Land. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK, 2008.http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/12551IIED.pdf
  1. Creutzig, F.; Corbera, E.; Bolwig, S.; Hunsberger, C. Integrating Place- Specific Livelihood and Equity Outcomes into Global Assessments of Bioenergy Deployment. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035047.
  2. Obidzinski, K.; Andriani, R.; Komarudin, H.; Andrianto, A. Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations and their implications for biofuel production in Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, Article 25.
  3. Oxfam. Biofuelling Poverty—EU Plans Could be Disastrous for Poor People. Oxfam, 29 October 2007. http://www.oxfam.org/en/node/217 (accessed on 5 March 2015).
  4. FAO; IFAD; and WFP. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014.Strengthening the Enabling Environment for Food Security and Nutrition. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4030e.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2015).
  5. Nowak, D.J.; Walton, J.T. Projected Urban Growth (2000–2050) and Its Estimated Impact on the US Forest Resource. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/ other_publishers/OCR/ne_2005_nowak001.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2015).
  6. Brown, L.R. Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/index.htm (accessed on 5 February 2015).
  7. Bindraban, P.S.; Bulte, E.H.; Conijn, S.G. Can large-scale biofuels production be sustainable by 2020? Agric. Syst. 2009, 101, 197–199.
  8. Crutzen, P.J.; Mosier, A.R.; Smith, K.A.; Winiwarter, W. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2007, 7, 11191–11205.
  9. Haberl, H.; Sprinz, D.; Bonazountas, M.; Cocco, P.; Desaubies, Y.; Henze, M.; Hertel, O.; Johnson, R.K.; Kastrup, U.; Laconte, P.; et al. Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy. Energy Policy 2012, 45, 18–23.
  10. Primack, R.B. A Primer of Conservation Biology, 4th ed.; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2008.
  11. Robertson, G.P.; Gross, K.L.; Hamilton, S.K.; Landis, D.A.; Schmidt, T.M.; Snapp, S.S.; Swinton, S.M. Farming for ecosystem services: An ecological approach to production agriculture. Bioscience 2012, 64, 404–415.
  12. Gomiero, T.; Pimentel, D.; Paoletti, M.G. Environmental impact of different agricultural management practices: Conventional vs. organic agriculture. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2011, 30, 95–124.
  13. Cal-IPC. Arundo donax: Distribution and Impacts. California Invasive Plant Council, 2011. http://www.cal- ipc.org/ip/research/arundo/
  14. Chapin, F.S., III; Zavaleta, E.S.; Eviner, V.T.; Naylor, R.L.; Vitousek, P.M.; Reynolds, H. L.; Hooper, D.U.; Lavorel, S.; Sala, O.E.; Hobbie, S.E.; et al. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 2000, 405, 234–242.
  15. GISP. Biofuel Run the Risk of Becoming Invasive Species. The Global Invasive Species Programme, May 2008. http://www.issg.org/pdf/publications/GISP/ Resources/BiofuelsReport.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2015).
  16. Smith, A.L.; Klenk, N.; Wood, S.; Hewitt, N.; Henriques, I.; Yana, N.; Bazely, D.R. Second generation biofuels and bioinvasions: An evaluation of invasive risks and policy responses in the United States and Canada. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 27, 30–42.
  17. Heikkinen, N.; ClimateWire. 49 plants that could make biofuel less troublesome.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/49-plants-that-could-make-biofuel- less-troublesome/ (accessed on 2 February 2015).
  1. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). Guidelines on Biofuels and Invasive Species.http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_guidelines_on_biofuels and_invasive_species_.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2015).
  1. Searchinger, T.D. Biofuels and the need for additional carbon. Environ. Res. Lett. 2010, 5, 024007.
  2. Babcock, B.A. Measuring Unmeasurable Land-Use Changes from Biofuels.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/summer_09/article2.aspx

  1. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Emissions from Land Use Change Due to Increased Biofuel Production—Satellite Imagery and Emissions Factor Analysis.

