Whether you desire to buy trees to help the environment for personal reasons, for investment purposes or you simply refer others to buy trees through our Affiliate Program,  PanAm BioFuels has made the process so simple that everyone can find a way to participate in it.

1) Purchase Trees for Investment

Jatropha trees can be bought directly from Pan-Am Biofuels for only $4 each in lots ranging from 250 trees for $1000 to 25,000 trees for $100,000.  Though delivery is possible for larger volumes, we will believe most people will take advantage of our Contract Farming Program where we will actually plant your trees on our plantations. 

With our Contract Farming Program we do all the work from planting to harvest to sale of the oil.  The only fee for all of this is a 10% fee from profits.  Then 90% of the profits are passed on to you, the tree owner.  All you have to do is purchase your trees in lots for only $4/each.

If you have priced trees at your local nursery you will see most prices range from $10 to $25. So now you may be thinking…

"How can you produce, plant and sell these trees at only $4 each?"

There are several reasons, including, but not limited to,

• Because the cost of living as well as labor is much cheaper in Central America where our nurseries are located.
• The efficiencies and economies of scale we enjoy by the huge volume of trees our nursery outputs allow us to save a tremendous amount of money passing the savings on to you.
• Our nursery is in close proximity to our Jatropha Tree plantation in Costa Rica where our Contract Farming Program is being implemented so there are minimal transportation expenses.

"So how much money do I stand to earn by buying your Jatropha Trees? What is the return on my investment?" 

Your trees can potentially bring  as much as 45% PER YEAR calculated  from your original investment once the trees start producing within 3-4 years.   Jatropha trees start bearing seeds the second year and reach maximum production at about 4 years.  You can review the full details and Financial Projections once you register and login.

Pan-Am Biofuels has truly created a unique situation and opportunity for the average person to take advantage of.

Now you can participate in an industry that has produced the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the world. The only difference is, instead of drilling for oil and destroying the environment, you will be growing oil and restoring the environment by owning oil producing Jatrpha Trees

2) Sell trees for Commissions as an Affiliate

We will pay you to refer customers! Pan-Am Biofuels has created a lucrative opportunity for webmasters,  business owners and individuals alike. By becoming an Affiliate you can help promote our Jatropha tree project, earn commissions and at the same time you’ll be doing your part to better our environment.  Learn more about how our Affiliate Program works.

My near-encounter with the Prius occurred because the car was running on its electric motor, thus making the car virtually silent. As the Prius backed out of its parking space, I was caught by surprise and realized how much I rely on my ears to warn me of traffic. We tell children to "look both ways and listen" for cars when crossing streets, but as our fleet moves toward hybrid vehicles (and hopefully electric ones, too), we will need to adjust which senses we rely on to keep us safe in parking lots and crossing roads.

I am not the only one to be startled by a low noise car. In particular, hybrid vehicles running on their electric motors especially affect blind people, who rely on their sense of hearing in traffic. According to the Wall Street Journal,

"Michael Osborn, a blind marketing consultant from Laguna Beach, Calif., and his guide dog, Hastings, were in the middle of an intersection one morning last April when the yellow Lab stopped short. Mr. Osborn took the cue and halted — just in time to feel the breeze from a car passing right in front of them. ‘Half an inch and it would have hit us … it wasn’t making any noise,’ says Mr. Osborn, 50, who has been blind for 12 years. Witnesses say the car was a Toyota Prius, a hybrid vehicle."

The National Federation of the Blind is advocating hybrid and electric vehicles emit a sound when turned on, and many guide dog schools are now including hybrid vehicles in their training course. The proposed sound device would alert a sensor carried by the vision impaired to alert them of a hybrid in the vicinity. In response to the concern, Denise Morrissey, a spokeswoman for Toyota Motor Sales USA stated, "The [industry] trend is toward quiet powertrains in all sorts of vehicles. That trend has raised the need for other drivers and pedestrians to increase caution and to be more aware of the surroundings."

I don’t know what the solution is, and I certainly like less noise pollution. The sound of an electric powered car is beautiful in its quietude, and I can only imagine how our city streets would sound if the electric vehicle had not been "killed." As pedestrians, we must be more aware and mindful of our surroundings as more and more hybrid vehicles are on the road. For drivers of hybrid or electric vehicles, pay special attention around pedestrians, especially the blind, who may not be aware of your presence. As our streets become quieter and our awareness grows, perhaps we will once again be able to hear the birds’ songs in the bustling city.

Myth: Global temperature data is inaccurate and/or too sparse to be able to establish a meaningful average temperature over the entire planet. Therefore, any claims of global warming are unfounded.

Fact: NASA has collected and acquired massive amounts of temperature data from various sources, including land-based, meteorological stations, sea surface temperature measurements from ships, and measurements taken from satellites. This data encompasses the entire planet, and is run through a method that is explained on NASA’s website, which results in a statistically significant global average temperature.

The first thing to note here is that there are not many who still make this argument, at least not among climate scientists. The IPCC, in its latest report, actually states that global warming is "unequivocal". Even skeptical scientists, such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy, will admit that we are indeed warming. Their only argument is against the cause of the warming, which is where most skeptics’ arguments have shifted. This should be a clue that there is no argument against warming, however some continue to insist that the planet is not warming.

It seems that the major impetus for the recent resurgence of this argument is a website, www.surfacestations.org, which attempts to question data collection equipment. This is actually a very nifty little trick. This site, launched in June of this year, has established a fairly large following. These devoted followers are commissioned to go out and take pictures of the US meteorological stations. Armed with these pictures, surfacestations.org scrutinizes them, looking for indications that they might be susceptible to a warm bias. This has filled many contrarians’ minds with the idea that the entire temperature data set is flawed, which is ultimately the point. Not surprisingly, there is no mention on the site of existing methods for removing biases from temperature measurements. First, the thermometers are now protected by Stevenson screens (emphasis added):

A Stevenson screen or Instrument shelter is a meterological screen to shield instruments against precipitation and direct heat radiation from outside sources, while still allowing air to circulate freely around them. It forms part of a standard weather station. The screen creates, as near possible, a uniform environment in relation to the air outside. - Wikipedia

Second, NASA’s GISTEMP compares urban stations to rural stations, in an attempt to further remove any potential biases:

We modify the GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data in two stages to get to the station data on which all our tables, graphs, and maps are based: in stage 1 we try to combine at each location the time records of the various sources; in stage 2 we adjust the non-rural stations in such a way that their longterm trend of annual means is as close as possible to that of the mean of the neighboring rural stations. Non-rural stations that cannot be adjusted are dropped. - NASA GISS

Another common argument is that we simply don’t have enough temperature data to be able to compute a global average temperature. This argument usually comes with a map of the world, showing the locations of existing surface meteorological stations. Obviously, on such a map, there are very large areas that are not covered (oceans, deserts, mountain ranges, etc.). However, NASA states that they have sufficient data, dating as far back as 1880:

The NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) provides a measure of the changing global surface temperature with monthly resolution for the period since 1880, when a reasonably global distribution of meteorological stations was established…We limit our analysis to the period since 1880 because of the poor spatial coverage of stations prior to that time and the reduced possibility of checking records against those of nearby neighbors. - NASA GISS

A major problem for both of these arguments is that they only focus on land-based temperature readings. This is because there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of global warming outside of those temperature measurements, which are completely ignored by these objections. In order to truly call global warming into question, one would also have to prove satellite data, borehole analysis, glacial melt, sea ice melt, sea level rise, proxy data, and rising ocean temperature to be flawed.

