Two soybean growers’ groups have suspended $1.5 million in funding from the University of Minnesota, due to research showing that biofuels could worsen global warming:

The study, by University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman and others, said that dedicating huge amounts of land to grow corn, soybeans, sugarcane and other food crops for fuel could drastically change the landscape and worsen global warming. Farmers in the U.S., Brazil, Indonesia and other countries will need to clear forests, grasslands and peat lands on a massive scale to grow more of those crops, according to the research, unleashing far more carbon dioxide from natural vegetation than is saved by the lower emissions of the biofuels.

Is anyone really surprised about this finding? Suspension of the funds appears to be only temporary, until the groups have a chance to meet with the Dean of agricultural science. Jim Palmer, the executive director of the two soybean groups, summed up the situation: “The university hurt the farmers’ feelings, OK? That’s probably the best way to say it.”

Ethanol industry officials also had their say in the matter:

Ethanol industry officials criticized the study as a simplistic analysis that doesn’t include the economic benefits for those who grow biofuel crops or the environmental cost of continuing to rely on petroleum.

“The study was over the top by implying that biofuels were bad,” Palmer said. “Farmers were extremely surprised that it came out, why it came out, and that it came from the University of Minnesota.”

This would certainly be an issue if the University of Minnesota was in the business of promoting biofuels, and not interested in the usual process of scientific review.

The Tilman study was reviewed by independent scientists, a standard procedure, before being published in the journal Science. The report is not “anti-ethanol,” said Tilman in an interview when it was published. It recommends that biofuels be produced in the future from crop waste products such as corn stalks or from perennials such as switchgrass and native prairie plants.

The two soybean groups have a right to fund anything they want, but threatening to pull grant funding for “undesirable” research results may be a bit extreme.

Want to evaluate it for yourself? The study can be found here.

Related Posts:
Ethanol Industry: Jobs Are Better Than Food?
Study: Buying Biodiesel May Be A Gamble
Ethanol Industry Pays Off Subsidies, Boosts U.S. Economy (Bigtime)

Source: Startribune (Feb. 25, 08): U biofuels study has farmers upset

Photo Credit

Now, the outgoing government of Korea has passed new legislation to combat this pollution and join in the international battle against climate change.

The aptly named “Act on Climate Change” will establish an emissions trading market, raise the bar for renewable energy, assist in reducing industrial, home, and vehicle emissions, and increase carbon capture.

Carbon trading

By 2009, Korea plans to have set up a voluntary emissions trading agency and a carbon trading market.

On the one hand, though participation will not be mandatory, companies will be rewarded for reducing their energy demands. On the other hand, the government says it will supply extra incentive for businesses to moderate their greenhouse gases with a carbon tax.

A national target for emissions reductions should be announced sometime later in the year, before the carbon trading scheme comes into effect. A tentative goal for reduction of industrial CO2 pollution is 3.2% of 2005 levels by 2012 (1.8 million tonnes).

Renewable energy

Currently, just 2.3% of Korea’s energy is generated renewably. The Act on Climate Change will increase that figure to 5% by 2012 and 9% by 2030. As part of this initiative Korea is also considering expanding its nuclear power programme.

Biodeisel–mostly from palm oil–will also be mixed into fuel in increased quantities, from 0.5% in 2007 to 3% in 2012. An initial increase of up to 5% was proposed, but not adopted. Palm biodeisel has its own environmental dark side, but a new regulatory body has been established in Malaysia to help ensure its sustainability, as discussed here.

The plan is not quite as visionary, perhaps, as some renewable energy research being done in Germany, but Korea is absolutely making good progress.

Residential greenhouse gas emissions

So many Koreans live in large apartment towers–often owned by one of the countries mega-corporations, like Hyundai–that the government has focused on these buildings as a good place to reduce residential CO2 pollution. The goal: a 2.5 million tonne reduction by 2012 for large-scale residencies and industrial complexes.

Vehicle greenhouse gas emissions

South Korea has such a phenomenal transportation infrastructure of buses, trains, and cheap taxis that it’s a wonder anyone drives at all.

To moderate vehicle emissions, new vehicle regulations will be put in place and less polluting vehicles promoted. In this way, as much as 600,000 additional tonnes of CO2 emissions will be prevented.

7,920 hybrid cars, 1,750 fuel cell vehicles, and 13,080 natural gas buses and cleaning vehicles will have hit the roadways by 2012.

Carbon sink

Lastly, Korea is set to bring out the big guns: Korean pride in the country’s natural beauty.

Through forestation efforts, Korea hopes to absorb as much as 12 million tonnes of CO2. Trees will be planted on open land, in cities, and around schools.

In addition to all this, there are also plans to establish a foundation for more environmentally friendly agriculture and to recover methane generated from landfills.

Via: Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea

Related reading: Europe Gets Tougher On Heavy Co2 Emitters

Photo: Flickr

(Image source: www.treehugger.com)

Ecolabelling.org — looking behind the labels
What’s green? And who says so?

Ecolabels are everywhere from Wal-Mart’s “seafood aisle” to my local grocery store. But, at the end of day, what do these labels really mean? Who’s behind them?

And, most importantly, can I rely on them to make my certified no-rainforests-were-destroyed-in-the-making-of-this-latte latte?

Ecolabelling.org – your source on the background of over 285 ecolabels around the world – makes it easier to answer these questions and more by sharing a global database of who’s deciding what’s green.

Big Room Inc. launched ecolabelling.org for as a resource for consumers, environmental professionals and procurers to learn the source of each ecolabel and what it actually means.

That means: one less consumer paralysed in indecision under the florescent lights of the natural foods aisle and one more green procurer who can sift through nearly 100 food ecolabels with the click of a mouse.

So far, ecolabelling.org has tracked down over 285 ecolabels or green certification systems that exist worldwide and estimate that close to 400,000 companies and nearly 500,000 products have gained a green label or valid certification. The database is a platform that will grow, so they look forward to hearing from eco-labels and certification schemes worldwide. Are they missing your favourite ecolabel? Let them know!

For more information about who is deciding what is green, check out www.ecolabelling.org.

Farmers now can use B100 on nearly all Case IH medium- to high-horsepower tractors, combines, windrowers, and most self-propelled sprayers and cotton pickers — so long as proper protocols are followed for engine operation and maintenance.

“With record prices for crude oil, Case IH committed to exploring better ways to use environmentally-friendly biofuels made from renewable raw materials. We have conducted rigorous laboratory and in-field tests to evaluate how our engines perform with various biodiesel blends,” says Don Rieser, Case IH director of tractor product management. “As always, our ultimate goal is greater productivity for our customers. That’s why we also are committed to educating our dealers and customers on how to get the best results with biodiesel fuels — especially when using higher-level blends.”

Industry support is important because farm equipment isn’t cheap, and no farmer wants to see his or her warranty voided on a $200,000 piece of machinery.

Another giant of the agricultural world, John Deere, has also clarified its support of biodiesel up to B20 blends. Deere doesn’t sanction blends higher than B20 unless the biodiesel meets European specifications, which they say stems from concern over meeting emissions standards.

“We recognize the importance of biofuels to our customers and to the environment,” Brown said. “Use of biofuels in John Deere diesel engines is the right thing to do from a long-term economic and environmental standpoint.”

Sounds like they need to have a friendly discussion with Case IH about letting farmers use B100. For more information, see the manufacturer websites:

John Deere Clarifies Position on Use of Biodiesel (Nov. 12, 2007)
Case IH Expands B100 Biodiesel Use in Farm Equipment (Dec. 03, 2007)

Photo Credit.