http://www.epa.gov/OMS/renewablefuels/rfs2-peer-review-land-use.pdf

  1. Piñeiro, G.; Jobbágy, E.G.; Baker, J.; Murray, B.C.; Jackson, R.B. Set-asides can be better climate investment than corn ethanol. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19, 277–282.
  2. Sims R.; Schaeffer, R.; Creutzig, F.; Cruz-Núñez, X.; D’Agosto, M.; Dimitriu, D.; Figueroa Meza, M.J.; Fulton, L.; Kobayashi, S.; Lah, O.; et al. Transport. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler,A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., et al. Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 599–670.
  3. Wicke, B.; Sikkema, R.; Dornburg, V.; Faaij, A. Exploring land use changes and the role of palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 193–206.
  4. Miyamoto, M.; Parid, M.M.; Aini, Z.N.; Michinaka, T. Proximate and underlying causes of forest cover change in Peninsular Malaysia. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 44, 18–25.
  5. Carlson, K.M.; Curran, L.M.; Asner, G.P.; McDonald Pittman, A.; Trigg, S.N.; Adeney, J.M. Carbon emissions from forest conversion by Kalimantan oil palm plantations. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 283–287.
  6. Carrasco, L.R.; Larrosa, C.; Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Edwards, D.P. A double-edged sword for tropical forests. Science 2014, 346, 38–40.
  7. Laurance, W.F.; Sayer, J.; Cassman, K.G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. TREE 2014, 29, 107–116.
  8. Wilcove, D.S.; Koh, L. P. Addressing the threats to biodiversity from oil-palm Agricultura. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 999–1007.
  9. Houghton, R.A. The emissions of carbon from deforestation and degradation in the tropics: Past trends and future potential. Carbon Manag. 2013, 4, 539–546.
  10. Dwivedi, P.; Wang, W.; Hudiburg, T.; Jaiswal, D.; Parton, W.; Long, S.; DeLucia, E.; Khanna, M. Cost of abating Greenhouse Gas emissions with cellulosic ethanol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 2512–2522.
  11. Lindstrom, L.J. Effects of residue harvesting on water runoff, soil erosion and nutrient loss. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1986, 16, 103–112.
  12. Smil, V. Crop residues: Agriculture’s largest harvest. BioScience 1999, 49, 299–308.
  13. Lal, R. World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel. Environ. Int. 2005, 31, 575–584.
  14. Wilhelm, W.W.; Doran, J.W.; Power, J.F. Corn and soybean yield response to crop residue management under no-tillage production systems. Agron. J. 1986, 78, 184–189.
  15. Wilhelm, W.W.; Johnson, J.M.F.; Karlen, D. L.; Lightle, D.T. Corn stover to sustain soil organic carbon further constrains biomass supply. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 1665–1667.
  16. Rasmussen, P. E.; Goulding, K.W.T.; Brown, J.R.; Grace, P.R.; Janzen, H.H.; Körschens, M. Long-term agroecosystem experiments: Assessing agricultural sustainability and global change. Science 1998, 282, 893–896.
  17. Pimentel, D.; Harvey, C.; Resosudarmo, P.; Sinclair, K.; Kurz, D.; McNair, M.; Crist, S.; Shpritz, L.; Fitton, L.; Saffouri, R.; et al. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 1995, 267, 1117–1123. 108. Blanco- Canqui, H.; Lal, R.; Post, W.P.; Owens, L.B. Changes in long-term no-till corn growth and yield under different rates of stover mulch. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 1128–1136. 109. Kenney, I.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; Presley, D.R.; Rice, C.W.; Janssen, K.; Olson, B. Soil and crop response to stover removal from rainfed and irrigated corn. Glob. Chang. Biol. Bioenergy 2014, 7, 219–230.
  18. Linden, D.R.; Clapp, C.E.; Dowdy, R.H. Long-term corn grain and stover yields as a function of tillage and residue removal in east central Minnesota. Soil Tillage Res. 2000, 56, 167–174.
  19. Liska, A.J.; Yang, H.; Milner, M.; Goddard, S.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; Pelton, M.P.; Fang, X.X.; Zhu, H.; Suyker, A. E. Biofuels from crop residue can reduce soil carbon and increase CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 398–401.
  20. Barber, S.A. Corn residue management and soil organic matter. Agron. J. 1979, 71, 625–627.