UPDATE: A new instance of this questioning of temperature data occurred when NASA made some small corrections to data at the turn of the millenium, thanks to a tip from Stephen McIntyre from Climate Audit. This was a good tip, and NASA’s data is now more accurate for it, but some skeptics have tried to misrepresent it as proof that NASA’s temperature data is faulty. Recently, Fox News provided an excellent example of this misrepresentation:

On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA’s revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings. - Media Matters

As the fine folks at Media Matters pointed out, while the change did result in 1934 topping 1998 as the hottest year in the US, it had literally no effect on global temperature trends, and actually even a very miniscule effect on US trends. Looking at the global temperature graph below, one can see that the global warming trend is still very much intact:

Myth: According to Occam’s razor, the theory that our current climate change is part of a natural cycle is correct.

Fact: Occam’s razor does not apply for two reasons: the theory of natural variation is no simpler than that of anthropogenic global warming, and most importantly, natural variation is not a valid theory, which is a prerequisite for the use of Occam’s razor.

Many times, when engaged in a debate with a global warming skeptic, I will encounter an invocation of Occam’s Razor. According to this maxim, all other things being equal, the simpler of two competing theories is most likely the correct one:

Occam’s razor (sometimes spelled Ockham’s razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory…This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. - Wikipedia

When global warming skeptics invoke Occam’s Razor, they generally mean that the idea that climate change is caused primarily, if not solely, by natural factors is much simpler than the idea that human activity has caused such changes. Therefore, according to Occam’s Razor, the natural variations idea is the correct theory. As I stated above, this is an incorrect use of the maxim.

First, the natural variation theory is actually no simpler than anthropogenic global warming. The idea that current climate change is a natural phenomenon seems to be simpler to many skeptics because they generally don’t exercise the same amount of skepticism towards theories that agree with their ideologies, which results in a lack of any true examination of this idea. The argument I hear most often in favor of this idea is that our climate has always changed in the past, and humans weren’t around back then to influence it, so it must follow that our current climate is also due to natural factors. However, that is not a valid argument. Just because something caused changes in the past, it doesn’t mean that when a new variable is added, the new variability is not caused primarily by the new variable. So, in order to prove that climate change is indeed caused by natural factors, one must actually specify which natural factors are causing the change, and provide a statistically valid, quantified comparison of both natural and man-made causes, which shows that the natural factors outweigh human greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, if one put the necessary effort into proving the natural variation theory, it would no longer be considered any simpler than anthropogenic global warming.

Second, Occam’s razor requires that "all things [be] equal". In other words, the prerequisite for the maxim is that both competing theories be equally verifiable. This is a major problem for skeptics who would like to use it because there is no valid theory which explains our current warming as being due to natural causes. Many of the largest changes in our planet’s temperature in the past were due to changes in the earth’s orbit and tilt, called Milankovitch cycles. This is does not explain our current warming because we are already in an interglacial period (between ice ages). Some believe the Sun is causing our warming, but the Sun’s energy output stays relatively constant. In fact, recent research has suggested that the Sun’s activity has declined in recent decades. Others blame cloud formation, or the lack thereof, due to cosmic ray flux, but this theory also remains unproven with many problems of its own. Namely, cosmic ray intensity has remained stagnant in the recent past. Conversely, anthropogenic global warming is verifiable. Nearly all research points to a warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which is what has given the IPCC the confidence to claim that it is "very likely" that global warming is due to human activity.

Simply put, this argument is yet another attempt to obfuscate the issue, rather than an honest attempt at finding the truth.

Myth: Our current global warming is due primarily to a decrease in cosmic ray intensity.

Fact: The fact is that this theory is extremely new, and has only recently been considered possible. There are still many questions left to be answered and more work to be done on quantifying its effect before such a statement could have any validity. Before we get into the details of why this is, I’d like to explain the theory itself a little better.

Basically, this theory, researched by a scientist named Henrick Svensmark, claims that the Sun indirectly affects our climate. The first thing to understand is that clouds generally have a cooling effect on the planet, through an effect called albedo: they reflect sunlight back into space. Next, we have cosmic rays, which are "energetic particles originating from space that impinge on Earth’s atmosphere". Cosmic rays primarily consist of protons, and they originate from outside our solar system. The Sun also emits rays, called solar cosmic rays, which have much lower energy than cosmic rays. When there is an increase in solar activity, the increased solar cosmic ray intensity causes a decrease in the other cosmic rays, called the Forbush decrease.

According to the cosmic ray flux theory, cosmic rays, upon entering our atmosphere, produce small particles called aerosols, which aid in cloud formation. So, more cosmic rays means more clouds and a greater cooling effect. However, this theory’s proponents claim that we are currently in a period of increased solar activity, which is causing less cosmic rays to enter our atmosphere. This means less clouds and therefore, a warming effect.

From the outset, Svensmark’s research has been met with criticism. His problems started when he claimed a correlation between cosmic ray intensity and global cloud cover based on limited data:

One of the biggest criticisms levied against Svensmark was that he had used data from a satellite that did not measure total global cloud cover. When other researchers plugged in a more comprehensive data set, the correlations Svensmark found between cosmic radiation and the Earth’s global cloud cover broke down.

So Svensmark tweaked his theory: Though clouds at middle and high levels are unaffected by cosmic rays, he said, low-level cloud formation was still highly correlated.

Criticism lingered.

Criticism has lingered because, while he’s found a correlation with low-level clouds, his experiments do not reflect real-world conditions. In his experiments, he has taken a mixture of water, sulphur dioxide, ozone, and air, and bombarded it with high energy UV light. According to Eli Rabett, this experiment contained about "5000 times more SO2 than in places where clouds actually form" and "more ozone than in the ozone layer". There is also concern over the use of high energy UV, which according to Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate, "never penetrates the lower troposphere." This is quite a problem, considering Svensmark’s supposed correlation is with low-level cloud formation. Schmidt also listed several additional questions that still need to be answered:

First, the particles observed in these experiments are orders of magnitude too small to be Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN). In the press release, this is why they talk about the ‘building blocks’ of CCN, however, aggrandisation of these small particles is in no sense guaranteed (Missing step #1). Secondly, the focus is on low clouds over the ocean. However, over the ocean, there are huge numbers of condensation nuclei related to sea salt particles. Thus to show that the cosmic ray mechanism is important, you need to show that it increases CCN even in the presence of lots of other CCN (Missing step #2). Next, even if more CCN were made, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud cover (or optical thickness etc.) (Missing step #3). And given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing - which despite their hand waving, is not at all well quantified (even the sign!) (Missing step #4). Finally, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades - which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure) (Missing step #5).

