by Jim Lane (Biofuels Digest) The public says “depends on the feedstock,” but generally more moral than converting land for oil & gas or housing. An in-depth Digest survey looks at a wide variety of cases.
In Florida, respondents to a Biofuels Digest survey concluded that the morality or immorality of “food versus fuel” depends entirely on the feedstock, with 45 percent describing conversion of “land that is used for conservation purposes, or as national park or forest preserve, to energy or fuel production” as “immoral”.
Respondents get behind biofuels made from wastes, residues, idle land or the oceans. Less than 1 percent agreed that it was “immoral” to produce energy or fuel from waste fats, oil or greases, municipal solid waste, agricultural wastes, forest residues collected at the sawmill, or idle land not suitable for growing food or feed crops.
…One biofuels case deeply troubled respondents. 45 percent said that it was immoral ” to convert land that is used for conservation purposes, or as national park or forest preserve, to energy or fuel production.” 47 percent said that this case was immoral if the target were oil & gas production.
…Respondents saved their contempt, generally, for land use for real estate development purposes. 29 percent said it was immoral “to convert land that could be used for (human) food production to real estate development – e.g. shopping malls, housing developments,” while 65 percent said it was immoral “convert land that is used for conservation purposes, or as national park or forest preserve, to real estate development.”
…Also, we saw some uneasiness over the combustion of wood for biofuels. Respondents are broadly more comfortable with the concept of using crops than trees. Something the industry needs to be aware of. READ MORE