  21. Karlen,D. L.; Hunt, P.G.; Campbell, R.B. Crop residue removal effects on corn yield and fertility of a Norfolk sandy loam. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1984, 48, 868–872.
  22. Lal, R. Soil carbon management and climate change. Carbon Manag. 2014, 4, 439–462.
  23. Lal, R. Carbon sequestration. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol Sci. 2008, 27, Article 363.
  24. Gomiero, T. Alternative land management strategies and their impact on soil conservation. Agriculture 2013, 3, 464–483.
  25. Coleman, D.C.; Crossley, D.A., Jr.; Hendrix, P.F. Fundamentals of Soil Ecology, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004. 118. Lavelle, P.; Spain, A.V. Soil Ecology; Kluwer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002.
  26. Brussaard, L.; de Ruiter, P.C.; Brown,
  1. Coleman, D.C.; Crossley, D.A., Jr.; Hendrix, P.F. Fundamentals of Soil Ecology, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004.
  2. Lavelle, P.; Spain, A.V. Soil Ecology; Kluwer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002.
  3. Brussaard, L.; de Ruiter, P.C.; Brown, G. G. Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 121, 233–244.
  4. Heemsbergen, D.A.; Berg, M.P.; Loreau, M.; van Hal, J.R.; Faber, J.H.; Verhoef, H.A. Biodiversity effects on soil processes explained by interspecific functional dissimilarity. Science 2004, 306, 1019–1020.
  5. Bardgett, R.; van der Putten, W.H. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 2014, 515, 505–511.
  6. Stephen, J.D.; Mabee, W.E.; Saddler, J.N. Will second-generation ethanol be able to compete with first-generation ethanol? Opportunities for cost reduction. Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 2011, 6, 159–176.
  7. Pimentel, D.; Marklein, A.; Toth, M.A.; Karpoff, M.N.; Paul, G.S.; McCormack, R.; Kyriazis, J. ; Krueger, T. Food Versus Biofuels: Environmental and Economic Costs. Hum. Ecol. 2009, 37, 1–12.
  8. Herrero, M.; Havlík, P.; Valin, H.; Notenbaert, A.; Rufino, M.C.; Thornton, P.K.; Blümmel, M.; Weiss, F.; Grace, D.; Obersteiner, M. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. PNAS 2013, 110, 20888–20893.
  9. Sayre, R. Microalgae: The potential for carbon capture. Bioscience 2010, 60, 723–727.
  10. Biello, D. Energy: The false promises of biofuels. Sci. Am. 2011, 305, 59–65.
  11. Pimentel, D. A brief discussion on algae for oil production: Energy issues. In Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems: Benefits and Risks; Pimentel, D., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 499–500.
  12. La Monica, M. Why the Promise of Cheap Fuel from Super Bugs Fell Short. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/524011/why-the- promise-of-cheap-fuel-from-super-bugsfell-short/ (accessed on 5 February 2015).
  13. Xiao, N.; Chen, Y.; Chen, A.; Feng, L. Enhanced Bio-hydrogen production from protein wastewater by altering protein structure and amino acids acidification Type. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 3992, doi:10.1038/srep03992.
  14. Ghirardi, M.L.; Posewitz, M.C.; Maness, P.C.; Dubini, A.; Yu, J.; Seibert, M. Hydrogenases and hydrogen photoproduction in oxygenic photosynthetic organisms. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2007, 58, 71–91.
  15. Volgusheva, A.; Styring, S.; Mamedov, F. Increased photosystem II stability promotes H2 production in sulfur-deprived Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. PNAS 2013, 110, 7223–7228.
  16. Dubinic, A.; Ghirardi, M.L. Engineering photosynthetic organisms for the production of biohydrogen. Photosynth Res. 2015, 123, 241–253.
  17. Hwang, J.-H.; Kim, H.-C.; Choi, J.-A.; Abou-Shanab, R.A.I.; Dempsey, B. A.; Regan, J.M.; Kim, J.R., Song, H.; Nam, I.-J.; Kim, S.-N.; et al. Photoautotrophic hydrogen production by eukaryotic microalgae under aerobic conditions. Nat. Commun. 2014, doi:10.1038/ncomms4234.
  18. Blankenship, R.; Tiede, D.; Barber, J.; Brudvig, G.; Fleming, G.; Ghirardi, M.; Gunner, M.; Junge, W.; Kramer, D.; Melis, A.; et al. Comparing photosynthetic and photovoltaic efficiencies and recognizing the potential for improvement. Science 2011, 332, 805–809.
  19. Odum, H.T. Environment, Power, and Society; WILEY: New York, NY, USA, 1971.
  20. House 106-147. May 24, 2000. National energy power: ensuring adequate supply of natural gas and crude oil. U.S. House of Representatives.

