Jo Abbess » Marvellous Wonderful

Living Life and LOAFing It

Jo — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:21:21 +0000

CHRISTIAN ECOLOGY LINK
PRESS RELEASE

Living Life and LOAFing It – Green Christians ask churches to “Use your LOAF !” on sourcing sustainable food

In the run up to Easter, Christian Ecology Link is asking supporters to think and act on how they source food for their church communities, with the aim of reducing the impact of unsustainable agriculture on their local area, and the wider world.

CEL have launched a new colour leaflet on the LOAF programme principles in time for Shrove Tuesday (Mardi Gras), or Pancake Day, on 21st February 2012.

The key LOAF principles are that food should where possible be sourced Locally, grown and reared Organically, be Animal-friendly and Fairly traded.

There is an action letter that can be downloaded from the website, urging church leaders to adopt the LOAF principles at community facilities.

CEL’s Web Editor Judith Allinson said, “We hope that our members and friends will take the opportunity to join in sending a letter to their church leaders asking that their community LOAF during Lent, and then carry on LOAFing throughout the following year.”

Green Christians are being encouraged to order free copies of the new LOAF leaflet to distribute during Fair Trade Fortnight, which runs from 27th February to 11th March 2012, by sending an e-mail to : jill-publications@christian-ecology.org.uk

The new all-colour leaflet can also be downloaded from : http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/use-your-loaf.pdf or http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/loafUseYourLoaf.pdf

CEL members and friends are being asked to submit LOAF-themed recipes which will be uploaded to the new website : http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/archives/category/food/recipes

CEL’s Secretary, Barbara Echlin said, “Start the LOAF ball rolling in your own church by serving pancakes on Shrove Tuesday and make them with local free range eggs, organic milk and Fair Trade sugar. Ample food for all !”

Guidance for LOAF campaigners includes the suggestion to send the campaign letter to local church leaders and regional church administrators; and asking cathedrals, conference centres, educational venues and large churches with a refectory or cafe to take part.

CEL’s Information and Analysis Officer, Jo Abbess said “Good food is holy food – and good food comes from well-treated plants, animals and workers too. It’s not enough to choose organic over intensively-farmed – we need to choose co-operative food growers over convenience store profits.”

ENDS

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The LOAF principles were developed several years ago by Christian Ecology Link, and the new all-colour leaflet has been produced to accompany the launch of a letter-writing campaign – asking leaders and managers of all Christian venues to “Use their LOAF !”

2. LOAF stands for : Locally produced, Organically grown, Animal friendly, Fairly traded.

3. The full text of the LOAF letter is below. Members and supporters are asked to modify it as they wish, or print it as it is from the website.

Dear

As a supporter of Christian Ecology Link (CEL), I feel that many present aspects of food production imperil the wellbeing of Creation. This is why I am writing to tell you about CEL’s food campaign – LOAF – and to ask you to consider following these guidelines.

CEL is asking churches, cathedrals, districts, diocese offices, and Christian holiday, retreat and conference centres, schools and colleges to try to source food which is :-

* Locally produced

Supporting local and national farmers and producers strengthens local economies and communities, and lowers carbon emissions. We need to combat the nonsensical policy of importing food which could be, and indeed is, grown and produced here only for export.

* Organically grown

Subsidised industrialisation of agriculture leads to severe biodiversity losses, to soil depletion, water pollution and agrochemical resistance. Organic farming is key to the recovery of interdependent ecosystems. Supporting organic production is also central to the struggle against GM biotechnology, which poses threats to other crops (via cross-pollination) and biodiversity.

* Animal friendly

UK animal welfare standards are higher than many countries. But shops still sell produce from hens caged, beak-trimmed and bred for unnaturally fast growth rates; pigs confined to barren sheds, teeth clipped and tails docked, many pregnant sows in farrowing crates; turkeys in dark, dirty sheds where they develop lameness and burns. The wellbeing of animals is entrusted to us. Will you consider sourcing only free-range eggs and free-range, organic or outdoor reared meat ? Also, a shift to a much higher proportion of vegetarian/vegan cooking is also vital as meat and dairy production requires far more land and water and is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.

