1 Feb 2008
“Realism Needed on Biofuel Future”: Anthony Gibson of the NFU Responds.
I wrote recently about the event in Wadebridge I spoke at with Anthony Gibson of the National Farmers Union which explored, among other things, biofuels, organics and localisation. In the interests of balance and on throwing more light onto the different perspectives that were aired that night, and offering a different perspective, here is Mr. Gibson’s regular column in the Western Morning News.
**Realism Needed on Biofuel Future.** Anthony Gibson. Western Morning News
23 January 2008.
“Not a week seems to go by these days without some report or other being issued branding biofuels as the very spawn of the devil or their ineffectiveness in reducing carbon emissions, or their impact on food prices, or the environmental destruction that is supposed to follow in their wake.So when I was asked to speak at a public meeting in Wadebridge last week on the subject of how agriculture can successfully adapt to the decline in oil production, I approached the biofuel situation with some trepidation.
It had occurred to me long before I got to my feet that this was an audience which was unlikely to warm to an enthusiasm shared by George W Bush.
But I was still taken aback by the sheer hostility of the response, when I broached the subject. Not even a tentative endorsement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) attracted quite the onslaught of critical comment as did my heavily qualified defence of biofuels. Whatever the opposite to flavour of the month may be, biofuels are it.
I find this slightly odd, given that biofuels are virtually the only renewable alternative to oil in transport fuels, that they do (so far as I can see) yield genuine savings in CO2 emissions when compared to petrol and diesel, that environmental safeguards can and are being applied to how they are grown, and that higher food prices may not be such a bad thing. Besides, if you are looking for ways in which agriculture can successfully adapt to a decline in oil production, they can hardly be ignored.
One would have expected the general response to have been something along the lines of: “Well, they won’t make a huge difference, but they are a step in the right direction; any environmental damage can be prevented; and if we don’t invest in first-generation biofuel technology we shan’t be in a position to reap the much greater benefits of second and third generation biofuels when the time comes.”
But not a bit of it. The received wisdom seems to be that biofuels are worse than useless, not only because they fail to deliver any real benefits, but because they are seen as an attempt by big business and big government to subvert the climate-change agenda.
The true green believers are not interested in technological solutions. They want to use climate change to drive a whole series of fundamental changes in human behaviour, taking us back to a world in which economies have been relocalised, personal travel has been severely restricted and farming operations are small-scale and organic.
This dawned on me when I attempted to use the argument that biofuels are the only way of reducing the 25 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions produced by road transport.
It rapidly became apparent that to a significant proportion of the audience, the only sensible way to cut the emissions is to cut the transport. People should learn not to drive, still less to fly. I received the strongest possible impression that if a vast new oil reserve were to be discovered somewhere in the world that would guarantee our energy security long into the future, many of those in Wadebridge Town Hall last week would be dismayed to the point of desolation. They hate biofuels with such a passion, not because of the inherent shortcomings of the technology but because it offers the prospect of at least some people continuing with a way of life with which the eco-true believers are in profound disagreement.
However, I wouldn’t want to give you the impression that all of the arguments were on one side. I shared the platform with a formidably well-informed gentleman called Rob Hopkins, who is heavily involved at Totnes in something called the Transition Towns initiative. I have to confess that, until last Wednesday, I had never heard of this, which my opponents would say just goes to show how thoroughly ignorant I am on the subject, but it turns out to be an idea, first developed in Kinsale in Eire, whereby communities come together to prepare themselves for a transition to a “carbon-constricted, energy-lean world”. You can find out more on its excellent website www.transitiontowns.org .
It almost goes without saying that Totnes was the first transition town in Britain, but it is by no means on its own. Other transition communities in the South West include Penwith, Ivybridge, Falmouth, Ashburton, Ottery St Mary, Lostwithiel, Glastonbury and, would you believe it, Bristol, which has possibly the worst traffic problems of any major city in Britain.
If the transition to a low-carbon economy really has begun on the banks of the River Avon, I have yet to see any evidence of it. This isn’t, in any sense, to disparage what strikes me as an imaginative and well-intentioned concept. It’s just that it doesn’t appear to have much connection with the real world; the world in which people want to eat cheaply but well, drive their cars, go on holidays to sunny places and generally carry on doing what people have grown accustomed in western society to doing for the past 40 years or so. We all need to be doing our bit to reduce carbon emissions, but the savings that will make the crucial difference will be achieved, not by the rejection of science, but by the embracing of it, and farmers will be at the very heart of the process.
From the farming perspective, there are opportunities here for all. A combination of oil depletion and carbon consciousness will make the long-distance transport of food less economic and less acceptable. We are already enjoying the fruits of that in the enormous success of the local food movement, and long may it thrive. But organic food sold at farmers’ markets is no more going to be the mainstay of our future food supplies than wind turbines will be of our energy supplies. Big problems require big solutions. The sooner we all realise that and start developing technologies like biofuels and GMOs, rather than demonising them, the sooner we’ll start making serious inroads into carbon emissions and climate change.
I am absolutely convinced that broad-acre, science-based solutions will have a big role to play.
**Anthony Gibson is Communications Director of the NFU.**
Lucy Skywalker
1 Feb 9:12am
Just this morning I woke up thinking about the need for the re-development of Science as a sacred, holistic discipline – dealing with “what is needed”. I’ve got this key concept of “Transition Science” which could do this. If you go to our website page on Key Information (and the rest of the website) you will see the key wake-up Transition issues simple, accessible, and clear, so that it would seem almost impossible to talk about the “real world” as Anthony Gibson does, without taking all this on board.
I’m holding out for a “network” of Transition Scientists who collaborate so that simple statements like mine are globally not just accessible but known about. This means distilling and collaborating and simplifying. I’ve done it in my homespun artistic way because a) it’s got the essential human touch; b) nobody else has got it so clearly all together. I want to point everyone to our website pages but don’t want to be dogmatic. Is this what we need?
Jane Buttigieg
1 Feb 5:21pm
I suppose that Mr Gibson’s arguments should not come as any surprise given that peak oil and its consequences are not discussed at any depth in the main stream media. Peak oil is still way under most people’s radar. Once again in this article I see what I see all around me whenever I talk about peak oil, and that’s the idea that the world will just tick over as it always has if only we can find another way of filling the tanks in our vehicles.
There has, however, been far more in the media about biofuels as Mr Gibson admits at the start of his article. I am surprised then, that he can support further growth in the biofuel industry when their negative effects have been fairly widely reported in the national press.
OK, so people want to eat cheaply, drive their cars and go on holidays to sunny places, but at what cost? Do we really want to cut down more of the Indonesian rainforests, thus making the world even more vulnerable to climate change in order to do so? I don’t know how Mr Gibson can make the assertion that ’environmental safeguards can and are being applied to how they are grown‘. In Columbia, peasant farmers have been forced at gunpoint from the land on which they were trying to grow food in order to eat only to discover sometime later that multinationals now hold the land deeds and crops for biofuels are being grown there. Didn’t these peasant farmers want to eat cheaply too? Or perhaps eat at all?
Mr Gibson’s article only reinforces my feeling that we need to keep this awareness raising thing going and not be frightened to tell people the true consequences of peak oil.
The idea that we should embrace science and not reject it in order to bring on biofuels as any kind of credible way forward is the typical response I hear from people who have not grasped the full implications of peak oil. But given that there is so little reporting of it, that is not really surprising. There may be a place for biofuels, but it will probably be limited, and they certainly should not be used in a vain attempt to keep business as usual going because that is impossible.
We need to answer these endorsements of biofuels by posing other questions. If we do develop these technologies to fill our tanks, where will we be going? If the economy weakens and collapses as a result of less cheap energy being available to us, how will people be buying the food being transported around?
The idea that the transition initiative doesn’t have any connection with the real world is a typical ’hippy dreamer’ accusation. Only this time there is a big difference. This is not just talk of the way we want the world to be. It’s the way it’s going to be, whether we like it or not, and it’s up to us to make sure that we work together to avoid the worst impacts and build something positive. There is no other choice.
Next time there is a talk on the consequences of peak oil in Cornwall, I think Mr Gibson should be asked to be in the audience. In the meantime, let’s all keep awareness raising!
Adam1
1 Feb 6:59pm
When Anthony Gibson says…
“The true green believers are not interested in technological solutions. They want to use climate change to drive a whole series of fundamental changes in human behaviour, taking us back to a world in which economies have been relocalised, personal travel has been severely restricted and farming operations are small-scale and organic.”
…he is wrong to characterise the relocalisation movement as “true green believers are not interested in technological solutions”. This implies a sort of theological or ideological zeal that can’t or won’t accept any rational science-based fact that contradicts their world view.
In fact, the opposite is true. Relocalisation is based on responding on a practical level to both climate change and peak oil. Bio fuels aren’t scalable and deliver marginal (if any) energy return on the energy invested in their production and distribution. That’s why we are sceptical about them, not because we are “anti-technology”. There may not be a limited role for bio-fuels but they are no panacea.
We are not using climate change as an excuse to change human behaviour. It’s the other way around: humans have to change how we do lots of things, food production, trade etc, because of peak oil and climate change. The reasons for this are not based in ideology; they are based in rationality and science: specifically the mathematics of the exponential function, thermodynamics (the physical laws which govern energy), geology, climatology and systems analysis.
I hope Anthony Gibson will take the time to read about peak oil. He will discover that the peak oil community is a pretty eclectic, evidence-based bunch, not at all like the caricature he paints. He may find this article (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3481) of interest, together with this response to it (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3541).
tcatherb
3 Feb 12:04am
Adam1 ‘quote’ We are not using climate change as an excuse to change human behaviour. It’s the other way around: humans have to change how we do lots of things, food production, trade etc, because of peak oil and climate change. The reasons for this are not based in ideology; they are based in rationality and science: specifically the mathematics of the exponential function, thermodynamics (the physical laws which govern energy), geology, climatology and systems analysis.
i don’t think this is true. i think any kind of ‘movement’, is always based on some ideology or worldview. Its definitely not a movement that has been based on purely science (whether the science is supportive or not), its much, much deeper than that (this is a good thing!). I also hope it is never a movement which is based on pure scientific, rational thought. Science should never be considered to be that powerful – it is full of uncertainty and value-laden judgements (like most other things). What is wrong with having an ideology? Why do people feel the need to defend their (green, environmental, transition or whatever you want to call it) views. So, they are taken seriously? of course, science can and should be used, but i’m never going to prescribe to a purely scientific worldview (whether it supports transition or not).
tcatherb
3 Feb 12:22am
Anthony Gibson said……….I received the strongest possible impression that if a vast new oil reserve were to be discovered somewhere in the world that would guarantee our energy security long into the future, many of those in Wadebridge Town Hall last week would be dismayed to the point of desolation. They hate biofuels with such a passion, not because of the inherent shortcomings of the technology but because it offers the prospect of at least some people continuing with a way of life with which the eco-true believers are in profound disagreement…….
he’s right, i think. he’s right because the ‘eco-true’ believers (as he called them) do have an ideology. as he says, if a new oil reserve was discovered to last long into the future, many ‘eco-true believers’ would be disappointed. i think this is also true, because the ideology is grounded in a whole way of living and being in the world, its not just about the energy.
Ben Brangwyn
3 Feb 6:36pm
When Anthony Gibson hypothesises about “vast new oil reserve… that would guarantee our energy security long into the future”, I wonder whether the carbon consequence of that possibility enters his consciousness.
Some of the oil has to be kept in the ground, and so does most of the coal. We can hang around waiting for the legislators to wrangle deals that make sure it happens – and probably fry as a consequence – or we build personal and community change initiatives that keep those fossil fuels in the ground by dramatically reducing demand.
And if you examine the latest science on feedback mechanisms in the climate, then it becomes clear we need to get to work on this challenge pdq.
John Marshall
3 Feb 11:09pm
It does seem apparent that Mr Gibson goes about life with blinkers on. He lives not so very far from Totnes. Surely communications in Devon aren’t so bad that he hasn’t heard of TTT!
Somehow this denial sums up his stance here.
Graham
4 Feb 7:07pm
Science is not a worldview or ideology, but rather a method of inquiry, using evidence to assess what is valid or not. The difference between this and ideology is that if the evidence appears to warrant it, eventually the belief will change; whereas someone who is ideologically driven is not really interested in evidence and is likely to cling onto their worldview or belief irrespective of the evidence.