Searchinger, Tim; Heimlich, Ralph. 2015. Avoiding bioenergy competition for food crops and land. World Resources Institute, part 9 of “Creating a Sustainable Food Future”.

Excerpts from this 44 page report:

What is the role of bioenergy in a sustainable food future? The answer must recognize the intense global competition for land, and that any dedicated use of land for bioenergy inherently comes at the cost of not using that land for food, feed, or sustained carbon storage.

The world needs to close a 70% gap between the crop calories that were available in 2006 and the calorie needs anticipated in 2050. During the same period, demand for meat and dairy is projected to grow by more than 80%, and demand for commercial timber and pulp is likely to increase by roughly the same percentage.

Yet three-quarters of the world’s land area capable of supporting vegetation is already managed or harvested to meet human food and fiber needs. Much of the rest contains the world’s remaining natural ecosystems, which need to be conserved and restored to store carbon and combat climate change, to protect freshwater resources, and to preserve the planet’s biological diversity.

A growing quest for bioenergy exacerbates this competition for land. In the past decade, governments have pushed to increase the use of bioenergy—the use of recently living plants for energy (biodiesel, ethanol, cellulosic fuels)—by using crops for transportation biofuels and increasingly by harvesting trees for power generation. Although increasing energy supplies has provided one motivation, the belief that bioenergy use will help combat climate change has been another. However, bioenergy that entails the dedicated use of land to grow the energy feedstock will undercut efforts to combat climate change and to achieve a sustainable food future.

Would cellulosic biofuels avoid this competition for food? Cellulosic biofuels (sometimes referred to as “second generation”) may use crop residues or other wastes, but most plans for these biofuels rely on planting and harvesting fast-growing trees or grasses. At least some direct competition with food is still likely because such trees and grasses grow best and are most easily harvested on relatively flat, fertile lands—the type of land already dedicated to crops.

The push for bioenergy is extending beyond transportation biofuels to the harvest of trees and other sources of biomass for electricity and heat generation.

Some organizations have advocated for a bioenergy target of meeting 20% of the world’s total energy demand by the year 2050, which would require around 225 exajoules of energy in biomass per year. That amount, however, is roughly equivalent to the total amount of biomass people harvest today—all the crops, plant residues, and trees harvested by people for food, timber, and other uses, plus all the grass consumed by livestock around the world.

The world will still need food for people, fodder for livestock, residues for replenishing agricultural soils, wood pulp for paper, and timber for construction and other purposes. To meet these needs at today’s level while at the same time meeting a 20% bioenergy target in 2050, humanity would need to at least double the world’s annual harvest of plant material in all its forms. Those increases would have to come on top of the already large increases needed to meet growing food and timber needs.

Today, the best estimates are that agriculture and some kind of forestry use three-quarters of all the world’s vegetated land, and agriculture consumes around 85% of the freshwater people withdraw from rivers, lakes or aquifers. Seen in this context of land and water scarcity, the quest for bioenergy at a meaningful scale—even assuming large future increases in efficiency—is both unrealistic and unsustainable.

Even assuming large increases in efficiency, the quest for bioenergy at a meaningful scale is both unrealistic and unsustainable.

Why does a small share of energy require such vast amounts of biomass? Although photosynthesis is an effective means of producing food, wood products, and carbon stored in vegetation, it is an inefficient means of converting the energy in the sun’s rays into a form of non-food energy useable by people.

Fast-growing sugarcane on highly fertile land in Brazil, for example, converts only around 0.5 percent of incoming solar radiation into sugar, and only around 0.2 percent ultimately into ethanol. For maize grown in Iowa, the energy conversion rate is around 0.3 percent into biomass and 0.15 percent into ethanol. Even assuming highly optimistic estimates of future yields and conversion efficiencies, fast-growing grasses on productive U.S. farmland would only do slightly better, converting around 0.7 percent of sunlight into biomass and around 0.35 percent into ethanol. Such low conversion efficiencies explain why it takes a large amount of productive land to yield a small amount of bioenergy.

