Yesterday Is Always Tomorrow for the Global Bioeconomy
by Douglas L. Faulkner (Leatherstocking LLC/“Cleantech Conservative”/Biofuels Digest) … It never ceases to amaze me that the media and politicians frequently belittle biofuels and biobased products as old-fashioned, hopelessly low-tech, of no import, and, yes, even damaging to the environment and the engines of prosperity. To those enamored of an all-electric future just-around-the-corner, turning woody and agricultural biomass into industrial products reeks of the musty odor of an idea long consigned to the dust bin of history. The much-ballyhooed Green New Deal, for example, contained not one mention of the America’s bioeconomy.
Many climate activists equate supporting biofuels with collaboration with the hated fossil fuel industry. Those modern-day critics are struggling with the very concept of using nature’s bounty responsibly as opposed to just walking away from modern agriculture and forestry and letting nature take its course without human intervention. The European Union’s recently proposed “Fit for 55” proposal suggests this radical course, sparking intense opposition, especially from Nordic members. The long-discredited “food versus fuel” controversy seems to be gaining traction again with renewed global inflation, despite the inconvenient truth that those rising prices for food and fuel (and everything else) were parented by factors other than biofuels. Never have so many so badly understood so much about the real benefits of using crops, trees and wastes to produce fuels, chemicals, products and power.
I take a different view, one based on the historical record and long personal involvement in the ups-and-downs of a steadily growing global bioeconomy.
…
The so-called chemurgy movement extolled the use of science to turn farm products into industrial materials, as stated in its 1935 manifesto, “The Declaration of the Dependence Upon the Soil and the Right of Self-maintenance.” Two of its most prominent leaders, Henry Ford and Dr. George Washington Carver, sparked an interest in bio-based alternatives to petroleum for rural prosperity and later, overcoming wartime shortages.
…
No one wants to contemplate a renewal of major global conflict, but Western leaders should ponder what such strife with the enemies of freedom today would mean. The most important fact underpinning such strategic calculations is that modern militaries and civilian economies still depend heavily on petroleum and natural gas.
…
China or Russia or their client states would almost certainly target our petrochemical energy infrastructure and that of our Allies with an outbreak of hostilities. Even regional strife with those autocrats could easily fracture global oil supply lines.
De-centralized global biofuels and biobased chemicals production offer a valuable insurance policy against geopolitical threats and oil market instability. No other energy source can offer such reassurance of a new “swing producer” to help offset potential petroleum supply disruptions. Such a valuable national security tool should be protected and nurtured by policymakers in a time of growing threats from the enemies of democracy.
…
The public will begin to see more clearly what a “natural” alternative to oil can mean for so many consumer goods in so many industries while the electrification drive unfolds over the next several decades. READ MORE