* Fairly traded

In a world where trade justice seems to recede and trade policies assist large producers rather than small producers, a commitment to serve only Fairtrade tea and coffee, for example, would signal support for the one certification guaranteeing minimum remuneration and community investment.

I feel that we are called to renew, heal and restore God’s creation: an immense commission only to be realised by infinitesimal everyday acts – in His grace.

Please find enclosed CEL’s new LOAF leaflet. More may be downloaded free from : http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/resources/loaf

I look forward to your response.

Yours

Carbon Detox 2012

Jo — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:02:12 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

Carbon Detox 2012 : Shed Unwanted Pounds With Our Unique Formulation

George Marshall, well-known sustainable living guru, will be asking us to challenge ourselves, our routines and bad habits, and make a 2012 all-year resolution to shed the excess carbon from our lives.

On 21st January 2012 at a convenient central London location, he will ask us to take action to get control of our personal energy, and add vitality to our lives with new aims and goals.

The aim of the event is to help us acquire the psychological tools we need to lead slimmer, healthier and more ethically satisfying lifestyles.

Speaking from the experience gained from his decades of research and practice in the field, and giving tips and tricks from his bestseller “Carbon Detox“, George will be guiding us expertly through the carbon counting maze.

One of our leaner life activities group said : “Cutting down has been hard work, but has become much more fun now I am involved in my local group. I am looking forward to meeting my buddies on Saturday.”

Tony Emerson, the coordinator for the ecocell 2 programme said : “In three years our household has managed to halve the amount of greenhouse gases we produce – by topping up loft insulation, converting to double glazing, installing a wood stove and learning how to best use it, new heavier curtains, wall insulation, changing to a green electricity supplier, continued monitoring of timings and temperature of the central heating – and of course taking part in the ecocell 2 programme. However we still have further to go and I am looking forward to hear what George Marshall has to say. One way we are encouraging people in ecocell 2 is to have a buddy system, whereby people pair up, or group up, by phone, so that people with similar houses can support each other.”

To register for this free, all day event, including a selection of facilitated workshops and to receive your take-home worksheet pack, please email Tony at ecocell@christian-ecology.org.uk

For photographs of the day’s events, and feedback from the workshops, please contact Jo on 0845 45 98 46 0

ENDS

NOTES FOR EDITORS

a. Climate change activist and author George Marshall will be addressing green Christians during an all-day conference on Saturday 21st January 2012 in Central London.

b. The Christian Ecology Link ecocell project team will facilitate workshops on “living the truly sustainable life” at the Magdalen Centre, St Mary’s Church, Eversholt Street near Euston train station between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm [1]

c. George Marshall, author of the easy-to-read book “Carbon Detox : Your step-by-step guide to getting real about climate change” will be offering his fact-packed and lighthearted insights into action on climate change, drawn from his experience of over a decade of community and policy work. [2]

d. The event will be suitable for anybody already taking part in the ecocell project, or anybody interested in starting. The workshops on the day will be pitched at several levels.

e. The ecocell-1 workshop group will look at the introductory programme to help your family or church group take their first steps to reducing their impact on the environment. [3]

f. The ecocell-2 workshop will look at the more in-depth project, to provide mutual support for those who want to reduce their carbon emissions to sustainable levels within five years. [4]

REFERENCES

[1] The Magdalen Centre, St Mary’s Church, Eversholt Street, London NW1 1BN is located about 7 minutes’ walk north of Euston train station.

[2] http://www.carbondetox.org/

[3] http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/ecocell
http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/ecocell/ecocell-1

[4] http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/ecocell
http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/ecocell/ecocell-2
http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/ecocell/ecocell2-materials

[5] http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/archives/1537
http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/ecocell-day-21-jan-2012.htm

CONTACT

For details of Christian Ecology Link, please phone Jo on 0845 45 98 46 0 or email info@christian-ecology.org.uk

Feet in first

Jo — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:43:53 +0000

My lovely friends.

I received a wonderful gift over Christmas – bamboo socks.

The gift of socks is a massive present cliche – often a “faux pas”.

Describing a gift of foot socks as a “faux pas” is highly amusing, because that expression is French for “false step(s)”.

But this particular present of footwear was not embarrassing or laughable in the slightest.

It was extremely well thought out – inspiring, Zeitgeistian, educational, novel and fun – it even came in a bright orange pouch.

In Summer, by chance I was at an event where I heard the outlines and some conclusions of Lucy Siegle’s research into clothing fabrics.

Essentially, cotton is under threat worldwide – if you buy anything made from cotton, you should perhaps consider it an investment and hold onto it as long as you can. It could become quite irreplaceable.

There are solutions, even in a climate changed world – bamboo and hemp being two avenues for sourcing sustainable clothing fibres.

Fabric made from bamboo is soft and comforting, and in this particular case, quite, quite funky.

I have the obvious criticism of the use of retail – that we cannot expect to green up our lives purely through shopping – because consumerism is part of the climate change and energy crisis.

But I think that something functional like organic and recycled clothing can come into the category of truly green spending – after all, we do need to replace our clothes from time to time.

To cap it all, the socks had green stripes !

So top marks to my clever friend for cracking a superb seasonal joke and demonstrating the future of fabrics at the same time.

Raising a toast to a Sustainable 2012.

Alchemic for the people

Jo — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:41:06 +0000

I was less than a metre above current sea level, rooting about in the holy bookshelves of my Evangelical host, searching for a suitable title.

I pulled out “Who Made God ?” from underneath a pile of books on their sides, letting the column slump downwards, alerting my companions to the fact that I had definitively made my choice for the evening’s reading.

We were treated to gentle Christmassy music for an hour or so as we all gave up talking to read by candlelight and compact fluorescent.

I didn’t read fast, as at first I didn’t have my newly-necessary reading glasses, and when I was encouraged to fetch them, the light was too dim to make reading easy. Those fashionable uplighters.

I read into the second part, and I had already formed in my mind several disagreements with the author, Professor Edgar Andrews, despite him having taken several good lines of reasoning and made some humourous points which I had duly responded to with a slight audible giggle.

I instinctively didn’t like his pitch about the impossibility of organic chemistry and I froze a little : personally I see no need for God’s personal, literal, physical intervention to make the ladders and spirals of genes – the DNA and RNA forming from the appropriate nucleotide bases – A, T, G, C.

And then the book’s author blew away his credibility, for me, at least, by getting bogged down in the absolutes of Physics, and ignoring Chemistry. He quoted the Laws of Thermodynamics, and claimed Entropy as proof that God doesn’t play dice because he’s in the garage playing mechanic. The direction of the universe, the arrow of time, plays towards randomness, the author of the book proclaimed. Order cannot come from inorganic matter – Life is the organising force.

At this, I took several forms of dispute, and immediately found in my mind the perfect counter-example – the formation of crystals from saturated solution – the building of the stalgamite and stalagtite from the sedimentary filtering of rainwater. Another example, I think, is chiral forms of molecular compounds – some chemicals behave in different ways if formed lefthandedly or righthandedly. The different forms behave predictably and consistently and this is an ordered behaviour that I believe – without the necessary university instruction in Chemistry – is an imposed denial of chaos.

In fact, the whole of Chemistry, its world of wonder in alchemy, I think points to a kind of natural negation of the Laws of Physics. There is the Micro World, where Newton, and more introspectively, Einstein, are correct in their theoretical pragmas. But in the Macro World, there is Chemistry, and there are precursor compounds to organic essentials. Life forms itself from dead stone. For a Physicist this is “just not cricket”, it is a whole new universe.

Why can Aluminium be used for containers in microwave ovens, but steel cannot ? And why is Aluminium so light ? Why does water expand when it freezes ? Here the Physicists can help out. But they cannot, when it comes to explaining, or even accurately predicting, all the chemical properties of alloys and compounds.

I have been pondering, in a crude, uneducated way, about industrial chemistry for the last couple of months. How large volume reactions are encouraged, catalysed. How fluids work. How gases breathe. My conclusion is that most chemical engineering is a bit brutish, like the workings of the internal combustion engine. Things are a tad forced. It is probably not possible for chemical engineers to replicate photosynthesis entirely – it’s too dainty for them. But that is the kind of chemistry we need to overcome our climate and energy problems.

We may not be able to match the leaves on the trees, but we can do gas chemistry and electricity and semiconductor physics, and it is gas chemistry and electricity and semiconductor physics that will save the planet. Electricity to replace much fuel. Semiconductor physics to bypass photosynthesis. And Renewable Gas chemistry – engineering the chemical building blocks of the future and providing backup to the other green energies.

Urbanity, Durbanity

Jo — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:40:05 +0000

People working for non-governmental, and governmental, organisations can be rather defensive when I criticise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC. What ? I don’t back the international process ? Climate change, after all, is a borderless crime, and will take global policing. Well, I back negotiations for a global treaty in principle, but not in practice.

The annual wearisome jousting and filibustering events just before Christmas do not constitute for me a healthy, realistic programme of engagement, imbued with the full authority and support of global leadership structures and civil society. People can try to spin it and claim success, but that’s just whitewash on an ungildable tomb.

The Climate Change talks that have just taken place in Durban, South Africa, were exemplary of a peculiar kind of collective madness that has resulted from trying to navigate and massage endless special interests, national jostling, brinkmanship, unworkable and inappropriate proposals from economists, communications failures and corporate interference in governance.

The right people with real decisionmaking powers are not at the negotiating table. The organisations with most to contribute are still acting in opposition – that’s the energy industry, to be explicit. And the individual national governments are still not concerned enough about climate change, even though it impacts strongly on the things they do consider to be priorities – economic health, trade and political superiority.

Over 20 years ago, the debate on what to do to tackle global warming and still maintain good international relations was already won, by the commonsense approach of Contraction and Convergence – fair shares for all. Each country should count on their fair share of carbon emissions based on their population – and we would get there by starting from where we are now and agreeing mutual cuts. The big emitters would agree to steeper cuts than the lower emitters – and after some time, everybody in the world would have the same, safe emissions rights.

What has prevented this logical approach from being implemented ? Well, we have had the so-called “flexible mechanisms” pushed on us – such as the Clean Development Mechanism which essentially boils down to the idea that the richer high-emitting countries can offset their carbon by paying for poorer low emissions countries to cut their carbon instead. Some have been attempting to make the CDM carbon credits into a commercial product for the Carbon Trading market. Some may contest it, but the CDM and carbon trading haven’t really been working very well, and anyway, the CDM doesn’t aim for emissions reductions, just offsets.

Other carbon trade has been implemented, such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which doesn’t appear to have caused high emissions industries to diversify out of carbon, or created a viable price for carbon dioxide, so its usefulness is questionable.

Many people have put forward the idea of straight carbon pricing, mostly by taxation. The trouble with this idea should be obvious, but rarely is. Over four-fifths of the world’s energy is fossil fuel based. Taxing carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels would just make everything, everywhere, more expensive. It wouldn’t necessarily create new lower carbon energy resources, as the taxes would probably be put into a giant climate change adaptation fund – a financial institution proposed by several people including Oliver Tickell and Nicholas Stern, although in Stern’s case, he is calling for direct grants from countries to keep the fund topped up.

On the policy front, there has been a continuing, futile attempt to force the historially high-emitting countries to accept very radical carbon cuts, as a sign of accountability. This “grandfathering” of emissions responsibilities is something that no sane person in government in the richer nations could ever agree with, not even when being smothered with ethical guilt. One of the forms of this proposal is “Greenhouse Development Rights“, essentially allowing countries like China to continue growing their emissions in order to grow their economies to guarantee development. The emissions cuts required by countries like the United States of America would be impossible to achieve, not even if their economy completely toppled.

Sadly, a number of charities, aid and development agencies and other non-governmental organisations with concern for the world’s poor, have signed up to Greenhouse Development Rights not realising it is completely untenable.

The only approach that can work, that both high- and low-emitting countries can ever possibly be made to agree on, is a system of population-proportional shares of the global carbon pie. And the way to get there has to be based on relative current emissions, ignoring the emissions of the past – your cuts should be larger if your current emissions are large. And it should be based on the relative size of the population, and their individual emissions rates, rather than taking a country as a whole. Yes, there will be room for a little carbon trade between nations, to enable the transfer of low carbon technologies from wealthy nations to un-resourced nations. Yes, there will be space for enterprise, as corporations have to face regulation to cut emissions, and will need innovation in technology to divest themselves of fossil fuel production and consumption.

This is Contraction and Convergence – and you ignore it at our peril.

A few suggestions for further reading :-

“Contraction and Convergence The Global Solution to Climate Change” by Aubrey Meyer. Schumacher Briefings, Green Books, December 2000. ISBN-13: 978-1870098946

The Greenhouse Effect : Science and Policy” by Professor Stephen H. Schneider, Science, Volume 243, Issue 4892, Pages 771 – 781, DOI: 10.1126/science.243.4892.771, 10 February 1989.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/243/4892/771.abstract
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/Publications.html

“Climate Change : Science and Policy“, edited by Stephen H. Schneider, Armin Rosencranz, Michael D. Mastrandea and Kristin Kuntz-Duriseti. Island Press, 10 February 2010. ISBN-13: 978-1597265669

“The Greenhouse Effect : Negotiating Targets” by Professor Michael Grubb, published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London, 1990.

“Equity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Global Common Resources” by Paul Baer, Chapter 15 in “Climate Change Policy : A Survey” by Stephen H. Schneider, Armin Rosencranz and John O. Niles, Island Press, 2002. ISBN-10: 1-55963-881-8 (Paper), ISBN-13: 978-1-55963-881-4 (Paper)

“Kyoto 2 : How to Manage the Global Greenhouse” by Oliver Tickell, ISBN-13: 978-1848130258, Zed Books Ltd, 25 July 2008
http://www.kyoto2.org/
http://www.kyoto2.org/docs/the_land_1.pdf

Advent Joy : Christmas Rose

Jo — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:16:18 +0000

Audete, Gaudete !
Christus est natus
Ex Maria Virgine,
Gaudete !

Tempus adest gratiae,
Hoc quod optabamus;
Carmina laetitiae,
Devote reddamus.

Deus homo factus est,
Natura mirante;
Mundus renovatus est
A Christo regnante…

Welcome, little Christmas rose, into a big and troubled world. We are so happy you’ve made your journey safely, we could sing heartily.

The world is no closer to a binding, enactable accord on preventing catastrophic climate change, but at least the Durban United Nations conference is over, and many are therefore sleepily rejoicing.

…Ezechielis porta
Clausa pertransitur;
Unde lux est orta
Salus invenitur.

Ergo nostra concio,
Psallat iam in lustro;
Benedicat Domino:
Salus Regi nostro.

Audete, Gaudete !
Christus est natus
Ex Maria Virgine,
Gaudete !

Another Meeting I Will Not Be Attending

Jo — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:07:40 +0000

What appears to be a serious event is due to take place at the Energy Institute in London on 6th December 2011, “Peak Oil – assessing the economic impact on global oil supply“.

Dr Roger Bentley, author of a seminal 2002 paper on the subject, research that spawned hundreds of related learned articles, will be speaking.

But the event organisers have also invited one Dr Matt Ridley, the self-styled “rational optimist”, and member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and this, I’m afraid, prevents me from attending.

Ridley projects a view that many probably find comforting – as his headline in The Times of 1st October 2011 summarises – “Cheer up. The world’s not going to the dogs”.

He has been captured speaking at a TEDx event pouring scorn on “environmental” scare stories of the past, but not bothering to delve or dig into how mankind has actually gone out of its way to act on past crises and prevent catastrophes.

And now he’s thrown in his lot with the shale gas miracle men, writing a report with a foreword by Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s most balanced individuals.

How much uncorroborated optimism can one man contain ?

Renewable Gas : Balanced Power

Jo — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:11:58 +0000

People who know very little about renewable and sustainable energy continue to buzz like flies in the popular media. They don’t believe wind power economics can work. They don’t believe solar power can provide a genuine contribution to grid capacity. They don’t think marine power can achieve. They would rather have nuclear power. They would rather have environmentally-destructive new oil and gas drilling. They have friends and influence in Government. They have financial clout that enables them to keep disseminating their inaccuracies.

It’s time to ditch the pundits, innuendo artists and insinuators and consult the engineers.

Renewable Gas can stand in the gap – when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine and the grid is not sufficiently widespread and interconnected enough to be able to call on other wind or solar elsewhere.

Renewable Gas is the storing of biologically-derived and renewably-created gases, and the improving of the gases, so that they can be used on-demand in a number of applications.

This field of chemical engineering is so old, yet so new, it doesn’t have a fixed language yet.

However, the basic chemistry, apart from dealing with contaminants, is very straight-forward.

When demand for grid electricity is low, renewable electricity can be used to make renewable hydrogen, from water via electrolysis, and in other ways. Underused grid capacity can also be used to methanate carbon-rich biologically-derived gas feedstocks – raising its stored energy.

Then when demand for grid electricity is high, renewable gas can be used to generate power, to fill the gap. And the flue gases from this combustion can be fed back into the gas storage.

Renewable gas can also be biorefined into vehicle fuels and other useful chemicals. This application is likely to be the most important in the short term.

In the medium-term, the power generation balance that renewable gas can offer is likely to be the most important application.

Researchers are working on optimising all aspects of renewable gas and biorefinery, and businesses are already starting to push towards production.

We can have a fully renewable energy future, and we will.

The New Sciontist : BP Subvertisers

Jo — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:17:06 +0000

Image Credit : Liberate Tate (Event Flyer)

The New Scientist magazine must be hard up. They’ve already bowed to economic pressure and taken the “king’s shilling” from the oil and gas industry by running Statoil advertisements, at least one made to look like a normal New Scientist article, giving Natural Gas a makeover as desirable as washing powder – all clean and reliable and loved by obsessives everywhere. Now they appear to have lost their power for critical reasoning and sunk to being suckers as billboards for BP spin, taking a front cover foldout for biofuels, with what I think is a completely deceitful portrayal of BP’s business.

The glowing advertisement reads, “Providing advanced biofuels for London 2012 : At BP we’re dedicated to fuelling the success of London 2012. We’re supporting British athletes like [paralympian] Stef Reid and also working to provide some of the official vehicles with advanced, lower carbon fuels made from energy grasses. London 2012. Fuelling the Future.”

Broking BP’s wares smacks of financial desperation on the part of the magazine, but allowing outright opportunism seems to me to be adopting very low standards indeed. BP seem to be attempting to mend their broken public relations record, and this advertisement slots right into that agenda, and in the process makes the New Scientist a “chosen son” of the 21st century royal owners of the economy – a fossil fuel energy salesmen. This is an archetypal sell out. This really is the last “energy grass” straw. Here’s just a few things about this advertisement that are manipulative or unjustifiable in my meagre opinion :-

1. Spin doctoring : biofuels – even “advanced biofuels” – are not necessarily “lower carbon”.

2. False impressions : “advanced biofuels” will only fuel 1% or less of the London Olympics 2012 vehicle fleet.

3. Hidden agenda : “advanced biofuels” may be the thin edge of the genetically modified wedge – a tank full of GMO derived gunk

4. Hyping the vision : BP’s sales of liquid bio-source vehicle fuels each year are minuscule compared to its core business.