Is bioenergy nevertheless good for climate? Burning biomass, whether directly as wood or in the form of ethanol or biodiesel, emits carbon dioxide, just like burning fossil fuels. In fact, burning biomass directly emits at least a little more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels for the same amount of generated energy. But most calculations claiming that bioenergy reduces greenhouse gas emissions relative to burning fossil fuels do not include the carbon dioxide released when biomass is burned. They exclude it based on the theory that this release of carbon dioxide is matched and implicitly “offset” by the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plants growing the biomass feedstock. Yet if those plants were going to grow anyway, simply diverting them to bioenergy does not remove any additional carbon from the atmosphere and therefore does not offset emissions from burning that biomass.

In 2010, biofuels provided roughly 2.5% of the energy in the world’s transportation fuel (the fuel used for road vehicles, airplanes, trains, and ships).  On a net basis, these 108 billion liters of biofuel provided roughly half a percent of global delivered energy.  These liters came overwhelmingly from food crops: ethanol distilled mainly from maize, sugarcane, sugar beets, or wheat (88.7 billion liters), and biodiesel refined from vegetable oils (19.6 billion liters).

The United States, Canada, and Brazil accounted for about 90% of ethanol production, while Europe accounted for about 55% of biodiesel production.10 Overall, excluding feed byproducts, about 3.3 exajoules (EJ)11 of energy in crops were grown around the world for biofuels in 2010, using 4.7% of the energy content of all crops.

WHAT ABOUT FAST-GROWING GRASSES OR TREES FOR CELLULOSIC BIOFUELS?

Some biofuel proponents suggest that switching biofuels away from food crops to various forms of “cellulose”— sometimes referred to as “second generation” biofuels— would avoid competition with food. Cellulose forms much of the harder, inedible structural parts of plants, and researchers are devoting great effort to find ways of converting cellulose into ethanol more efficiently. In theory, almost any plant material could fuel this ethanol, including crop residues and much garbage. Such “waste” would not compete with food and, in a later section, we discuss the merits, demerits, and potential for its use. Yet the potential for wastes to provide energy on a large scale is sufficiently limited that virtually all plans for future large-scale biofuel production assume that most of the biomass for bioenergy would come from fast-growing trees and grasses planted for energy.

For these reasons, most studies of sustainable bioenergy— including biofuel—potential assume that bioenergy crops will not be grown on existing cropland. But yields on poorer, less fertile land tend to be substantially lower. More fundamentally, using less fertile land for bioenergy still uses land. Land that can grow bioenergy crops reasonably well will typically grow other plants well, too—if not food crops, then trees and shrubs that provide carbon storage, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and other benefits. In Appendix A, we address various claims of the availability of such non-croplands for bioenergy. We argue that studies that find large bioenergy potential systematically “double count” land for biofuels that is already producing vegetation meeting other important human needs.

Unfortunately, growing trees and grasses well requires fertile land, resulting in potential land competition with food production. In general, growing grasses and trees on cropland generates the highest yields but is unlikely to produce more biofuel per hectare than today’s dominant ethanol food crops (i.e. 1 hectare of maize produces 1,600 gallons of ethanol).  For cellulosic ethanol production to match this figure, the grasses or trees must achieve almost double the national cellulosic yields estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and two to four times the perennial grass yields farmers actually achieve today.  Although there are optimistic projections for even higher yields, they are unrealistically predicated on small plot trials by scientists—sometimes only a few square meters. Scientists can devote greater attention to crops than can real farmers, and field trials for all types of crops nearly always produce far higher yields than those that farmers achieve in practice.

Some of the bioenergy literature calls for the use of “marginal” or “degraded” lands, relying on studies that use large-scale maps. However, these areas that appear to be unused and available for bioenergy using a coarse satellite map often turn out to be in some use upon closer examination. If millions of potentially productive hectares were truly both unused and not storing carbon, it should be easy to identify them specifically, but thus far no closer examinations have done so.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), among others, has suggested a goal of supplying 20% of the world’s energy use in the year 2050 from bioenergy. Since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) projects global primary energy use in 2050 to be 900 EJ per year, a 20% target equates to 180 EJ per year. How much plant material would that require? To get a sense of how much, consider that in 2000 the total amount of energy in all the crops, plant residues, and wood harvested by people for all applications (e.g., food, construction, paper) and in all the biomass grazed by livestock around the world was roughly 225 EJ.  This amount of energy could in theory be liberated by perfect combustion of this biomass. But combustion is not perfect. Factoring in relative energy conversion efficiencies, this 225 EJ of biomass would optimistically replace about 180 EJ of primary energy from fossil fuels.  Thus, it would take the entirety of human plant harvests in the year 2000 to meet a 20 percent bioenergy target in the year 2050.

