Marketplace

Splendid news, Sir Markatos-Soriano. At first blush I thought "five percent biofuel in one out of four engines?... that's pretty piddling.” It's always tempting to cast aspersions on the more interesting among us, but after further research I'm impressed at the cooperative fuels research being conducted by Boeing, GE Aviation and Imperium Renewables which Virgin Atlantic precipitated -- at least in part. Contrary to what we might assume, the military actually flies cleaner than conventional airlines, with the Air Force announcing its goal to have its fleet certified for alternative fuels in three years.

No one believes that crop-based biofuels are sustainable and even the International Air Transport Association (www.iata.org) is advocating the use of algae (opens PDF) for next generation aviation fuels.

What I found disturbing, although not particularly unusual these days, is how the feds, a a the Federal Aviation Administration and its corollary NextGen group, are failing to address climate change in the industry. In a polite subtextual letter to the then-FAA Director Marion Blakey, Congressman Edward Markey asked a series of fairly searching questions about what NextGen will do about addressing climate change. Having worked for the government for a good part of my adult life in some fashion, I am deeply dismayed at how retrograde political appointees are fundamentally at odds -- not only with the will of the States and the best interests of Americans, but with their progressive career staff as well, the latter trying to lift clumsy and anachronistic policies into the light of dawn.

Between 1990 and 2005, there was a 10.2% increase in overall CO2 emissions from commercial domestic and international flights so hats off to Sir Richard Branson and our local compatriots here in Seattle for doing what the Feds continue to… not do.

Well done, Dennis.

I agree that Virgin deserves credit for its biofuel flight. And I don't think it really matters if it's a publicity stunt or not: it's a good thing that people know that it's happening, even if it's not ALL THAT meaningful.

I certainly don't mean to be pointing any fingers at the Greenwash Brigade, but it does bum me out when self-celebratory marketing is attacked too ferociously. In my opinion, there can be educational value in PR hyperbole. It is a bad thing for people to believe that companies are doing better things than they really are. But, at the same time, I do think it can have a really positive effect when companies set consumer expectations high.

For example, let's say McDonald's makes the outrageous claim that it only buys beef and potatoes from sustainable agriculture projects. If someone hears that and believes it, the next time he goes to Wendy's, maybe he'll ask a question, get an unsatisfying answer and rant and rave...

What are you guys talking about you buy from dirty industrial ag? That's bullshit. Look at McDonald's. They're perfect. You should be too.

Ok this is getting a little silly and a lot far fetched, but you get my point I think. Maybe there are ways we can embrace greenwash and use it to set some standards to which we can hold companies.

On another note, your post made me think of Paul MacCready. I want to be able to fly and fly sustainably in the future, so I hope Dr. MacCready has capable successors.

I'm slow to respond because I've been at a super conference all about energy efficiency. There, I heard a presentation from a Canadian planner named Tim Moerman that addresses the question of whether this flight is greenwash or not quite directly. He was a little hard to understand between talking fast, poor sound, and an accent, but he made a very important point. He goes through the math, and shows that "it would take the equivalent of between 35% and 107% of all the potential farmland on the planet to produce enough biofuels to replace today's transport oil consumption."

Frankly, it takes an incredible amount of energy to get a plane into the air, and I think Jake is going to be disappointed to learn that flying sustainable is an oxymoronic concept.

There's an old saying that applies in the case of biofuels, ya can't polish a turd.

I'm slow to respond because I've been at a super conference all about energy efficiency. There, I heard a presentation from a Canadian planner named Tim Moerman that addresses the question of whether this flight is greenwash or not quite directly. He was a little hard to understand between talking fast, poor sound, and an accent, but he made a very important point. He goes through the math, and shows that "it would take the equivalent of between 35% and 107% of all the potential farmland on the planet to produce enough biofuels to replace today's transport oil consumption."

Frankly, it takes an incredible amount of energy to get a plane into the air, and I think Jake is going to be disappointed to learn that flying sustainable is an oxymoronic concept.

Janne,
Thanks for sharing the info from the conference. But I want to hit on an element of what that speaker said: "it would take the equivalent of between 35% and 107% of all the potential farmland on the planet to produce enough biofuels to replace today's transport oil consumption."
And it would take all the oil left in a few quick years for oil to be our only source of energy - but it's not. The point that biofuels can't serve all transportation needs is an important one. But that doesn't mean it can't be _part_ of the solution. Biofuels off of wastes from wood production and other processes can help prevent oil from hitting $200 or $300/barrel - though it won't bring oil back down to $10/barrel. As we say in the climate policy world, there is no one silver bullet -- we've gotta have silver buckshot.
And Allen, care to elaborate? Turds are important for fertilizing the soil and like everything, it has its role. So does biofuel - maybe only in agricultural centers like the Midwest to prevent us from using fossil fuels to transport it hundreds of miles to other users.
Thanks for the comments, y'all.

I have just a few questions about this new bio-fuel hype.

What are the potential social and economic consequences of increasing farm subsidies to pay for production of bio-fuel crop (essentially to promote monoculture and produce an excess of a food crop)?

Are there any measures being examined which will reduce the negative impact that deep plowing, heavy irrigation, over fertilization, and pesticide usage has on the ecosystem and public health?

Will the new demand for bio-fuel grain stock hasten the widespread use of genetically modified plant species? What risks do these impose on the environment and public health?

Most of the high analysis nitrogen based fertilizers are made from natural gas feedstock, with a few synthesized from naphtha (petroleum). Most commercial pesticides are synthesized from petroleum feedstock. Does it make sense to devote more of our remaining (artificially) arable land to the expanded production of crops that rely heavily on fossil fuel based technologies? What about processing and transportation?

Are there any comprehensive studies which examine all these facets of this alternative fuel issue? Please do share as putting together ALL the fact (let alone coming up with them) is enough work for a full-time reporter or researcher.

From my perspective, there is a lot of talk about alternatives. These all seem to be band-aids on top of band aids as we continually miss some of the key underlying factors that have gotten us into this predicament.

1. There are too many of us. This problem only worsens if left unchecked (by natural or other interventions). Thomas Malthus gave a grave prediction of what happens when a population outruns its ability to make resources available. Population will continue to grow exponentially. Given adequate resources to sustain the current population our population will expand by a multiple (grater than 1) over the next year, guaranteed. We make it a point to expand our ability to make resources available by expanding production and our economies. If these should fail, then we may very well face situations of “hardship”.

2. Our cities are expanding without the slightest regard for efficient planning. We need to reduce the need for personal liquid fuel powered transportation. Expanding freeways is not the solution, this only encourages more driving. Expanding mass transit should be a priority. I would also argue that programming our traffic lights to better predict and manage traffic flow would help reduce emissions.

3. The conveniences of the modern world we live in make it OK to not plan ahead too far in advance. Instant communication and convenient personal mobility afforded by cell phones and automobiles give us the flexibility to change plans at a moments notice. As a result we may have forgotten how to effectively plan. Planning is key to making conservation work. It takes extra time to use public transportation (why not do some more reading or day planning?). It requires a bit of forethought to get grocery shopping done while still keeping to public transportation. Buying for the short term helps lessen the time you spend at the store and how much you have to carry back. On the flip side, over planning in the form of cramming too much into the day is another form of excess which necessitates SOV habits. These lifestyle choices (yes your job or self-employment is part of that) all contribute to the situation (and in no small part either). Just don't get me started on convenience foods.

I think that’s enough out of me though.

well said Allen...biofuels? i don't think so, not unless we are speaking strictly of recoverable trash that cannot be recycled in any other way..still probably not..toxins and the all important WATER. The planet is running out of water, the more ag business, the more water. Conservative estimates on the depletion of china's water is 65 years, all the glaciers that feed China's need for water will be melted within 65 years, Africa is expected to dry before that, and South America is also in deep trouble. The glaciers in Canada are are receding at alarming rates as are the glaciers in USA and Europe. We all rely for the majority of our water needs(particularly agriculturally) from our quickly receding glaciers. Wood pulp/ we need the trees for both carbon capture and to create rain. It is the deforestation of the Amazon that is going to be the killing point:the Amazon basin creates rain for the entire planet.Last but but least ag business requires an amazing amount of petro-chemicals
biofuels? ..NO..definitely a scam