So I believe any movement towards sustainability must be rooted in scientific methods- but if someone can come up with a better alternative, then Im interested in listening!
The new Age references on Lucy Skywalkers’ site are I think completely reactionary and will do the Transition Movement great harm. We should keep religion and ideology of all kinds out of it completely and stick to the science- I wonder what Gibson would think if he thought “UFO awareness” was behind TTT?
On a slightly different note, the reason I would not welcome a new big oil discovery is that humanity would surely use it to destroy whatever is left of the rest of the planet. Gibson is clearly in a blinkered mindset that assumes “growth is good”. Peak oil is not a supply issue at all, but a demand and end-use issue.
David Lashley
5 Feb 4:24pm
Can I just say well done to Rob for posting Anthony Gibson’s column. I think if there is an underlying ideology to the movement (or whatever you care to call it) then it certainly promotes fairness, tolerance and respect for different opinions – values which are often talked about yet less often displayed.
Adam1
6 Feb 5:23pm
I think that the Transition movement must be and be seen first as non-ideological and inclusive. Even if individuals within it are driven partly by ideology. This is for two reasons:
1 – the point is spot on that Graham makes about science not being “a worldview or ideology, but rather a method of inquiry, using evidence to assess what is valid or not” and about changing belief and subsequent actions accordingly. The era of enforced, constrained energy supply that we are entering means we have no choice but to relocalise and build “systems” resilience. That the energy descent is coming is a matter of empirical evidence, the validity of which is assessed and re-assessed by scientific method. Isn’t this evidence-base the primary driver of Transition Towns? The imperative for change is not ideological, even if the motivation of many maybe.
2 Transition Towns needs to be inclusive because we need to respond as much as possible as a whole community, not just as concerned (ideologically driven) activists.
tcatherb
6 Feb 9:54pm
ok, i realise i didn’t put that last sentence correctly – i do know science is not a worldview! I also know that science can be used to support any kind of ‘view’ depending on who does the research and who funds it. Science can be used to support any view, at any time. A hypothesis or resulting theory, is just that and can be challenged at any time. It is not static. I don’t know if the evidence-base is a primary driver of transition towns – it would be interesting to know if this is the case. I’ve also had a rant about inclusiveness on here before, so won’t go there again! There are many things that science cannot even begin to prove or disprove – so being driven by ideology is well (as a human being) unavoidable. Discovering a new miracle energy reserve – if it was clean and infinite and allowed us to continue on the path we are on now – would those involved here be happy with that; would it not tug at those ideological views…. I don’t know if its important to have a sound base for the reasons why you are doing something, or whether just doing something as a reaction to what is happening around you is enough. my guess that just reacting is not enough, and that it won’t produce the lasting results needed, which is why i’m sticking to the idea that having strong foundations for why you are doing something (based in some kind of belief/ideological basis) is really important, but perhaps just reacting out of necessity will bring about the same results (i’m not sure about that though)
Lucy Skywalker
7 Feb 10:41am
Hello Graham!
I see you’ve looked at my website and find problems with it. I’d really like to get into direct contact with you about this. Sorry to post this message to you here but I can’t find an email address or messages link for you on your website – and this much does seem pertinent to this blog. I’ve tried to work with as many Transition people as possible for this website, but when I don’t get direct contact or feedback it’s difficult. The Transition forum is defunct – visit it now and see for yourself. This heightens my apocalyptic feelings when I come to write web material and sometimes I get carried away – but almost always I correct it pretty soon. Everyone here who’s seen my website likes it. I’d far rather cooperate with you for a “win-win” solution, than feel challenged and unable to reach you, which is not how I understand the inclusive nature of Transition. Incidentally I like most of your website a lot.
I was actually about to leave a message on the Western Morning News to describe something of the good replies here from Jane, Adam, yourself, etc – hoping that Anthony Gibson might read it. But now I see what Graham thinks about me, I’m nervous and I’d rather sort out our disagreement first! But if Graham does not get back to me, I shall probably go ahead anyway. What do you do for God’s sake? Nobody’s perfect but I do try and you can’t just rubbish goodwill like this. It’s not good for the universe. Surely we have got to find ways to settle our differences and cooperate! Please Graham, it would seem courteous to contact me direct about this matter, not sideways. We do have a “contact us” on our website.