I’d like to clarify here that the purpose of this article is not to discredit Svensmark’s research. The study is peer-reviewed, and is for that reason, at least feasible. For all we know these questions could be answered in the future, with additional research. The point I want to make is that this is a very new theory. Many skeptics have latched onto this theory, claiming that it explains 20th century warming, and therefore debunks anthropogenic global warming. On the contrary, Svensmark’s work has created more questions than it has answered, and is therefore nowhere near solid enough to warrant such bold claims.

Fact: No, they didn’t. The situation in the 70’s was very different from our current situation. There was no scientific consensus on climate change. There was no international body of scientists looking into the matter, no global effort to deal with climate change, and no daily news articles on the subject. There were maybe a couple of magazine articles, a book, and some sporadic newspaper articles.

Today, by contrast, we have the IPCC, an organization of the world’s top climate scientists and its four reports, the latest of which claims with 90% certainty that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are primarily responsible for our current warming. We also have other scientific bodies that agree with this assessment, such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Should one ask for a scientific paper from that time period that makes such a claim, one would certainly be left empty-handed. The most common example used is an article that was published in Newsweek in 1975, titled "The Cooling World", which provides an excellent example of the sensationalist reporting that existed within some media reports.

The situation was also different because the state of climate science was such that there was not enough research to be able to make these supposed predictions with any certainty. A 1975 National Academy of Sciences report stated as much, saying "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…". Climate science was in its infancy. There wasn’t yet enough data or research available on which to base such a prediction, and scientists were well aware of that fact. Scientists’ current statements on the future of our climate are based on decades of research and massive amounts of data that has been collected over that time.

Also, as the climate scientists at RealClimate have pointed out, we know that climate scientists could not have made such predictions based on the scientific information that was available at the time:

Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived. - RealClimate

This argument, like many other skeptical arguments, is simply an ad hominem attack. Rather than addressing the merits of the science behind anthropogenic global warming, it attempts to discredit climate scientists in general based on arguments and statements they never made. Such arguments hold about as much merit as recent attacks against Al Gore and claims that previous high levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere were caused by dinosaur farts. If there were any valid points to be made by skeptics, this would not be one of them.

Myth: Compared to natural carbon dioxide emissions, manmade emissions are insignificant.

Fact: The argument is occasionally made by global warming skeptics that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Some skeptics will even quote figures in decimal or percent form, which makes it look even more true. If this is the case, according to their logic, our attempts to stop global warming are futile because we can't make a difference. This argument is blatantly false and is based on a complete lack of understanding of our environment.

On our planet, there is an ongoing process called the carbon cycle, in which carbon dioxide is both emitted and absorbed naturally. The absorption part of the cycle is what is missing from this myth. It is true that very large amounts of CO2 are emitted naturally, but there is also a carbon dioxide sink, which is the name for the absorption process. The sink removes slightly more carbon dioxide from the air than is emitted naturally. Therefore, any natural CO2 emissions are a wash.

Carbon Cycle

Actually, the natural sink is also absorbing much of the emissions resulting from human activity. In fact, the only reason any of our emissions end up in the atmosphere is because we're emitting CO2 faster than the planet can absorb it:

The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce. However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase. - RealClimate

This has resulted in an increase in CO2 concentrations over the last century and a half of about 100 parts per million, from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. Nearly all of this increase has been due to human activity. Another way we know this, besides a simple look at the increase in human activity over the past two centuries, is by measurements of different isotopes of the carbon atom:

Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases. - RealClimate

So, not only are manmade CO2 emissions significant, they actually make up an overwhelming majority of the recent increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Looking into the future, manmade CO2 emissions are predicted to continue increasing, which will no doubt result in higher concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere. Therefore, our efforts to cut back on emissions will indeed make a difference for the future of our planet.

Myth: Mars is warming primarily due to the Sun and therefore, Earth's recent changes in climate are also due to solar activity.

Fact: This theory is based on satellite images that show that the ice caps at the Martian south pole are retreating. According to the theory, Mars has very little atmosphere, so a greenhouse effect can be ruled out. Therefore, the Sun must be causing warming on Mars. If that's true, then it must also be causing warming on Earth:

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

There are several problems with Abdussamatov's theory, but I'll just point out the two biggest holes I've found. The first problem is that it is controversial. The mainstream theory is that Mars' warming can be explained by changes in its orbit and tilt, much like Earth's Milankovitch Cycles:

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun. "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

The second problem with this theory is that there is an overwhelming amount of scientific research that supports the mainstream theory that increased greenhouse gas concentrations are the primary drivers of our climate. On page 4 of SPM1 for the IPCC's latest report, there is a chart that lists each of the components that affect our climate, including their corresponding values, which quantify their contributions. The components are called radiative forcings, and each forcing's effect is measured in watts per meter squared (W/m^2). According to the chart, carbon dioxide is the dominant forcing at 1.66 W/m^2, while the Sun's effect, called solar irradiance, is much smaller at only 0.12 W/m^2. The latter can also be verified by a simple calculation.

The funny thing about this myth is that it is hypocritical. Many skeptics do not trust or appreciate the massive amounts of data that we have collected here on our planet via land, sea, weather balloon, satellite, and proxy measurements, and yet three photos of one secton of Mars convince them that the Sun is warming not only Mars but also Earth.

Facts: Some natural, organic beauty products are exactly what they claim to be; however, many of the trusted brands featured in health food stores and coops contain harmful ingredients and/or are not 100% natural. Anyone can claim their product is natural and/or organic, as there are no federal certifications or safety testing for beauty products. There are no official guidelines as to what constitutes a natural product, and even though a beauty product may contain certified organic ingredients, it may not be 100% natural. Some beauty products labeled organic, contain only a single digit percentage of organic ingredients.

Rebecca recently wrote about beauty products in Tip o’ the Day: Cosmetics that Cause Concern. She advised readers to visit the Environmental Working Group’s cosmentic data base Skin Deep, which provides analysis of many beauty products. When consulting this site, I became concerned when I saw many of the “natural” beauty products I purchased at our local coop were rated higher than I expected for toxicity. By reading labels, I discovered many of these brands utilize ingredients that are not natural or may only be derived from natural ingredients. According to Skin Deep FAQ, “It is often difficult for us to identify which ingredients in products are truly organic, since “organic” is a generally marketing term used by many in the cosmetic industry to imply that the product is natural.”

