By Claire L. Jarvis
A ruckus over biofuels has been brewing in Iowa.
Lobbying and Public Perception<p>The industry often referred to as "Big Corn" has a surprising amount of power and has actively intensified its lobbying efforts.</p><p>In 2018 <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ethanol-lobbying-is-up-and-it-seems-to-be-paying-off/ar-BBP5hfy" target="_blank">several biofuel interest groups</a> each spent more than $1 million to lobby the government over the Renewable Fuel Standard, an average increase from 2017 of around $200,000. This is obviously small change compared with what the fossil-fuel industry spends — the biggest oil companies each spend $40-50 million every year — but the biofuel groups' efforts have paid off to some degree. Although the ethanol lobby has <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biofuels-filing/biofuel-groups-file-petition-challenging-trump-administrations-small-refinery-waivers-idUSKBN1X21Q9" target="_blank">not made headway</a> reducing the number of small refinery waivers issued by the government, they're getting other desired results: The Trump administration <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-biofuels/trump-administration-set-to-announce-new-plan-to-boost-ethanol-sources-idUSL5N26O5Z3" target="_blank">favors raising</a> the minimum ethanol volume in gasoline, something the oil and gas lobby opposes.</p><p>Critics say this lobbying has allowed the industry to successfully broaden its market without fully informing customers of the potential costs and concerns, which range from reduced gas mileage to increased air pollution.</p><p>Perhaps as a result, the public perception of biofuels — or what little we know about it — remains fairly positive.</p><p>Unsurprisingly, one place where public approval seems to be holding is Iowa, a state whose economy also depends on biofuels.</p><p>According to a public opinion poll by the Iowa Biodiesel Board, a state trade association, 65 percent of Iowans have a positive opinion of biodiesel, while just 4 percent have a negative opinion. Those numbers haven't changed much over time.</p><p>"It's holding pretty steady," said <a href="http://www.iowabiodiesel.org/en/about_us/staff_and_contractors/grant_kimberley/" target="_blank">Grant Kimberley,</a> executive director of the association.</p><p>A national voter poll by the American Biodiesel Board released in October 2019 <a href="https://www.biodiesel.org/news-resources/biodiesel-news/2019/10/09/National-Voter-Poll-Shows-Strong-Support-for-RFS-Biodiesel-Use" target="_blank">paints a similar picture</a>. More than half of survey participants said they believed the federal government should encourage the use of biofuels.</p><p>Outside of trade group polls, though, there isn't a lot of academic research on public attitudes to biofuels and biodiesel. Gallup and Pew Research opinion polls don't ask about them, so we don't know the true national consensus on biofuels, or whether biofuels are more popular than other nontraditional sources of energy such as fracking, solar or nuclear power.</p><p>What we <em>do</em> know comes from a few years ago.</p><p><a href="https://lsc.wisc.edu/facstaff/shaw-bret/" target="_blank">Bret Shaw</a><u>,</u> a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002973" target="_blank">researched public attitudes</a> within his state. His <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/public-attitudes-toward-biofuels-effects-of-knowledge-political-partisanship-and-media-use/250071D732DF1AF3DE934A0DDAE68760" target="_blank">papers</a> from <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963662510390159" target="_blank">2011</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151200763X" target="_blank">2012</a> (based on research conducted in 2009) are some of the most recent to document American opinion. Almost two-thirds of Wisconsinites surveyed told him they support the use of biofuels, which matches the Iowa poll. They correctly answered an average of 5 out of 9 questions about biofuels, demonstrating reasonably good knowledge.</p><p>However, Shaw's studies suggested that public opinion may be more malleable and precarious than those robust approval ratings imply. In his surveys he found that renaming "biofuels" as "ethanol" negatively affected the opinion of Democrats but didn't sway Republicans. Public opinion on both sides dipped when the surveys stated that adding biofuel blends could lower a car's gas mileage.</p><p>When asked about ethanol's impact on the environment, 41 percent believed it causes less damage than gasoline, 44 percent believed it was about the same and only 15 percent thought ethanol caused more environmental damage.</p><p>Shaw cautions that public attitudes may have shifted in the past decade, but his studies still present the clearest snapshot of public perception of biofuels — as well as the opportunity to better inform consumers about the products that go into their gas tanks.</p><p>So why should the public care, especially since they have so little choice in the matter?</p>
What the Public Doesn’t Know Can’t Hurt Them — Can It?<p>Advocates of biofuels around the country tout them as better for the environment than fossil fuels, a fact that polls tell us the public doesn't disagree with.</p><p>Scientists, on the other hand, have begun to question some of those environmental benefits. According to some studies, biodiesels emit <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11097388" target="_blank">more of</a> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27696830" target="_blank">certain pollutants</a> than regular diesel, and biofuels can have a <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es101946t" target="_blank">larger</a> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18258862" target="_blank">carbon footprint</a> than gasoline, depending on where you start in the production cycle. These findings don't seem to enter the public discourse.</p><p>Increased corn production can also <a href="https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/water-climate-risks-facing-us-corn-production" target="_blank">harm farmland</a> because it causes farmers to cut back on crop rotation, a process essential to maintaining soil quality and reducing pests. Farmers also have an increased incentive to plant corn in ecologically sensitive grassland or wetlands.</p>
Corn stalks after harvest. Phil Roeder / CC BY 2.0<p>But the effects of biofuel production on wildlife and public health are subtle and hard to separate from the consequences of food production. This sets biodiesel apart from other sources of pollution and environmental health, such as fracking, which are often much more immediately visible. For example, images of <a href="https://therevelator.org/fracking-health-studies/" target="_blank">brown tap water</a> were enough to mobilize national opposition to fracking. Intensified corn production doesn't generate such arresting sights. Corn requires more fertilizer than other crops, and the toxic algal bloom caused by fertilizer runoff into the rivers is a visible consequence of increased corn production to meet biofuel demand. However, these blooms occur out of sight in the Gulf of Mexico.</p><p>The Union of Concerned Scientists advocates for cleaner energy, but stands neither for nor against biofuels.</p><p>"Our position is that all fuel producers should be cleaning up their act," said Martin. "More emphasis on 'how do we make biofuels better' rather than just 'let's have more biofuels'."</p><p>Although these problems have been identified and studied, if not widely discussed, some experts suggest that maybe they don't matter in the long term.</p><p>"When they passed the first Renewable Fuel Standard, every forecast was that demand for gasoline would rise forever with economic growth," said Martin. "Now most long-term forecasts reflect that gas consumption is likely to fall rather than rise. That means we're headed towards ethanol use falling."</p><p>He adds that wide-scale electric vehicle adoption, unthinkable in 2005, now looks closer to reality. Once that happens, ethanol use could go into freefall.</p><p>Back in Iowa, biofuels and biodiesel advocates remain bullish about market expansion, even though the government remains only partially on their side.</p><p>"In the near future we think we can easily double our industry," said Kimberley, who doesn't believe a widespread adoption of large electric vehicles in sectors like commercial trucking, where vehicles otherwise run on bio-blends of diesel, is coming anytime soon.</p><p>Meanwhile the <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-agriculture/2019/10/28/trumps-biofuel-policies-in-the-spotlight-781666" target="_blank">drama in Washington continues</a>. The House Energy and Commerce Committee recently held a<a href="https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-protecting-the-rfs-the-trump-administrations-abuse-of-secret" target="_blank"> subcommittee hearing</a> on the Trump plan to exempt certain oil refiners from the Renewable Fuel Standard's biofuel blending requirements. That plan made oil companies happy but enraged Iowa farmers. For now, that tension may continue to grow.</p>
Production of hemp was banned in the United States in 1937 under the Marihuana Tax Act.
A strain of Cannabis sativa, its low concentrations of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) mean it won't get you high. The internet is abuzz, though, with claims that it's a green fix for a host of environmental ills.
The oil crushed from hemp seeds can go into everything from salad dressings to biofuels.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Daniel Ross
The 150 mph winds that Hurricane Michael blasted through Tyndall Air Force Base last October left a trail of destruction, ruin and exorbitant financial loss at one of the Department of Defense's (DoD) key military bases. The damage could have been worse. Fifty-five of Tyndall's fleet of F-22 fighter jets had been flown to safety before the hurricane hit. Nevertheless, some of the 17 remaining F-22 jets — their combined worth a reported $5.8 billion — suffered damage, along with roughly 95 percent of the buildings.
- The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate ... ›
- Pentagon: Climate Change Is Real and a 'National Security Issue ... ›
By Alex Kirby
Companies selling products which contain palm oil need to be upfront about where it comes from, so as to relieve consumers of the burden of making sustainable choices, a UK study says.
Researchers from the University of Cambridge say companies should not rely simply on purchasers' own awareness of the need to make environmentally responsible decisions, but should publicly disclose the identities of their palm oil suppliers.
Environmentalists celebrated the move as a victory for rainforests, the climate and endangered species such as orangutans that have lost their habitats due to palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia. It also sets a major precedent for other nations.
In an apparent effort to allay serious public and scientific concerns about contamination threats from genetically engineered (GE) trees, on Aug. 3 researchers at Oregon State University claimed they had genetically engineered sterility into poplar trees. The real story of the study, however, is that the risks of genetically engineering trees are too great and can never fully be known.
By Hans Nicholas Jong
The report by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) comes amid mounting debate about the use of palm oil, with the European Union seeking to phase out the use of the ubiquitous commodity in biofuels by 2030, citing environmental and human rights violations in the production of the commodity.
On Friday, the 170+ nations in the International Maritime Organization set the first-ever emissions target for the shipping industry and agreed to halve CO2 emissions by 2050, based on 2008 levels.
By Andy Rowell
As the oil price recovers to over $65 a barrel last year, so do Shell's fortunes, with reported earnings of nearly $16 billion.
By Edward Barbier and Terry Iverson
This was the final step of a process that began when two U.S. subsidiaries of foreign solar panel makers filed a rarely used kind of trade complaint with the International Trade Commission. Trump largely followed the course of action the independent U.S. agency had recommended to protect domestic manufacturers from unfair competition.
That's a 3 percent jump from 2016 and 7 percent short of the $360 billion record set in 2015.