Posted in Biofuels, EROEI Energy Returned on Energy Invested | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Are biofuels a sustainable and viable energy strategy?

Pessimism and Optimism versus Ignorance

optimism-pessimism-an-inconvenient-truth-a-reassuring-lie

Below are my thoughts about whether views based on scientific evidence can be labeled optimistic or pessimistic.

Skeptical energy news:

2017-2-7 Renewable Lies And The Deception Of Dutch Commuters

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report ]

When it comes to scientific topics like peak oil and climate change, most people’s opinions are based on optimism, pessimism, or ignorance. Only a small minority of people are scientifically literate in America with half the population not believing in evolution, a third not believing in climate change, and only a few percent fully understanding how much current civilization is dependent on fossil fuels, especially oil, and don’t understand why oil can’t be replaced with something else (which is covered at energyskeptic, especially in menu item “Energy” and in my book “When Trucks Stop running“.)

Scientifically literate means understanding the scientific method, how we know what we know, and what good evidence is, though even scientists may not know much outside of their own field since they are so busy with research, grad students, getting grants, and publishing.

If a point of view is based on solid scientific evidence, it shouldn’t be labeled as pessimistic or optimistic. That is a logical fallacy.  Criticism of technology should be based on science, not gossip and name-calling. For instance, this article blames lobbyists for attacks on Elon Musk and Tesla (These Are the Lobbyists Behind the Site Attacking Elon Musk and Tesla).  Both the lobbyists and the author are using political, not scientific arguments.  In general, this can be blamed somewhat on the 2008 economic downturn. Science reporters were among the first to be let go.

I have issues with electric cars but try to use scientific evidence by explaining why it is so hard to develop a battery that is cheap, long-lasting, durable, and light-weight enough due to principles of science here, why heavy duty trucks can’t run on batteries here, and why there may not be enough lithium here.

I have done a great deal of research on nutrition, especially grain nutrition, so I was startled to see a book called “Grain Brain” that claims “carbs are destroying your brain. And not just unhealthy carbs, but even healthy ones like WHOLE GRAINS can cause dementia, ADHD, anxiety, chronic headaches, depression, and much more”.  And beyond that, the reference citations looked very scientific, but as you can see in my book review of Grain Brain, the papers cited did NOT back up what he was saying, especially the few peer-reviewed papers (most references were junk science), and almost no recent evidence was offered to support his claims.

As far as peak oil, the limits to growth, energy returned on energy invested (EROEI, EROI) and other controversial or taboo topics such as overpopulation and carrying capacity, I find I am usually dismissed by people who label themselves as optimists because they think I am a pessimist, regardless of the evidence.

An optimist voicing an opinion not backed up with good scientific evidence is not an optimist, they’re ignorant.  And likely to remain that way — an optimist doesn’t want to see “pessimistic” ideas, and doesn’t seek them out.

And who has the time to properly research complex topics? Consider what it took for me to become aware of peak  everything, climate change, carrying capacity, overpopulation, soil erosion, exponential growth, and a hundred other related topics:

  • In high school I decided that my purpose in life was to get a big picture view of how the world worked across every field possible, from anthropology to zoology (see my energyskeptic booklist)
  • I suspect this is a rare goal because I haunted the non-fiction sections of the best bookstores in Berkeley and San Francisco and usually had those sections to myself
  • I wanted the most trustworthy books, but how could I know which ones were telling the truth? So I pursued critical thinking skills by subscribing to scientific and skeptical magazines.
  • I read books on the philosophy of science. Even though I’d majored in biology with a chemistry/physics minor I hadn’t fully grasped that science isn’t just “facts”, it’s a process, a method of understanding the world, the most successful one ever invented that’s constantly revised and fine-tuned as new evidence appears
  • It also took me a while to figure out that peer-reviewed evidence is best, and that some peer-reviewed evidence is better than others (i.e. an article about health based on 20,000 people over decades beats a mouse study)
  • Yet I still make mistakes, misinterpret, think I understand something but don’t, aren’t critical enough…so I value it when energyskeptic.com readers catch my errors and let me know
  • My career was in systems analysis which greatly enhanced my analytical skills
  • Loving books –over 99% of what I’ve read the past 44 years is non-fiction.  This gave me a “big picture view” and a BS-meter to evaluate new information with
  • Willing to continue research despite having cherished notions crushed – it’s like finding Santa doesn’t exist over and over again when you read about the state of the world.  And I continued despite the very negative feedback from friends and family who thought I was being pessimistic about Peak Oil and Hubbert’s Peak — see “Telling Others
  • Having the time to read. I don’t have children, and during my 30 year as a systems engineer/analyst, I read books as I walked 10 miles a day to and fro from work
  • Delving deeply into important topics. I spent 3 years reading soil science textbooks and journals before I knew enough to write “Peak Soil
  • Nearly all articles about windmills, solar, and so on in press releases and media are positive, because there’s money to be made by getting investors or research grants, and readers prefer to read positive stories. It is very difficult to find the articles that present the obstacles and roadblocks to a technology. Negative results are often not published. People are highly unlikely to stumble on them unless they are looking for them.  And pessimistic podcasts, news reports, books, and articles don’t sell, so who can blame the media for not publishing them?

I wouldn’t have found out about peak oil as soon as I did if I hadn’t read my Grandpa Pettijohn’s autobiography “Memories of an Unrepentant Field Geologist” in 2000.  I discovered he was a friend of M. King Hubbert, who predicted there would be a peak in world oil production around 2000 (and hey, it was 2000!), and accurately predicted the peak of oil in the lower 48 states in the early 70s (and it did in 1971), which has led to 16 years of investigation since then.  It helped that I was no stranger to the energy crisis — I’d been involved in an alt tech group during the first 1973 energy crisis.

I should have found out about Peak Oil a long time before 2000 — after all, I haunted the non-fiction section of bookstores.  But they never carried Gever’s 1991 “Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades”, Youngquist’s 1997 “Geodestinies”, and other books.  Nor would my research have gotten so far so quickly if I hadn’t learned about important books and articles on forums like energyresources.

A lot of what I write about are the barriers and obstacles to alternative energy resources that you seldom see elsewhere, and it is very hard for me to find this information. This is because 99.99% of what you see is positive, often a breakthrough of some sort. Negative news or lack of positive results doesn’t sell to the public and is often not published in scientific journals, a problem that has lately been recognized and will hopefully be remedied.  The bad news is usually buried at the end of 400-page department of energy papers, or critiques within the hydrogen, solar, or wind journal articles about the issues of approaches of other researchers in their field.

Since our entire civilization is fossil-fuel based, you would think that would be a major topic in school.  But very few people know how powerful oil is and difficult to substitute (see my energy overview here).  I am often accused of being in the pay of the oil industry.  I understand — I would have thought the same when I was younger when I believed that evil oil and coal companies were preventing renewable energy from replacing fossil fuels so they could make even more money.

And why would anyone even doubt good news?  Since what I’m saying is not in the mainstream news  it sounds crazy, and citations of scientific journals doesn’t impress most people because they don’t know the difference between good and bad evidence.  Hardly anybody follows “breakthroughs” to see how they panned out years later. There have been millions of battery breakthroughs since 1900 yet batteries still aren’t much better than they were 210 years ago.

The energy crisis is a LIQUIDS FUEL crisis. Electricity solves nothing because diesel fuel is used almost 100% of the time in the transportation that matters — heavy-duty trucks, such as the tractors that grow and harvest food, ships carrying 90% of cargo world-wide, and locomotives.

Even if you think the scientists will come up with something, time is running out.  It would take 50 years or more to replace a billion combustion engines and the pipelines and 160,000 U.S. service stations with some other liquid fuel. Which won’t come from biomass for many reasons.  Electricity will only solve the problem if we can make electric trucks.  But that is far from happening and unlikely to ever happen due to laws of physics and thermodynamics (see “Who Killed the Electric Car“), issues with catenary (overhead wire) trucks, all-electric battery trucks, hydrogen fuel cell trucks, and other posts about electric trucks.

It is also highly unlikely that an 80 to 100% renewable electric grid is even possible, which I explain in three chapters of “When trucks stop running” about the electric grid and energy storage (and within energyskeptic), i.e. we don’t have a grid that can handle intermittent power, wind is seasonal, solar is seasonal, a national grid is a bad idea, best wind and solar locations near existing grid already taken, natural gas essential to balance wind/solar is finite, and so is biomass, utility-scale battery energy storage too expensive and there aren’t enough physical minerals on earth to build them except for sodium-sulfur, hydro-power (and pumped hydro storage) and geothermal locations are mostly built out with few locations left), very few compressed air sites in salt domes available (most are in 3 gulf states, and there’s only one west of the Mississippi), and so on.

Overly optimistic projects can lead to an enormous waste of resources, as Bent Flyvbjerg points out in “Mega delusional: The curse of the megaproject“.  The consequences are huge: they can damage a national economy. Global spending on megaprojects is about $6 to 9 trillion a year, many if not most of which go way beyond optimistic cost forecasts and deliver far less benefits as well. What drives this enthusiasm for repeated failures?

  • The rapture engineers and technologists get from building large and innovative projects that push the limits
  • Politicians love constructing monuments to themselves and their causes and these grand schemes are media magnets that give politicians more exposure.
  • Businesses make money, and lots of jobs are created for unions, contractors, engineers, architects, consultants, construction and transportation workers, bankers, investors, landowners, lawyers and developers
  • If it doesn’t work out, the taxpayer pays.
  • The public is tricked into approval by all the job creation, new services, and perhaps environmental benefits.  But this only happens if the project is done right.  Conventional megaprojects have terrible records in both cost and benefit.
  • Psychological factors keep the illusions flowing, such as uniqueness bias in terms of technology and design where managers to see their projects as firsts, so they don’t bother to learn from other projects.
  • Also there can be a lock-in at an early stage.   Former California State Assembly member Willie Brown described the cost overruns on the San Francisco Transbay Terminal as:  “The idea is to get going. Start digging a hole and make it so big there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in.”
  • A false sense of control is common and ignorance of potential “black swans” can bring on failure.
  • Last but far not least is the optimism bias which plagues cost estimates.
  • Reverse evolution: The projects that get chosen look the best on paper by underestimating costs and overestimating benefits.

I can’t avoid being called a pessimist, because conversation is a soundbite, shorter than a twitter. You’ve got 10 seconds to present a tiny piece of evidence lacking nuance, when it could take at least a semester to understand the many complex issues of the energy crisis.

And in the end, who wants to know that the end of oil will end of our way of life and our hundreds of energy slaves serving our every whim?

Though I must admit I’m perplexed that people don’t want to understand because this is a life and death issue. Many people have chosen college majors that will NOT be useful in a muscle and biomass based energy world, as all civilizations were before fossil fuels.  There is limited time left to move to a sustainable region of the country and gain skills like growing food, etc.  Although it’s obvious we ought to cut back on our consumption of goods and conserve energy, most Americans are doing the opposite.  As soon as oil prices went down, people started buying gas guzzling cars and light trucks, so the cafe standards have gone DOWN, not UP since 2014!  There is nothing more important than conserving oil, since unnecessary passenger cars and light trucks are sucking up 63% of the transportation oil, hastening the day when trucks, ships, and locomotives won’t have any fuel to run on.

I’ve pursued these grim topics because energy resources and the other many factors in the coming decline and fall of civilization connect the dots between almost every book I’ve ever read.  The systems analyst in me is fascinated by all the connections and inter-dependencies.  I’ve seen lists of “250 reasons why the Roman Empire failed”.  Our far more complex society will collapse for even more reasons, though ultimately mainly because of lack of oil, the master resource that makes all other resources available, including more oil.

Collapse will be a “death by a thousand cuts” — cuts that are already visible in our failing infrastructure, gulf dead zones, 6th extinction, climate change, pollution, eroded topsoil, empty aquifers.

Let’s hope wars over the remaining oil don’t bring collapse on even sooner than necessary.  There are still plenty of nuclear weapons in the world.

 

 

Posted in 2) Overshoot, Critical Thinking | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments