Could Nature’s Own Fuel Save Us from Greenhouse Effect and Electric Grid Failure?

August 02, 2021

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Ellen Brown (LA Progressive) While biofuels are a less high-tech, cheaper and in many ways more effective solution to our dependence on petroleum, the United States and other countries are discussing similar plans to the EU’s and California is already on board. But in a recent article in the Los Angeles Times and related video, Evan Halper argues that we may be trading one environmental crisis for another:

The sprint to supply automakers with heavy-duty lithium batteries is propelled by climate-conscious countries like the United States that aspire to abandon gas-powered cars and SUVs. They are racing to secure the materials needed to go electric, and the Biden administration is under pressure to fast-track mammoth extraction projects that threaten to unleash their own environmental fallout.

A major promise of biofuels is that they can lower overall CO2 emissions without changing a lot of our infrastructure. They can work with existing vehicles, and they can be mass-produced from biomass in the same way as other biotechnology products, like chemicals and pharmaceuticals, which are already made on a large scale.… Most gasoline sold in the U.S. is mixed with 10% ethanol.

...

But opponents say the negative environmental impact will be worse than the oil fracking that electric vehicles are projected to replace.

Not just the batteries but the electricity needed to run electric vehicles (EVs) poses environmental concerns.

...

There is an alternative to gasoline that does not require sending all our combustion engine vehicles to the junkyard. This is alcohol fuel (bioethanol). Not only are greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol substantially lower than from gasoline, but as detailed in a biofuel “explainer” on the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

As we search for fuels that won’t contribute to the greenhouse effect and climate change, biofuels are a promising option because the carbon dioxide (CO2) they emit is recycled through the atmosphere. When the plants used to make biofuels grow, they absorb CO2 from the air, and it’s that same CO2 that goes back into the atmosphere when the fuels are burned. In theory, biofuels can be a “carbon neutral” or even “carbon negative” way to power cars, trucks and planes, meaning they take at least as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they put back in.

...

Fuel from a Weed: The Wide-ranging Virtues of Hemp ... But corn is not the only biofuel option. There are plants that can grow like weeds on poor soil without fertilizers. Industrial hemp – the non-intoxicating form of cannabis grown for fiber, cloth, oil, and many other purposes – is a prime candidate not just for fuel but to help save the environment. Hemp has been proven to absorb more CO2 per hectare than any forest or commercial crop, making it the ideal carbon sink. It can be grown on a wide scale on nutrient poor soils; it grows remarkably fast with almost no fertilizer or irrigation; and it returns around 70% of the nutrients used in the growth cycle back to the soil. Biofuels usually require substantially more water than fossil fuels, but hemp needs roughly half the amount needed for corn. Hemp can also be used for “bioremediation” – the restoration of soil from toxic pollution. It helps remove toxins and has been used by farmers to “cure” their fields, even from radioactive agents, metals, pesticides, crude oil, and toxins in landfills.

An analysis published in the journal Science in 2019 concluded that a worldwide tree planting program could remove two-thirds of all the CO2 emissions that have been pumped into the atmosphere by human activities. As reported in The Guardian in 2019, one trillion trees could be restored for as little as $300 billion – “by far the cheapest solution that has ever been proposed.” The chief drawback to that solution is that trees grow slowly, requiring 50 to 100 years to reach their full carbon sequestering potential. Hemp, on the other hand, is one of the fastest CO2-to-biomass conversion tools available, growing to 13 feet in 100 days. It also requires much less space per plant than trees, and it can be grown on nearly any type of soil without fertilizers.

In a 2015 book titled “Cannabis Vs. Climate Change,” Paul von Hartmann notes that hemp is also one of the richest available sources of aromatic terpenes, which are known to slow climate change. When emitted by pine forests, terpenes help to cool the planet by bouncing energy from the sun back into space. In a mature hemp field, the temperature on a hot day can be 20 degrees cooler than in surrounding areas. READ MORE

California’s electric car revolution, designed to save the planet, also unleashes a toll on it (Los Angeles Times)

Is California’s electric car revolution bad for the planet? (Los Angeles Times)

Electric Vehicles Don’t Save Money: Sure, you’ll cut costs on oil changes, but you’ll pay way more over the life of the car. (American Spectator)

EU proposes effective ban on new fossil-fuel cars from 2035 -- Commission proposes 55% cut in CO2 emissions from cars by 2030 (Gulf News/Reuters)

Europe’s green economy plan: main points (Agence France Presse)

The Role of Industrial Hemp and Carbon Farming (Scribd)

Industrial Hemp Is The Answer To Petrochemical Dependency (Forbes)

Deep-Sea Mining Becomes Battleground Between Conservation and Clean Energy (Our Daily Planet)

Having a Field Day Talking about Hemp for Biofuel in Maryland (Advanced Biofuels USA)

Excerpt from Our Daily Planet: Earlier this year, the International Energy Agency reported that to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, the world will require six times the amount of certain minerals that it produces now. Experts say that deep-sea nodules, lumps of manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, and copper found along the ocean floor, will be crucial to building clean energy infrastructure like E.V. batteries.

Estimates say that there could be six times as much nickel and cobalt in these nodules than on land.
Proponents say that mining these nodules will reduce destruction and pollution on land, which could be a win for Indigenous communities like those fighting lithium mines in Nevada.

However, many environmentalists say the risks are enormous and include disturbing whale and tuna migrations, destroying pristine undiscovered ecosystems and species, and kicking up carbon stores.

One study found that in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), a 1.7 million-square-mile stretch of ocean where nodules are plentiful, many species rely on the nodules for habitats and survival.
The mining of one patch of seabed led to a 20% decline in life in that area.

Experts warn that the implementation of deep-sea mining operations is moving too fast to understand the impacts that decades of widespread mining could have on ocean ecosystems. “Going into a new habitat to potentially destroy it and reap the metals that [supposedly] will be used to move us away from climate change … well, we’re destroying one habitat to save another and not fixing the problem,” said Diva Amon, a deep ocean biologist from Trinidad. READ MORE