Let’s look closely at one such “natural” body product I use every day. Alba Body Lotion made by Avalon Natural Products received a score of 8 out of 10, according to Skin Deep. Here are the ingredients from the packaging, some of which are organically grown:

ACTIVE INGREDIENTS: OCTYL METHOXYCINNAMATE, BENZOPHENONE-3. INGREDIENTS: CERTIFIED ORGANIC HERBAL INFUSION OF CHAMOMILE (CHAMOMILLA RECUTITA), ECHINACEA (ECHINACEA PURPUREA), GREEN TEA (CAMELLIA SINENSIS), LAVENDER (LAVANDULA OFFICINALIS) AND ROSE HIPS (ROSA CANINA), ISOPROPYL PALMITATE, GLYCERYL STEARATE, SWEET ALMOND OIL (PRUNUS AMYGDALUS DULCIS), CETYL ALCOHOL, SILICA, VEGETABLE GLYCERIN, CERTIFIED ORGANIC ALOE BARBADENSIS, ORCHID EXTRACT (CYMBIDIUM GRANDIFLORUM), ALPHA-HYDROXY ACIDS OF GLYCOLIC (SUGAR), LACTIC (VEGETABLE) AND ASCORBIC (CITRUS FRUIT), BOTANICAL FRAGRANCE (PARFUM), METHYL/PROPYLPARABEN, TOCOPHERYL ACETATE AND TOCOPHEROL (VITAMIN E).

The fragrance is considered to be of the highest concern for hazard, but the ingredient that stands out as the most unnatural is methyl/propylparaben. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports methyl and butyl parabens and certain preservatives have been linked to metabolic, developmental, hormonal, and neurological disorders, as well as various cancers. “True organic personal-care products would not contain preservatives,” says Diana Kaye, cofounder of the organic care line Terressentials. According to Wikipedia, methyl/proplylparaben belongs to the paraben family, “Parabens are a group of chemicals widely used as preservatives in the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries…. Their efficacy as preservatives, in combination with their low cost…probably explains why parabens are so commonplace.”

Another common ingredient used in “natural” beauty products is sodium laureth/lauryl sulfate (SLES/SLS). This surfactant is derived from coconut oil and fell victim to an Internet rumor as carcinogenic. It is commonly used in “natural” beauty products, as well as engine degreasers and antifreeze. Although SLES/SLS do not cause cancer, it is in fact an eye and skin irritant. In people with sensitive skin (prone to dermatitis, acne, eczema, psoriasis and chemical sensitivity), the drying property of SLS/SLES can cause flare-ups or may worsen existing conditions. This has been my experience with my son, who’s eczema disappeared after only three days on SLS free soap. As the Natural Health Information Center warns us, “Do not believe that just because a product is labeled as “natural” it is free from SLS or SLES. Most common brands of “Natural” or “Herbal” shampoos and cleansers still use these harmful chemicals as their main active ingredient - check your labels!” Many “natural” beauty companies stand by the use of SLS/SLES, such as Tom’s of Maine (now owned by Colgate/Palmolive). Other companies, such as Aubrey Organics, question its safety. Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps has put together a video using a forensic drug test to demonstrate how many, “Companies mislead consumers in conflating their detergent-based products with ecological biodegradable soaps, even calling these synthetic detergent products ‘organic’. Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps are real soaps made from real organic oils, while these other so-called ‘Soap’ products are detergents made from petroleum and conventional vegetable material. They are not soap, they are not organic, they are not natural.” Although SLS/SLES is derived from coconut oil, and many “natural” companies will place coconut in parentheses on the label behind SLS/SLES, it is not considered natural by all. In Germany, where there is an effort underway to label cosmetics and personal care products as certified natural, formulations containing sodium lauryl sulfate, ammonium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureth sulfate cannot be certified natural.

Read the Label!You can take action on this issue by signing EWG’s petition in support of government-mandated safety testing of product ingredients. Alternative products do exist that are truly natural and organic, but the consumer will need to read labels, research ingredients, and review Skin Deep to find the safest, natural beauty products. The advises, “There are still no regulations that keep unethical body care companies from making fraudulent ‘organic’ labeling claims outside of the USDA organic certification process… As a consumer, if you purchase a body care product that claims to be organic but does not have the USDA certified organic symbol, you have no way of knowing how much (or how little) organic content that product actually has.”

Fact: Minivans, pick-up trucks and regular ol' four door sedans get the same, if not worse, miles per gallon (MPG.)

Check out these ratings from the Consumer Reports Guide to Fuel Efficient Vehicles. Of the highest ranked vehicles of their class, these are the top performers in the MPG category:

• Midsized & large SUV: Honda Pilot EX (overall mpg 19, city 13, highway 27)
• Minivan: Chevrolet Venture LS (overall mpg 19, city 12, hwy 27)
• Compact pickup: Toyota Tacoma TRD (overall mpg 16, city 12, hwy 22)
• Small SUV: Toyota Matrix SR AWD (overall mpg 24, city 17, hwy 33)
• Wagons/hatchbacks: Pontiac Vibe FWD (overall mpg 26, 18 city, 36 hwy
• Nearly all of the sedan categories: family, luxury, upscale, and large (with the exception of the small sedan) were similar, averaging an overall mpg of 22.

Small sedan drivers are really the only people who can do the finger pointing as that category ranks best overall for mpg:

• Honda Insight (overall mpg 51, city 36, hwy 66),
• Volkswagon Golf GLS TDI (overall mpg 41, city 29, hwy 54)
• Toyota Prius (overall mpg 41, city 30, hwy 49)

What about hybrid SUVs? Not as good as the small sedans, but a little better than their all-gas counterparts:

• Ford Escape Hybrid 4WD (city mpg 33, hwy 29)
• Mercury Mariner Hybrid 4WD (city mpg 33, hwy 29)
• Lexus RX 400h 2WD (city mpg 33, hwy 28)
• Toyota Highlander Hybrid 2WD (city mpg 33, hwy 28)

Fact: MPG estimates vary. The way you drive and what conditions you are driving in will affect the MPG you'll get from your vehicle. Quick accelleration and heavy breaking, driving at higher speeds, AC use, and idling all can decrease how far your gas goes.

Fact: Federal fuel economy standards in the United States are 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger cars and 24 miles per gallon for light trucks.

Fact: Large vehicles weighing over 8,500 are exempt from fuel economy standards. This includes big SUVs such as the Chevrolet Suburban, Ford Excursion, as well as the Dodge Ram pick-up and most passenger and cargo vans.

Very few automakers are going above and beyond federal regulations and policy to change fuel economy standards and even fewer politicians are able to get any additional regulations in place. A few U.S. senators have proposed increasing CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards to 35 mpg by 2020, which will likely hit the senate floor next month. And democratic presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, announced last week in Detroit the need to increase vehicle fuel efficiency (his plan calls for an average of 40 mpg by 2022.)

However, proposals such as these are often fought strongly by the big auto manufacturers, which makes it difficult for all drivers to get better mileage from the gas pump - whether or not you're driving an SUV.

Facts: Partially true, although things are changing. For in its more than 8000 years of cultivation, hemp and its psychoactive drug Cannabis Sativa have been inextricably linked. The name marijuana is a recent moniker. It was first called K(a)N(a)B(a) (cannibas) in early Sumeria and in is referred to as hashish in the Middle East.

We’re not going to address the marijuana culture here and around the world in this article. Our focus is about hemp and it’s use as a biodegradable, highly versatile resource.

Even if the Federal Government approved cultivation of what’s termed “industrial hemp” today, most sources say it will take 10 to15 years before full-scale cultivation and commercialization of the crop is realized. Hemp is a complicated subject, and my first inclination was to write a series of blogs on the subject, but realized all that’s necessary are the basic facts. Below you’ll find links, scholarly and otherwise, to my sources.

There are dozens of species representing some 22 genera, and Cannabis sativa has emerged as the one multi-purpose plant, used primarily for fiber in the stem, and preparations from that fiber such as paper, textiles, construction, plastics, food, medicines and oil from the seeds. Of course, the third part of the Cannabis sativa equation is the intoxicating resin, (Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) or THC, secreted by epidermal glands, and that’s what gets a person high.

So, why aren’t we growing it America? Easy — you already know the answer: the Federal Government says ALL hemp is marijuana, and that’s the myth, almost.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp, and refusing to grow the plant was against the law in the US during the 17th and 18th centuries. Its fiber was used to make sails and ropes for ships, paper for books and writing paper and clothing. The seeds have been used as food for centuries, and two 19th century famines in Australia saw hemp seed used for protein and it’s leaves for roughage.

You get the idea: this is one versatile natural resource, and our government calls it dangerous. How did all that start? I’ve researched dozens of verifiable sources and settled on some facts and, of course, some conspiracy theories.

Part of the reason apparently goes back to Mexico’s Pancho Villa, who relieved William Randolph Hearst of some 800,000 acres of prime timber he planned to use in the production of paper products. Hearst’s vilification of the Mexican people in his newspaper empire could well have come as a result of his loss.

Hearst, along with Lammont Dupont, Andrew Mellon, John D. Rockefeller and the DuPont family were apparently alarmed by hemp’s ability to provide an alternative source for paper, fiber, plastic and more, which would threaten their growing empires. DuPont developed fuel additives and a process to make paper from wood pulp that proved to be less expensive than manufacture by hemp, along with synthetic products such as plastics and nylon. The problem with hemp at that time was the man-hours it took to harvest the crop to make it usable, but a man named George W Schlichten invented a machine called a decorticator, which shortened the harvesting process to such a degree that hemp became the best and most inexpensive material for making paper and other synthetic products. Development of the decorticator was believed to make Hearst’s vast timber reserves worthless, and DuPont’s synthetic petrochemicals would become less attractive. An alleged conspiracy was hatched to derail the development of hemp and destroy the decorticator. It worked, and the developer of the decorticator, George Schlichten, died a broken man, his patents expired and the machine scrapped.

Hearst’s nationwide newspaper chain launched an intensive propaganda campaign portraying hemp, or Cannabis, as a dangerous drug, turning "normal" (meaning "white") people into psychotic killers. Yes, race was a major part of that campaign, and racial slurs were directed especially at African-Americans and Mexicans. The campaign was successful, and when the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was brought to a vote, most people didn’t know that hemp and marijuana came from the same plant. As a matter of fact, most had no idea that the law would aid in destruction of the hemp industry, which is exactly what happened.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 imposed a levy of one dollar on everyone who buys, sells, raises, imports or in any way deals in the commercial use of marijuana. The hook was the penalty provisions of the act, which called for five years’ imprisonment and fines up to $2,000 or both for anyone not buying a Treasury Department tax stamp and dealing in marijuana.

The act says “The term ‘marihuana’ means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of such plant and every compound, manufacture, salt derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant…”. Hence our laws today say hemp is marijuana and it’s illegal.

According to Biomassive.org,

Thus, the Marijuana Tax Act and other similar tax policies in the years to come not only placed petrochemical and timber industries at the center of our country's physical and technological development, but as a result even shaped our very social, economic, and spatial structures. It converted a largely rural, agricultural nation into an urban, industrial one in a matter of a few decades.

So that’s where we stand today. While America sleeps at the wheel of hemp, other countries are cultivating and producing a wide variety of hemp products. Canada, The Netherlands, France and the UK are leading the world in hemp technology.

Research is ongoing in the US, Canada and European Union to breed of low THC plants, although none have at this point created a strain 100% free of THC. It’s said that in theory, low-THC strains do not completely solve the drug abuse problem because the other principal cannabinoid, CBD can be converted to use as a starting material for manufacturing THC. Experts at Purdue University say there are easier methods of synthesizing THC than by first extracting it from the non-drug strains.

The movement to legalize cultivation of industrial hemp in America is continuing. Just recently, legislators in the State of California passed a bill legalizing cultivation of hemp in the state. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, citing federal law which states all cannabis plants regardless of variety or THC content, are simply considered to be marijuana. And that’s a federally regulated schedule one controlled substance.

So yes, it is a myth that all hemp is marijuana, with the CDB caveat stated above. Will we ever see American farmers raising hemp legally? It would open up millions of acres of ground now deemed unsuitable for cultivation. Hemp could be used for development of an environmentally correct ethanol type fuel, or biodiesel, not to mention the plethora of environmentally safe products, but the infrastructure isn’t in place, and the feds are still adamant: hemp is marijuana.

Here are my sources, enjoy…

The Emperor Wears No Clothes
North American Industrial Hemp Council
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
DEA controlled substances act
Purdue University A New Crop with New Uses for North America
USDA Monoecious Hemp Breeding in the U.S.
Hemp History
The Threat to DuPont and Friends
Hemp History
Marijuana Timeline
Schlichten Papers

Decisions are often made that based on profit, rather than protecting children's health. In the 1990s, childhood vaccinations contained a mercury-based preservative called thiomersal. Children receiving multiple thiomersal vaccines exceeded the federal guidelines for a single dose of mercury. Doctors and parents were outraged, and the consequences of exposure to thiomersal (such as a rise in Autism, ADD) have been debated. Presently, childhood vaccines in this country do not contain this dangerous preservative, but drug companies continue to sell thimersol vaccines to third world countries.

Recent news about the risks of Bisphenol-A (BPA) in plastic baby bottles and sippy cups have parents scrambling to buy alternatives. BPA is a hormone disrupting toxin known to cause developmental, neural, and reproductive harm. BPA free plastic bottles and glass baby bottles offer the best solution; however, don't be surprised if you find these items on backorder from merchants. In addition, Kleen Kanteen stainless steel sippy cups offer a safe alternative.

Although lead naturally occurs in the earth's crust, it highly toxic to humans. According to the CDC, "Nearly half a million children living in the United States have blood lead levels high enough to cause irreversible damage to their health." Lead has been removed from our gasoline, paints, etc., yet somehow this harmful substance is present in many children's products. The recent recall of bibs sold by Wal-mart, because they contained up to 16 times the legal limit for lead in paint, further begs the question: Are our children laboratory rats?

A recent study of over 1.5 million children found that babies conceived in the summer, when pesticide use is at its peak, are less intelligent than their peers. The first few months in utero are critical for brain development. According to Science Daily, "Exposure to pesticides and nitrates can alter the hormonal milieu of the pregnant mother and the developing fetal brain," said Dr. Winchester. "While our findings do not represent absolute proof that pesticides and nitrates contribute to lower ISTEP scores, they strongly support such a hypothesis."

If you have ever driven behind a diesel school bus, you know the fumes are noxious. These fumes can be even worse inside the school bus, where children ride, and have been linked to asthma and lung cancer. Yet, $1 billion pledged by Congress in 2005 to reduce school bus emissions has not been delivered. The alternative: let's run school buses on biodiesel or invest in hybrid school buses.

All children deserve green alternatives. They should not be laboratory rats sacrificed for corporate profit and greed!

Imagine my surprise when I learned that mercury exposure is a common misconception when it comes to CFLs. Fortunately, these myths are easily debunked.

Myth: There is a large amount of mercury in CFL bulbs.

Fact: Yes, there is mercury in CFLs. Generally, this amount is about 4 milligrams of mercury per bulb. To put this in perspective, a mercury thermometer has 500 milligrams of mercury in it, and older thermostats can contain as much as 3000 milligrams.

Interestingly enough, the use of CFLs can actually prevent mercury from entering our air. Burning fossil fuels produces more mercury in the air we breathe than any other source. Since CFLs use less energy, hence, fossil fuels, less mercury is put in the air. The EPA calculates that a power plant will emit 10 milligrams of mercury to produce the electricity needed to power an incandescent bulb over the course of its lifetime, but only 2.4 milligrams of mercury to power a CFL for the same amount of time.

Myth: There are no proper disposal guidelines for CFLs that have burned out.

Fact: CFLs are not technically considered hazardous waste by the government, but it is recommended that you use proper precautions when disposing of burnouts or breaks. Earth911.org can give you specific directions for disposal in your area. In general, you should dispose of CFLs like you would batteries, paint, or oil.

Myth: If a CFL breaks in your home, it will cost thousands of dollars to properly clean up the mercury released.

Fact: This is a myth that actually has an interesting story behind it. It apparently started when Steve Milloy published a story on Fox News claiming that a woman named Brandy Bridges broke a CFL in her child's bedroom and was concerned about spilled mercury contaminating the carpet. When she called Home Depot, her local Poison Control, and finally the Department of Environmental Protection for the state of Maine, she claims they recommended a $2,000 carpet cleaning. Milloy used one line out of the original story about Bridges, published in Maine's Ellsworth American, and neglects to mention that the story goes on to say that there is a simple, inexpensive, and safe method for cleaning up a spill such as this, and the DEP has now said that it "isn't necessary to hire professionals at all" for a CFL break. Read a more thorough debunking here (via Treehugger).

In short, don't believe the hype. You can breathe easy when it comes to using CFLs in your home.

Facts: As climate change skepticism has developed into a full-blown industry, a number of myths have filtered out about historical patterns of warming and cooling: just mention the “Little Ice Age” or the “Medieval Warm Period” to your favorite skeptic, and let ‘em go…

As a history buff, I always found today’s myth fascinating. As Coby Beck at Grist notes, Viking leader Eric the Red gave Greenland its name not because it was lush and green, but because he wanted folks back home to think it was:

Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red?), who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors — climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.

But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking’s disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.)

The issue here, of course, really isn’t Greenland’s name; it’s the idea of a Medieval Warm Period that skeptics claim was comparable to the present day in terms of the average temperature (or even warmer!). By extension, ice melts on Greenland aren’t that big a deal: it’s happened before.

Coby has thoughts on the Medieval Warm Period, and points to information from NOAA. RealClimate, the blog for anyone interested in hardcore climate science, also presents a number of reasons why the perception skeptics have about the Medieval Warm Period are likely incorrect.

Greenland wasn’t green in the tenth century… and we don’t want it to become green this century…

Myth: We are already recycling what we can.
Fact: Hardly. Although recycling has grown tremendously in the past thirty years, we should be able to recycle as much as 80% of our what currently goes into our landfills. Half of landfill contents is good old paper–easily recyclable.

Myth: We are not running out of "room" for our trash, so landfill space is not a problem.
Fact: In many areas of the country, there is plenty of room for trash. Not so in some heavily-populated areas of the East Coast, where landfill space issues have translated into higher landfill costs. Landfill space could be used for other things than trash, like the natural habitats landfills often displace.

Myth: It takes just as much energy to recycle as it does to produce "virgin" materials.
Fact: When comparing the impact of recycled vs. raw, you must compare the impact over the life cycle of the product. It almost universally uses less energy to recycle waste into materials than it is to produce the same materials from raw resources. More energy is needed to extract, process, and transport raw materials than is needed for collection, processing, and remanufacturing of recycled products. For example, aluminum production saves 95% of energy costs when the aluminum is recycled as opposed to produced with raw materials

Myth: It's okay to throw something away if its biodegradable.
Fact: The breakdown of organic material in a landfill is largely anaerobic. It can take hundreds of years for "biodegradable" items to truly break down, if at all. Research by William Rathje, author of Rubbish: The Archeology of Garbage, has shown that newspapers have been found intact and readable from as early as the 1960s.

Myth: Recycling is not cost-effective for communities.
Fact: It may not be profitable, but neither is typical waste-management, unless you are Tony Soprano. It's fascinating that in many communities, people pay for their trash through fees and taxes, but most places don't have (and would probably never think of charging) a recycling fee. Plus, since comprehensive recycling programs are fairly new, efficiency can only increase as the industry matures. Cities of all sizes, including Seattle, Cincinnati, San Jose, Portland and Austin are reporting per-ton recycling costs that are lower than per-ton garbage collection and disposal costs. This doesn't even acknowledge the economic benefits of the recycling industry to communities.

Myth: Recycling is no cleaner than landfills.
Fact: Using recycled materials instead of raw results in a net reduction in ten major categories of air pollutants and eight major categories of water quality indicators and water pollutants. Using recovered/recycled materials also generates less solid waste than using virgin products. Landfills also produce large amounts of leachate (trash juice, if you will) that must be treated by municipal sewage treatment plants, and landfills and incinerators produce a huge amount of greenhouse gases such as methane.

Kelli says: Seriously, even if we "have" the space, do we want more of our common areas taken for…trash? Take one visit to a landfill during a typical workday and see just how much trash is vomited out of the constant stream of trucks…trust me, you'll see the value of recycling. Personally, conservation starts at home; by avoiding waste to begin with, composting, and reusing. However, I like how my college town of Kirksville, MO promoted recycling: free curbside service for as much as you put out, but you only get one free bag of non-recyclables per week–you have to pay for ever bag after that.

FACTS: "Global warming" is a problematic phrase for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the belief that cold weather somehow invalidates the concept of a global climate crisis. Climate change skeptics are quick to suggest that instances of winter storms (especially when they coincide with activities aimed at addressing "global warming") are evidence that climate change science is flawed.

Rather than exposing climate change as a myth or a mere belief, these skeptics demonstrate the logical fallacy of not seeing the forest for the trees. A recent report by Minnesota's WCCO addresses the problem with using current weather conditions as evidence of broader changes in climate:

"Don't confuse weather with climate," said WCCO's Chief Meteorologist Paul Douglas. "Weather is a snapshot, climate is a long term trend."

In other words, weather is what happens at any given moment in the atmosphere while climate is how the atmosphere behaves over decades and centuries.

Paul said the term global warming can be misleading.

"I think a better description is probably climate change because there are going to be regional variations across the globe," he said.

We need to keep a global perspective in mind because while the United States is experience record cold, some of Europe and Asia are seeing record warmth.

"Don't look out the window and make assumptions about long-term climate," said Paul. "But that goes both ways. In the summertime on the hot humid days we can't beat our chest and say this is global warming."

The Drudge Report Loves These Kind of Headlines

Grist's Coby Beck made a similar observation last November; RealClimate addresses some of the problems associated with "global warming.". And as happy as I was to see the Rev. Pat Robertson acknowledging climate change last year, we have to note that his recognition was based on the same logical fallacy as those who claim that winter storms in April are valid evidence of problems with climate science.

Our own David Anderson has suggested a new phrase: "global weirding." Given the multiple strange events we're seeing (rapid extinctions of species, shifts in weather patterns, polar ice melts, etc.), it seems appropriate. What other ways can we better communicate the issue of climate change?

THIS POST IS OUT OF DATE! See the new version of the Biodiesel Mythbuster at Gas 2.0!!

Editor’s note: Our first installment of Green Myth-Busting comes from GO’s resident biofuels expert Clayton Bodie Cornell. As I’ve come to expect from Clayton, he’s covered the subject very thoroughly!

The poster-child for biofuels, biodiesel, is easily the most popular alternative fuel available. Despite the best efforts of biodiesel enthusiasts, the fuel is still engulfed in a morass of misinformation. This Myth-Buster is intended to dispel some of the most common myths associated with using biodiesel - the myths that may keep you from using the fuel.

In case you’re new to the topic, biodiesel is a renewable fuel made from plant oils and occasionally animal fat. It can be made from both used and unused sources of oil, such as freshly-pressed soybean oil, or oil left-over from the deep fryer at your local burger joint. Biodiesel can only be used in diesel engines - no gasoline engines allowed. Biodiesel can be blended into regular diesel in any amount, such as 20% biodiesel/80% diesel (B20), or used pure 100% (B100, aka ‘neat’). As a disclaimer, this post does not address homemade biodiesel (aka homebrew), which usually does not meet the quality standards of ASTM-certified biodiesel.

MYTH: Biodiesel is ethanol (or vice versa).
FACT: Ethanol and Biodiesel are completely different. Ethanol is a fermentation product, primarily made from corn grain and sugarcane. Biodiesel is chemically-converted fat or oil. Ethanol is blended into gasoline. Biodiesel is blended into diesel fuel.

MYTH: Ethanol is better than biodiesel.
FACT: We shouldn’t bicker over this - biodiesel has clear environmental, energetic, and sustainability advantages over corn-grain ethanol. Read on.

MYTH: You must convert your vehicle to run biodiesel.
FACT: Let me describe the conversion process: Drive to the nearest biodiesel pump, put the spout in the side of the car, and pump the biodiesel into your fuel tank (provided it’s diesel). That’s it. You can use biodiesel in any diesel engine without modification. In fact, if you own a diesel vehicle you can fill it up today with 100% biodiesel (B100) and should experience no problems whatsoever. Let me repeat this: you can use ANY amount of biodiesel, from B2 to B100, in a diesel engine with NO modification to the engine. This myth is commonly perpetuated by the hypothetical possibility that biodiesel will clean out diesel sludge that has accumulated in older fuel lines. If you drive an old diesel vehicle, this hypothetically could happen and your fuel filter could subsequently clog. I’ve never actually heard of this happening and can easily be avoided by switching out the fuel filter after a few tanks of biodiesel (take it to your local Jiffy Lube). My 25 year old Datsun pickup truck did just fine when I switched to B100.

MYTH: You have to be a diesel mechanic to use biodiesel.
FACT: No, all you have to do fill up with a different fuel, just like switching between regular and premium.

MYTH: Biodiesel will wreck your engine.
FACT: Nope. This is completely false. There have been reports of biodiesel damaging gasoline engines, and that’s why some mechanics rail against using the fuel - they’ve had to deal with these hapless folks, but we already covered that. Engine manufacturers are especially cautious about new fuels, but some of biggest names in the diesel world (like Cummings) have cleared B20 from doing any harm. Biodiesel and diesel fuel are similar in chemical structure and have similar properties, so they burn similarly in diesel engines. But biodiesel has some specific advantages. Biodiesel adds significant lubricity to the fuel (something that sulfur formally did in diesel fuel, but has since been reduced, hence low-sulfur diesel), reducing engine wear and reportedly extending engine life. Biodiesel has a higher cetane number (higher ignitability) and combusts more completely. Biodiesel is also a good solvent and will clean out diesel fuel residue left in the fuel tank and lines. Over time, because it’s such a good solvent, biodiesel can degrade rubber fuel lines and gaskets. Most post-1990 vehicles don’t have rubber lines and gaskets, but some older vehicles do. I have driven for a year now on B100 and B50 with no visible deterioration of my rubber fuel lines.

MYTH: Biodiesel will cause a noticeable power decrease.
FACT: Biodiesel contains about 8% less energy per gallon than petroleum diesel. For someone using B20, this means a 1-2% loss in power, torque, and fuel efficiency. To put things into perspective, that’s about a 2 mph difference on the freeway at 55. Millions of miles of onroad tests (aka trucking) have shown that B20 and diesel are practically indistinguishable. B100 users may notice a slight drop in fuel mileage, but torque and power are usually comparable. I have noticed a 1-3 mpg drop in fuel efficiency running B100. As an FYI, biodiesel has the highest BTU (energy) content of any alternative fuel (falling somewhere between diesel #1 and #2).

MYTH: Biodiesel use will void your warranty.
FACT: Some manufacturers have approached biodiesel cautiously, but now almost everyone recognizes B20 as a viable fuel, and it should not void warranties. According to the National Biodiesel Board (NBB), “The use of biodiesel in existing diesel engines does not void parts and materials workmanship warranties of any major US engine manufacturer.” Apparently, Federal law prohibits the voiding of a warranty just because biodiesel was used - it must be the cause of the damage. Warranties generally don’t cover problems caused by external sources, i.e. bad fuel, but can’t be voided if the problem was unrelated (see NREL’s Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines p. 53). Most manufacturers support B5 or B20, but that doesn’t mean they prohibit higher blends. Double-check with your manufacturer. I know some manufacturers haveexplicitly stated they won’t support higher biodiesel blends.

MYTH: Biodiesel doesn’t work in cold weather.
FACT: Ok, so maybe you read my personal experience with biodiesel in cold weather [post] - let me reiterate that operator error led to the breakdown. It’s true that biodiesel clouds up (starts to freeze) at higher temperatures when compared to regular diesel, and therefore it’s important to use a lower blend of biodiesel in the winter. B100 can be used down to about 40 degrees F, B50 between 20-40 degrees F, and B20 below that. Remember that the cold-flow properties (as they’re called) vary depending on what the biodiesel is made from (feedstocks with more saturated fat, like coconut oil or animal fat tend to freeze earlier). Local producers should be able to give you more information about this, though most biodiesel you will find is going to be good ol’ soy biodiesel. I typically use B100 between March and November, then switch to B50 for the winter, unless I plan on hitting much colder temperatures (I mean anything approaching 0 F).

MYTH: Biodiesel is hard to find.
FACT: Biodiesel is likely to be readily available in your area. The first thing is to check is if there’s a retail pumping station nearby. Try the National Biodiesel Board’s Station locator map, or search by city on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s website. If you can’t find a station, there may be a biodiesel cooperative in the area that resells wholesale fuel. Biodiesel is the most widely available renewable fuel and can be found in most major metropolitan areas.

MYTH: Biodiesel is too expensive.
FACT: Biodiesel generally costs around $2.80 to $3.30/gallon. Last time I checked, regular gasoline in some parts of California was $3.70/gallon! Biodiesel is nearly price competitive with premium gasoline, and certainly won’t seem that expensive in the middle of summer.

MYTH: Biodiesel requires more energy to produce than is provided by the fuel.
FACT: The vast majority of literature out there shows a positive energy balance, meaning that more energy is produced in the fuel than is used to grow the crop, press the seeds, process the oil into biodiesel, and distribute the product. The most common numbers I’ve seen say about 2-3x more energy is produced, or 1 unit of energy in equals 2-3 units of energy out. [don't leave it to me, see for yourself: (1), (2)]. Compare this to corn-grain ethanol, which optimistically produces 25% more energy than is put into it (1 unit in equals 1.25 units out).

MYTH: Biodiesel’s increases net emissions when the entire production process is taken into account (farming, distribution, etc).
FACT: According to the University of Minnesota in 2006 (1), the production and use of soybean biodiesel decreases life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 41% over regular diesel, and also decreases other pollutants like Carbon monoxide, PM10, and SOx. To compare, the life-cycle of corn-grain ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 12% and actually increases emissions of five major pollutants.

MYTH: Biodiesel causes deforestation of the rain forest.
FACT: You may have read my posts on biodiesel destroying the Brazilian and Malaysian rain forests. What’s true there is not true in the United States. The US already produces a great deal of biodiesel from domestically-grown soybeans. But don’t forget that biodiesel can be made from many other feedstocks, like rapeseed (Canola) and waste-vegetable oil (WVO). In some areas, WVO is the primary source for making biodiesel. Like any other crops, these can be grown sustainably or unsustainably.

MYTH: Biodiesel exhaust smells bad.
FACT: Well, this one is personal preference. I have had people tell me that they think the smell is disgusting (as if they would prefer diesel exhaust). I think B100 exhaust smells great. Sort of like french fries but somehow…cleaner, and not as potentially nauseating. One thing is certain: once you know what it smells like you’ll grin from ear to ear whenever you catch a whiff.

MYTH: Biodiesel exhaust produces more harmful emissions than diesel.
FACT: Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel that has completed all the testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. Biodiesel contains oxygen and burns more completely than diesel fuel, hence reduced emissions. All major pollutants are reduced dramatically in biodiesel exhaust (most of them at least 50% for B100), except one (NOx), and that’s only for blends over B20 (see my post on the subject). B20 reduces air toxics (the most damaging pollutants for human health) by 20-40%, while B100 reduces them by as much as 90%. Sulfur oxides and sulfates (major contributors to acid rain) are almost completely eliminated. The only caveat is that nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions can increase up to 10% with B100. If you would like to evaluate this for yourself, see the National Biodiesel Board’s emissions fact sheet. New diesel technology has the potential to eliminate this problem.

MYTH: Diesel engines are more polluting than gasoline engines, so selling my car and buying a diesel is a bad idea.
FACT: It’s true that traditional diesel engines are 10-100x more polluting than their gasoline counterparts. New model diesel engines, however, are more efficient and have advanced catalytic converters allowing them to approach the emissions ofcomparable gasoline models. When combined with biodiesel newer engines should offer significant emissions reductions. Additionally, older diesels are currently in use and will continue to be used (due to long engine life). Switching these vehicles to biodiesel still provides tangible benefits. While local air pollution is an important consideration, so are greenhouse gas emissions. Biodiesel offers a significant reduction in CO2 emissions.

MYTH: Biodiesel is only used by crazy hippies and Willie Nelson.
FACT: Tell that to the Military, Department of Defense, Postal Service, National Park Service, city governments and school districts across the country, and a whole lot of truckers and farmers who all use and promote biodiesel.
That should be enough information to get you started. The first time you use biodiesel can be a thrilling experience, and I highly recommend it. Clearly, I can’t cover every issue in this post, but don’t stop here. Take a look at the following resources for more information:

Journey To Forever’s Biodiesel resources page (most comprehensive)
National Biodiesel Board (The main industry group)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) - Non-petroleum Based Fuels
National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service - Biodiesel-A Primer

Studies:

(1) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels
Jason Hill, Erik Nelson, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, and Douglas Tiffany. PNAS published July 12, 2006, 10.1073/pnas.0604600103

(2) Sheehan et al. May 1998. A Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. NREL/SR-580-24089.

Did I forget something? Let me know and I might be able to expand this list.

Know of a green myth that needs dispelling? Heard something about green living that doesn’t seem quite right? Pass it along, and we may feature it on Green Myth-Busting.

Photo Credit: Clayton B. Cornell (That’s his truck.)