Transition is important enough in my opinion to drive us to find ways to cooperate – and cooperate willingly – with people we thought we’d never see eye-to-eye with, if we are to have a future. But this solidarity does not always come on a plate.
I hope this helps. Or if not, please contact me direct!
Graham
8 Feb 4:31pm
I have replied to you directly as requested, Lucy.
Here are my main points:
Most of the website is great- a good resource for powerdown and transition issues.
But I think you should leave out the New Age religion references, specifically on your “Holistic Vision” page.
There are many reasons for this but here are three:
1)They are not representative of the beliefs of the Transition Movement as a whole;
2) You will completely alienate “mainstream people” like Mr Gibson, who of course we would like to join the transition movement. If they think it is pervaded by New Age religion they will run a mile. It completely discredits the whole concept.
3) Contrary to your claim that there is evidence for theses beliefs, there is in fact none. They do not have any validity.
If we are to have any chance of reaching a more sustainable future we need critical thinking and rational inquiry; we should leave superstition behind.
Adam1
11 Feb 5:23pm
tcatherb – I agree with you that science can be used to justify everything and anything. I only mentioned it because the debates within peak oil and climate change circles look to me to be data driven and the participants open to changing and refining their stances when new information comes along. In other words driven by the ethos of the scientific method.
I think you are right that when you say “why you are doing something (based in some kind of belief/ideological basis) is really important”. I am a little concerned that others see Transition Towns and put it in an “Environmentalist Activist” box, then switch off.
I don’t know any way around this problem. When times start getting difficult, the “ideology” or motivating philosophy will need to carry as many people along as possible if TT is to build community-based post-peak resilience.
Jane Buttigieg
22 Feb 2:45pm
Realism needed on biofuel future? I have just found out about this film posted onto You Tube about the true cost to local Indonesian people of producing palm oil in their area. Anyone still in doubt about whether these fuels represent any kind of credible way forward just take a look at what palm oil production is doing to local food, economy, clean water supplies etc.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LifeMosaic1
david hill
28 Mar 9:38pm
Biofuels (and carbon capture) are a ‘catastrophe’ for future humankind. The decisions being taken by governments around the world in the quest for sustainability are a catastrophe for humankind in the long-term. Two of these decisions at the forefront of news are biofuels, and carbon capture and storage.
Biofuels — the fuel revolution that will supposedly help us:
(1) Growing crops in the United States for biofuels requires around the same energy input for fertilisers and processing the crops as that saved by replacing petrol on the forecourt (Biofuels – A solution worse than the problem, Daily Telegraph).
(2) By harvesting the peat bogs for biofuels, we release 30 times more carbon dioxide than will be recouped by burning the biofuel produced (Prof. Jack Riley, University of Nottingham).
(3) Growing biofuels takes a lot of land and huge amounts of water — neither of which the world has to spare.
(4) China and India risk famine if they proceed with their biofuels plans, because they don’t have enough water to grow both fuel and food (International Water Management Institute).
(5) Biofuels are killing forests and leading to more global warming, besides taking land away from food crops (Global Forest Coalition).
(6) The diversion of land meant for food crops to agrofuel production is a “crime against humanity” (Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food).
Carbon Capture — putting off today what others will have to solve tomorrow:
(1) Carbon sequestration and storage (under our oceans and land) is an untried method of locking up carbon dioxide forever, but there is not a 100 per cent assurance that it will not escape. Possible escape routes include earthquakes, land shifts, terrorism (holding the world to ransom) or human disasters/accidents.
(2) Sequestration and storage of carbon dioxide is not a solution, but a problem that humankind will have to face in the future — one that might eventually threaten the existence of human life itself on Earth, for nothing ever designed has lasted forever.
(3) Governments, as usual, are only looking at solving problems today without any understanding of what this will bring in the future. They are attempting to lock up gases that are toxic to humans — leaving any problems for future generations to solve.
(4) If there was a rupture in the storage vessel, the ramifications for the world would be immense, to say the very least. Therefore, carbon capture is a method of putting off today what others will have to fix tomorrow (if they can).
Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland