My previous post retraced the precipitous decline in the reputation of biofuels that occurred between 2006 and today. In this post I’m going to talk about just a few of the activities going on for “second generation” biofuels (beyond corn, soy and palm oil, wheat…). One of the key features of these initiatives is that they reduce the competition with food crops - something which will only become a more significant issue in the future. I’ll be talking about several Universities and companies who have hung in there through the ups and downs of oil prices and the “trendiness” and “rejection” of biofuels. I think that these folks are going to make significant long-term contributions. If you have been soured in the past on the biofuel concept, please consider these alternatives.
Algae
There was a recent Wall Street Journal article about “5 Technologies that could change everything.” One they included was biofuels from Algae. People have been working on this for a long time including a very long government effort. The great thing about algae is that you can grow it in places and with water sources that are completely unsuitable for farming. Algae can be extremely productive. The problem is that the low capital investment systems are less productive and the highly productive, “bio-reactor” approach has a huge capital cost. The good news is that there are enough companies working away on this that sooner or later there might be a break-through. I won’t pretend to be an expert on how this is going, but I have a hunch it will eventually become significant.
In 2006 I attended a BIO meeting in Toronto focused on the new bio-based economy. Oil had just risen to $70/barrel and it was a time when environmental NGOs, biotech companies and even oil companies seemed to be on the “same page” in terms of their enthusiasm for moving to plant-based feedstocks as the perfect alternative to oil dependency. With the very obvious international security costs of the oil economy, and what were then thought to be unimaginable energy costs, it was a remarkable sort of celebration event for all the alternative energy and materials folks who has suffered under the decades of cheap oil. As much as I was happy to see such “multi-stakeholder” agreement, I was sad because anyone with an agricultural perspective could see a train-wreck coming.
People were making presentations about cool second generation innovations like “Cellulosic” ethanol from sources like switchgrass or Miscanthus and also about ethanol alternatives like butanol. People were talking about bio-materials for even things like the auto industry. However; the side conversations were about the huge boom underway in the corn ethanol industry. Orders for stainless steel tanks were back-logged two years. What had started as a local, farmer-cooperative funded industry had become a venture capital frenzy. I could see that long before the promise of “second generation” biofuels could be realized, corn ethanol would get to be big enough that it would end up fracturing the amazing consensus about the bio-economy that was functioning at that conference.
The discussions following my two last posts about climate change opinion shifts and about an anti-science coalition have made it clear that one of the reasons people distrust science is that “Science” fails to speak with one voice. There are definitely forces from the outside of Science that erode trust, but there are also internal issues.
The problem is that Science will not ever “speak with one voice.” Scientists often have different opinions about a given topic. Often that simply represents a healthy part of the scientific process. When I hear someone say, “scientists don’t even agree about this!” I want to say, “you don’t know many scientists, do you!” We are trained to questions assumptions and scrutinize analytical methods. We are taught how to spot artifacts and how to come up with alternate hypotheses. Some scientists get a little aggressive about this (there is usually at least one curmudgeon in every department).
There are definitely some topics that are so complex that it is impossible to be 100% sure about conclusions. There are questions that are not amenable to running a controlled experiment. These are all factors that make a topic like climate change so controversial. These are legitimate reasons for the lack of a single “answer from science.”
All the above said, there are plenty of examples of scientific disagreements that arise from what can only, honestly be called bad science. Doing science well is non-trivial. It requires a good deal of mental rigor and comprehensive information acquisition. If we scientists are honest we all have to admit that we can fall short of the ideal “scientific method” at times. Trust in “Science” ultimately means trusting “Scientists” and thats sometimes where the trouble starts. There are 5 main ways that I can think of that scientsts can “behave badly.” Maybe you can add some more. Read the rest of this entry »
A wise Nebraska farmer I know taught me this saying: “It’s what you know for certain that keeps you from learning.”This principle is at the core of why certain groups and entities are rejecting good science.
As a scientist, and particularly as a scientist involved in agricultural and environmental issues, I’m increasingly aware of this trend.In some cases this involves open hostility to science, in others it is just a matter of ignoring the scientific input. What is disturbing is how many different “voices” are in this unlikely “coalition” and the extent to which they are coloring the views of the broader society(as seen in the recent Pew survey of American attitudes about climate change).
At acknowledged risk of offending people, I will try to describe factions in the groups that tend to reject things that science would tell them.I know that what I am talking about does not apply to everyone, or even most people in these groups, but it is still a potent force in our society.
For years now, many members of Congress have insisted that cutting carbon emissions was difficult, if not impossible. It is not. During the two years since 2007, carbon emissions have dropped 9 percent. While part of this drop is from the recession, part of it is also from efficiency gains and from replacing coal with natural gas, wind, solar, and geothermal energy.
The United States has ended a century of rising carbon emissions and has now entered a new energy era, one of declining emissions. Peak carbon is now history. What had appeared to be hopelessly difficult is happening at amazing speed.
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released results of a major survey tracking what people believe about “Global Warming.” It is not encouraging! Across age, gender, race, political affiliation, and religion there have been declines in the number of people who believe that human activity is involved and increases in the number of people who don’t think it is happening. My own demographic (white, male, 54 years old, political Independent, Evangelical Christian) is among the most skeptical, though the Baby Boom slightly bucks the trend for age. Some friends and I are working on a strategy to challenge the Church on this issue.
I’ll come back to the Mycotoxin issue soon. Instead, I’ll talk today about my serious worries about Climate Change.
People involved in world agriculture have no patience with the supposed “debate” about climate change. We are already seeing the effects, and the projections for the future are not encouraging. The most troubling feature of this phenomenon (and one that occurs even if you don’t believe that it is human-driven) is that we are facing increasing variation in climatic events. The yearly changes in average temperature or even annual rainfall may not be dramatic, but what we are anticipating is that there will be more extreme weather events. Climate averages are not what matters for crop production - Variation is. A few days of intense rain or heat at the wrong time can devastate a crop. A few weeks of drought can do the same. A single hail or frost event can make all the difference in what a farmer can harvest. We have always had those risks for farming and only long term data will demonstrate whether there has been an increasing trend as is predicted. For instance, It isn’t possible yet to say that the current, extended drought in Australia is caused by elevated greenhouse gasses, but some day we will know whether it was by looking back historically. Of course that will be too late. Our actions have to come now. The other huge threat from climate change is that water supplies will be more limiting in many areas that are irrigated today. Though that area is much smaller than rain-fed areas, it is very important to the food supply.
Some have predicted that “Global warming” and elevated CO2 will boost crop production in certain areas. There might be some occasions where higher temperatures will enhance some yields in normally cold areas, but if the warmth comes with other extreme weather events, the benefits will be diminished. It also turns out that plants can’t really take full advantage of high CO2 levels. Basically, there is no real “up-side” of climate change for farming.
The large-scale Organic dairy cooperative, “Organic Valley” has just sunk to a new low in the practice of “I will market against my farmer neighbors by stoking consumer’s fears.” They announced that they have launched an on-line calculator that is supposed to show you how much pesticide and fertilizer use is avoided when you buy their products. The news release essentially boils down to the message, “buy our products or you will probably die!” It also essentially accuses the 97.5% of us who don’t buy Organic of destroying the planet.
When talking about pesticides the press report says: “For adults, exposure through diet has been linked to infertility, Parkinson’s, testicular cancer, birth defects and much more. More than one million children in America age five and under ingest at least 15 pesticides daily. Early exposures are suspected in the sharp rise in health problems including autism, obesity, asthma, brain cancer and other childhood cancers.” This broad-brush assertion is misleading on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start. I’m not saying that there have never been any health issues with any pesticide anywhere, but we also have sufficient food in part because of pesticides. Though many people don’t know it, there are pesticides used on organic crops as well. Actually, the EPA has done a very good job of regulating pesticide use over the years so that people don’t need to be frightened about their food.
Lots of people in America are worried about their food - usually not about having enough food, but mostly about things that might be in their food that could potentially hurt them or their children. People also worry about the environmental impacts of food production. At one level I’m glad that people are engaged in this way and I do believe that there are legitimate concerns. I happen to think that some of the fear about food is misplaced.
I believe that much of this fear stems from a limited understanding of toxicology, molecular genetics, and also what farming is actually about today. Very few Americans have any real contact with farming. Frankly, some of this fear is also driven by the activities of businesses and organizations with a vested economic interest in alarming people.
I’ve been working as an agricultural scientist for 32 years. I’ve had the opportunity to learn about lots of crops grown all over the world. I’ve been involved with all sorts of different technologies. I’ve seen huge changes in agriculture over time. So from all of this experience, do I worry about anything to do with food? Yes, absolutely I do worry! But my list of worries is a little different from the norm
Since July 2003, sustainablog has been providing information on environmental and economic sustainability, green and sustainable business, and environmental politics. The blog regularly features environmental leaders, experts in alternative energy and green technology, and real people trying to lighten their environmental footprints.
Sean Daily, 
