Congress Should Wake Up and Smell the Burnt Brussels Biofuels Brew Before Imposing Counterproductive & Harmful Renewable Energy Mandates in the US

http://euobserver.com/9/26454

EU Signals Retreat On Biofuels Target

By LEIGH PHILLIPS

EU Observer

July 7, 2008

European energy ministers have backed away from the EU's biofuels for transport target, admitting a gross confusion on their part in which they said they had been misreading policy documents since the target was initially proposed a year and a half ago.

The ministers, meeting in Paris for informal discussions, said that upon closer inspection, EU proposals that aim for a target of 10 percent of fuels for cars and lorries coming from biofuels by 2020 in fact only demand that 10 percent of fuels come from renewable sources, which may or may not be the controversial energy source.

Bioethanol from Brazil, produced from sugar cane, does not compete with food staples (Photo: Wikipedia)

"The member states realised that the commission's plan specifies that 10 percent of transport needs must come from renewable energy, not 10 percent from biofuels," French energy and environment minister Jean-Louis Borloo told reporters at the conclusion of the meeting. [OOPS!!!]

Until now, it was believed that EU leaders last spring agreed that the EU should increase the use of biofuels in transport fuel to 10 percent by 2020, up from a planned 5.75 percent target to be achieved by 2010.

Jochen Homann, a state secretary in the German Ministry of Economics and Technology said he and his colleagues had "discovered" that the documents "do not speak of biofuels, but renewables," according to AFP.

"We have to decide if the quota can be kept," Mr Homann said. "It might be changed."

The retreat comes after months of pressure on the EU and US from environmental groups, development NGOs and international institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations to adjust or abandon their biofuels policies.

Until a year ago, the alternative fuel source had widely been seen as a green alternative to petrol that also allowed European and developing world farmers to benefit from new markets for their crops.

At the international level however, there is now broad consensus that production of many biofuels releases as many greenhouse gases as the use of fossil fuels and that they have contributed to the global food crisis as farmers switch to growing crops for fuel instead of food.

The coup de grace for EU biofuels policy seems to have come on Friday, when a confidential internal World Bank report leaked to the UK's Guardian newspaper concluded that biofuels were responsible for 75 percent of the skyrocketing rise in food prices.

Mr Borloo said at the meeting that the policy could instead be interpreted to mean the deployment of hydrogen fuel cells or electric cars using electricity from alternative sources. [NICE ATTEMPT TO COVER UP YOUR BLUNDER!!]

Nonetheless, despite the re-reading, there has been no official policy change proposed. Meanwhile, the ministers are mulling over a proposal for a biofuels accord with Brazil.

Green MEP Claude Turmes, the deputy responsible for shepherding renewable energy legislation through the European Parliament, has suggested that the EU reach a bilateral agreement with the South American country, the biggest producer of bioethanol in the world.

"My analysis shows the only country where we can sustainably import substantial quantities of agri-fuels to the EU at the moment is Brazil," Mr Turmes said following the meeting, according to Reuters. [THAT IS, UNTIL YOU AND YOUR FELLOW BUREAUCRATS CAN FIND A WAY TO DECLARE BRAZILIAN SUGAR CANE-BASED ETHANOL UNSAFE, UNHEALTHY OR UNSUSTAINABLE IN ORDER TO BLOCK ITS IMPORTATION!!!]

Religious Environmentalists Must Yield to Pragmatic Energy & Economic Concerns

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/g-8-to-fight-oil-prices-with-efficiency/n20080608085309990011

G-8 to fight oil prices with efficiency, tech


By JOSEPH COLEMAN,


Associated Press


June 8, 2008


AOMORI, Japan (AP) - The world's top industrialized nations and leading oil consumers pledged Sunday to fight skyrocketing energy prices by increasing efficiency and accelerating investment in new technologies, while urging producers to expand production.


Energy ministers from the Group of Eight countries, joined by China, India and South Korea, voiced concerns over record oil prices and said both producers and consumers would benefit from greater market stability.


Ministers, meeting in the northern Japanese city of Aomori, focused Sunday on how they could diversify their energy sources to both control rising demand for oil and rein in emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.


"We simply must increase the level and breadth of investment all around the world," said U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. "That means promoting aggressive investment in renewable energy and other alternative energies technologies, as well as the development of traditional hydrocarbon resources."


The 11 nations, which account for 65 percent of the world's energy consumption, grappled with oil prices that have hit record highs. Prices made a massive 8 percent gain Friday to $138.54 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.


The G-8 countries - the United States, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Britain - laid out in a statement ways of cutting their dependence on oil.


They pledged to launch 20 demonstration projects by 2010 on so-called "carbon capture and storage," which would allow power plants to catch emissions and inject them into underground storage spaces.


While that technology is still in its infancy, proponents say it could eventually allow the expanded exploitation of the world's abundant supply of cheap coal without polluting the environment and speeding global warming.


There were clear rifts, however, on how to approach the expansion of nuclear energy. The carefully worded joint statement called for assurances on safety and security of nuclear materials, but several nations said they were enthusiastic about building new reactors.


The International Energy Agency, in a report issued last week, estimated the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year from now until 2050 as part of an effort to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.


"I think we're on the verge of a new nuclear age and that will be a positive thing for the world," said John Hutton, British secretary of state for business enterprise and regulatory reform.


Germany, however, said it would not join the effort. Jochen Homann, Germany's economics minister, said Berlin was sticking to its decision to phase out nuclear power.


The G-8, China, India and South Korea also established the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation to promote best practices in conserving energy.


While the participants called for more oil production, it could take months to get a response. Production levels have been flat for three years and Chakib Khelil, the president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, has said the group will make no new decision on output until a Sept. 9 meeting in Vienna.


The ministers met amid rising concerns that soaring oil prices could trigger global economic troubles. Fanning such fears, both Japan and the United States have announced higher unemployment rates in recent weeks.


"The situation regarding energy prices is becoming extremely challenging," warned Akira Amari, Japan's trade and energy minister. "If left unaddressed, it may well cause a recession in the global economy.


"The Sunday meeting followed a joint statement by five top energy consumers - the U.S., Japan, China, India and South Korea - that warned high prices were a menace to the world economy and more petroleum should be produced to meet rising demand. They argued the unprecedented prices were against the interests of both producers and consumers, and imposed a "heavy burden" on developing countries.


The group, however, diverged over oil subsidies. The International Energy Agency has estimated that oil subsidies in China, India and the Middle East totaled about $55 billion in 2007.


The United States urged countries such as China to lower oil supports, which buoy demand, while poorer developing nations said removing subsidies could trigger political and economic unrest.

Russian Scientist Says Earth Could Soon Face New Ice Age: Countries Must Secure Diverse Energy Sources to Meet Greater Energy Needs

http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953-print.html


Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age


ST. PETERSBURG, RUSSIA


(RIA Novosti) Russian News & Information Agency


January 22, 2008


Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.


"Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005," said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.


According to the scientist, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade, but global warming has practically stopped. It confirms the theory of "solar" impact on changes in the Earth's climate, because the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased during the same period, the scientist said.
Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 Celsius in the past ten years, however, it never happened, he said.


"A year ago, many meteorologists predicted that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make the year 2007 the hottest in the last decade, but, fortunately, these predictions did not become reality," Abdusamatov said.


He also said that in 2008, global temperatures would drop slightly, rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the past 30 years, and would continue decreasing even if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels.


By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years, the scientist added.


"By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041," he said.


The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715, when only about 50 spots appeared on the Sun, as opposed to the typical 40,000-50,000 spots.


It coincided with the middle and coldest part of the so called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.


"However, the thermal inertia of the world's oceans and seas will delay a 'deep cooling' of the planet, and the new Ice Age will begin sometime during 2055-2060, probably lasting for several decades," Abdusamatov said.


Therefore, the Earth must brace itself for a growing ice cap, rather than rising waters in global oceans caused by ice melting.


Mankind will face serious economic, social, and demographic consequences of the coming Ice Age because it will directly affect more than 80% of the earth's population, the scientist concluded.

Politically Correct Environmentalism Keeps Republican Candidates Mum About Tapping Florida's Huge Offshore Energy Resources

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=286155639255557


The Coast (Of Florida) Is Still Clear


By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


January 25, 2008


Energy Policy: Our dependence on foreign oil is a crucial economic and national security issue. So with billions of barrels of crude sitting off Florida, why was the subject of getting it left out of the Republican debate?


It was by all accounts a dull and unhelpful affair. With Tuesday's Florida primary looming, there appeared to be a desire on the part of the candidates not to make any gaffes, ruffle any feathers, provoke any controversies.


This is the only explanation for why none of the GOP contenders brought up, or were asked about, a perfect topic for a Florida debate — drilling for vast known reserves of oil and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico off the Florida coast.


Maybe the media aren't interested or consider the subject closed. Maybe there's not that much disagreement among the candidates. Certainly, as we have noted, Sen. John McCain has voted against drilling in ANWR four times and has expressed no passion for developing domestic sources of energy.


In an interview with Florida CBS affiliate WINK-TV last October, another leading candidate, Gov. Mitt Romney, was asked about the subject and replied: "With regards to Florida . . . the federal and state governments have reached an agreement on a 120-mile limit, and that's something which can be pursued."


Wow. Something which can be pursued. At least not with enough passion to offend any Florida voters. Drilling for oil and natural gas in the gulf is certainly something the Cubans and their Chinese patrons are pursuing.


Cuba's state-run oil company, Cubapetroleo, has inked a deal with China's Sinopec to explore for oil in its half of the Florida Strait and is using Chinese-made drilling equipment to conduct the exploration. Since oil fields do not respect international boundaries, Cuba and others will be pumping petroleum that should be ours.


Enviro-leftists who oppose drilling in the gulf should know that none other than Fidel Castro is taking advantage of the Outer Shelf. Cuba has gleaned $1.7 billion from oil and gas drilling as close as 60 miles from the Florida coast since 2004, according to Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania, and "is drilling closer to sovereign American property than we are."


Lease Area 181 off the Gulf Coast of Florida is estimated to contain 1.25 billion barrels of recoverable oil and nearly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to heat 6 million homes for 15 years. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the North Cuban Basin contains 4.6 billion barrels of oil.


Is offshore oil an environmental threat? Brazil has achieved energy independence in part from the 1.9 million barrels of oil it gets from offshore drilling daily. The North Sea is full of oil and gas rigs. And of all the damage done by Katrina to our existing oil and gas rigs, vast oil spills were not one of the problems.


According to the Interior Department, since 1985 more than 7 billion barrels of oil have been produced in federal waters, with less than 0.001% spilled. It's likely that more oil has been leaked by cars, SUVs and motor homes traveling to these pristine beaches, or from the boats and jet skis rented by tourists, than is or will be leaked getting the oil to fuel them.


"This is the irony of ironies," complains Charles Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. "We have chosen to lock up our resources and stand by to be spectators while these two come in and benefit from things right in our own backyard."

While politicians founder about ways to stimulate the U.S. economy, how about developing domestic energy resources? We reduce our dependence on foreign oil, increase supply, reduce energy costs and create American jobs. We might even be able to afford to take the family down to the beach.

Flawed policies encourage damaging biofuels, says Royal Society

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/January/14010802.asp


Flawed policies encourage damaging biofuels, says Royal Society


14 January 2008


Richard Van Noorden


RSC Chemistry World



Simplistic policies are encouraging biofuels that don't cut greenhouse gases, the UK's Royal Society has warned in a new report.



Not all biofuels are equally good at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, so rewarding the best should be a priority, explained John Pickett, who chaired the study. Yet current transport policies - such as the EU biofuels directive and the UK's renewable transport fuel obligation (RTFO) - only demand more transport fuel from renewable resources. 'Indiscriminately increasing the amount of biofuels we are using may not automatically lead to the best reductions in emissions,' said Pickett.



Instead, the report - Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges - favours policies that promote fuels with the lowest emissions by, for example, including greenhouse gas reduction incentives and certifying fuels for their emissions savings.



The recommendations came on the same day that EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas admitted that the EU had not forseen the social and environmental problems caused by its own biofuels targets - such as rising food prices and deforestation. 'We have to have criteria for sustainability,' he said.



But that could be easier said than done, the Royal Society says. 'How we develop these "sustainability criteria" in itself requires research,' commented report co-author Dianna Bowles, who works on novel agricultural products at the University of York.



Hard choices



Jeremy Woods, at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, said that ethanol from UK-sourced wheat, for example, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by anything from 10 to 80 per cent. The vast uncertainty simply reflected different agricultural practices and crop yields.



And it is not just agricultural processing that needs to be considered: effects on deforestation; food shortages; local climate; soil quality; distribution costs; the trade impacts of biofuel imports; and other unexpected variables could all affect the merits of any one biofuel process.



In other words, said Pickett, biofuel policy-makers are walking a thin line between making overly complex regulations, too costly and slow to research and implement - or being too simple, and so encouraging the wrong biofuels. Focusing on greenhouse gas reductions would be a good target to start with, but 'we must not create new environmental or social problems in our efforts to deal with climate change,' he said.



International concern



The UK's RTFO, whose first incarnation comes into force in April 2008, requires that 5 per cent of UK fuel comes from a renewable source by 2010. It is developing a carbon reporting and sustainability certification scheme. 'The RTFO is a reasonable start,' said Pickett. 'But unless certification is applied to the production of all biofuels, and is a system used by all countries, we will merely displace rather than remedy the potentially negative effects of these fuels.'

[OSTENSIBLY PRIVATE CERTIFICATION SCHEMES CAN PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISGUISED TRADE PROTECTIONISM]**


See: "Discerning The Forests From the Trees: How Governments Use Ostensibly Private and Voluntary Standards to Avoid WTO Culpability"

http://www.itssd.org/GTCJ_03-offprints%20KOGAN%20-%20Discerning%20the%20Forest%20from%20the%20Trees.pdf


Meanwhile, an OECD official has warned that even governments aware of the weaknesses of their biofuel policies - for example, the trade barriers that have been set up by Europe and the US - might now find it hard to backtrack on them. Speaking at the Reuters Global Agriculture and Biofuel Summit in Paris, Leok Boonekamp, a division head in the OECD's Agro-food Trade and Markets Division, said, 'I'm not very optimistic that because we say that the policies are bad and wasteful that governments will go away and do something else.'

The Ethanol Fallacy: Will Politicians Ever Learn???

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4237539.html?series=46


The Ethanol Fallacy


Op-Ed


Popular Mechanics (Feb. 2008)


By James B. Meigs (PM's editor-in-chief)


America needs smart alternative to oil, but the just-passed energy bill puts too much emphasis on the wrong alternative, PM's editor-in-chief says.



The idea is so appealing: We can reduce our dependence on oil-stop sending U.S. dollars to corrupt petro-dictators, stop spewing megatons of carbon into the atmosphere-by replacing it with clean, home-grown, all-American corn. It sounds too good to be true.



Sadly, it is.



Of course we need alternatives to oil. The world uses a cubic mile of petroleum each year, and demand keeps rising as the global economy booms. At first glance, corn seems like a heaven-sent substitute. American corn farmers are the most productive in the world, growing far more of the grain than we can possibly eat, and exporting mountains of the stuff to other countries. And the corn kernel is a marvel of energy storage. Converting that compact bundle of starches into alcohol is a relatively simple trick known to generations of moonshiners. So why not build corn liquor stills on an industrial scale and use the output to power our cars and trucks?



That's exactly what this country has been doing for the past several years. Some 134 ethanol plants are now in operation, consuming close to 1.6 billion bushels of grain, about 15 percent of our total corn production. To feed the ethanol machine, farmers planted almost 93 million acres of corn in 2007, a 19 percent increase over the previous year, and the highest figure since 1944 (when yields per acre were far lower).



The result is that the country is now experiencing an ethanol glut. Prices are sagging-as are plans to build ethanol refineries from sea to shining sea. Yet many in Washington seem determined to force still more ethanol into the system. The just-passed Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which President Bush has said he will sign, mandates corn ethanol usage of 15 billion gal. a year (more than three times today's consumption) by 2015. And presidential candidates have outdone each other with vows to flood the nation with ever-increasing rivers of ethanol for at least a generation.



It's great that our politicians have discovered the need for new energy technologies. But it appears that Washington is determined to put its money-our money-on the wrong horse. Right now, researchers are studying a host of energy solutions, including hydrogen, high-mileage diesel, plug-in hybrids, radical reductions in vehicle weight and cellulosic ethanol (made from cornstalks, switchgrass or other nonfood crops).



It is far too soon to say which of these holds the most promise. But, instead of promoting experimentation and competition to find the best solutions, politicians seem ready to declare ethanol the winner. As a result, our nation could wind up with the worst of both worlds: an ‘alternative’ energy that is enormously expensive yet barely saves a gallon of oil.



Let's start with the math. Corn doesn't grow like a weed. Modern corn farming involves heavy inputs of nitrogen fertilizer (made with natural gas), applications of herbicides and other chemicals (made mostly from oil), heavy machinery (which runs on diesel) and transportation (diesel again). Converting the corn into fuel requires still more energy. The ratio of how much energy is used to make ethanol versus how much it delivers is known as the energy balance, and calculating it is surprisingly complex.



The National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that, “Today, 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.” Even that modest payback may be overstated. Skeptics cite the research of Cornell University professor David Pimentel, who estimates that it takes approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.



If the benefits are in doubt, the costs are not. It would take 450 pounds of corn to yield enough ethanol to fill the tank of an SUV. Producing enough ethanol to replace America's imported oil alone would require putting nearly 900 million acres under cultivation-or roughly 95 percent of the active farmland in the country. Once we've turned our farms into filling stations, where will the food come from?



There's a simple reason that ethanol is popular with politicians: money. Substituting corn ethanol for a large fraction of the gasoline we burn will mean sluicing gushers of cash from more populated states to politically powerful farm states. And a lot of that cash will wind up in the pockets of the big agribusinesses, like Archer Daniels Midland, that dominate ethanol processing-and whose fat checkbooks wield enormous influence in Washington.



In fact, governments generally have a bad track record when it comes to picking technologies. In the midst of an earlier oil crunch, President Jimmy Carter seized on ‘synfuels’-refined from oil shale deposits-as a panacea. Oops. Synfuels turned out to be woefully uneconomic, environmentally disastrous and feasible only with massive government subsidies. It took years to kill the program off-and the last of the multibillion-dollar tax credits just expired in 2007.



The corn ethanol boondoggle threatens to be far, far worse. If enacted, current proposals will amount to a huge hidden tax on consumers, with benefits flowing to the politically connected. Once set in motion, such a program would be all but impossible to stop-even if other alternatives, like cellulosic ethanol, turn out to be vastly superior. And every dollar spent on corn ethanol is a dollar not spent on those other, more promising approaches.



So what should the government do? First off: no harm. Instead of trying to mandate specific technologies-and risk locking us into using the wrong one-Washington should create incentives to help the market choose the best approaches. One step would be to reward consumers for conservation: There are vast opportunities to make our homes, businesses and vehicles more efficient, and to make our economy stronger in the process.



Perhaps someday corn ethanol will prove itself a viable part of our energy mix. But corn liquor is powerful stuff, and it can make people do strange things. Let's keep it out of Washington's hands.

UK Government: There is NO Policy Reason to Deny Energy Companies From Investing in New Nuclear Power Stations

Notwithstanding the global warming/climate change hysteria wrought by extremist environmental groups in the UK and throughout the European Continent, the UK Government appears to have arrived at a rationale and reasonable risk management approach to ensuring UK energy security for the foreseeable future (next 50 years).


The UK government, as stated in its January 2008 document "Meeting the energy challenge: a White Paper on nuclear power" (http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/nuclear-whitepaper/page42765.html), "decided that the electricity industry should, from now on be allowed to build and operate new nuclear power stations, subject to meeting the normal planning and regulatory requirements."


The Labor government acclaimed nuclear technology as "a tried and tested technology" that "has provided the UK with secure supplies of safe, low-carbon electricity for half a century."


“...8. We set out the Government’s preliminary view on nuclear power in our Energy White Paper15. This explained how nuclear power related to our overall energy strategy. In particular, we highlighted the uncertainties we face in the availability and costs of the UK’s energy supplies over the coming decades. We also need to respond to the challenges of climate change. These uncertainties relate to: future fossil fuel and carbon prices; how quickly we can achieve energy efficiency savings and the therefore likely levels of energy demand; the speed, direction and future economics of development of the renewables sector; and the technical feasibility of and costs associated with applying carbon capture and storage technologies to electricity generation on a commercial scale.”


“9. It is our view that, given these uncertainties, our energy strategy should be based on diversity and flexibility in the energy mix and has accordingly developed policies which keep open the widest possible range of low-carbon generating options. These options would include renewables and the use of gas and coal with CCS, as well as nuclear. Unnecessarily ruling out one of these options would, in our view, increase the risk that we would be unable to meet our climate change and energy security objectives.”


The report concluded that rational and reasonable decisions are needed NOW because:


"...energy companies will need to build around 30-35 GW of new electricity generating capacity
over the next two decades. They will have to make around two-thirds of this investment by 2020. So investment decisions made in the next few years will affect our electricity generation infrastructure for decades to come."