5. Hidden failings : the social and environmental negatives from BP’s biofuels business

Hat Tip : Low Carbon Kid

1. Spin doctoring : biofuels – even “advanced biofuels” – are not necessarily “lower carbon”.

What are “advanced biofuels” made from “energy grasses” ?

http://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/truly-sustainable-renewable-future
“…The general current idea is that advanced biofuels are liquid fuels made from non-food, non-feed sustainably grown feedstocks and agricultural wastes, and, perhaps, municipal wastes…For example, a groups of potential energy crops are perennial grasses – either something like switchgrass or miscanthus or energy canes; or a mixture of perennial grasses. The idea is that these could be grown on marginal lands that are not so good for growing food; that they take little or no fertilizers and should not require irrigation; and, especially if perennial, require no or little tilling. Consider that as the ocean levels rise, in places along the East Coast [of the United States of America] in particular, some grasses that are salt-tolerant might be developed to be energy grasses and enable farmers in those areas to continue to grow some kind of valuable crops on their lands…”

The new International Energy Agency report “Biofuels for Transport” indicates that biofuels can provide carbon emissions reductions if production is done right :-

http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2389

However, we already know that so-called “first generation” biofuels proved to have higher carbon emissions than projected :-

http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/tag/rfa/

http://biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_reality_check.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5867/1238.abstract

“Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change”, Searchinger et al., Science, Volume 319, 29 February 2008, pages 1238 – 1240.

And “second generation” biofuels, now re-christened as “advanced biofuels”, are not yet proven to reduce emissions for their full lifecycle. One of the biggest factors in the accounting of carbon emissions are forest and farmland clearance for energy crops, and that’s possibly going to get worse for “advanced” biofuel crop production :-

“Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt”, Fargione et al., Science, Volume 319, 29 February 2008, pages 1235 – 1238

“…land clearing may be further accelerated by lignocellulosic biofuels, which will add to the agricultural land base needed for biofuels, unless those biofuels are produced from crops grown on abandoned agricultural lands or from waste biomass…”

Image Credit : Jonathan Burton

2. False impressions : “advanced biofuels” will only fuel 1% or less of the London Olympics 2012 vehicle fleet.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9036378&contentId=7067213

“Fuelling the Games : We’re fuelling the official Games fleet and showing the potential of new and more sustainable mobility options…During the Games we’ll be providing fuels and engine oils for over 5,000 official vehicles…The Games fleet will be fuelled with BP Ultimate – fuels that demonstrate outstanding improvements in engine cleanliness and protection, driving better efficiency and emissions…BP will provide responsible transport fuelling options such as advanced biofuel blends, prior to their commercial launch. BP will demonstrate the huge potential of biofuel blends by making them available in limited quantities at BP’s retail site on the Hammersmith flyover in west London, at a scale to fuel 40 vehicles in the official Games fleet. At the flyover site, we will promote biofuels: from a new technology that unlocks the potential of energy grasses; a new technology that converts sugars into diesel and a new generation of advanced fuel molecule for blending with petrol…”

So only 40 vehicles out of over 5,000 will be powered by energy from grass. The rest will be fuelled by BP Ultimate, which is a fossil fuel with a few biologically sourced components, and other additives :-

http://www.bp.com/retail/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9036643&contentId=7067702#7249863

“What’s in these new BP Ultimate fuels? : Our new generation Ultimate fuels are a special blend of different components at varying levels, carefully selected and developed to deliver the clean and protect benefits of these fuels…”

http://www.bp.com

“Why is BP introducing a new generation of Ultimate fuels? : Our previous generation of Ultimate fuels were great products that were developed and tested using engines and vehicles from pre 2006 and at a time when bio-fuel legislation was in its infancy. The last few years have seen major advances in engine technology and increased levels of different bio-components in our fuels, which means that our current products are reaching the end of their natural shelf life. New and improved Ultimate fuels have been specially designed to complement and enhance these sophisticated state-of-the art engines as well as continuing to offer benefits for older ones too…”

Does anybody outside of BP know what the new recipe for BP Ultimate is ? What effect will its fuel exhaust have on health and the environment ? Has anybody tested this ?

3. Hidden agenda : “advanced biofuels” may be the thin edge of the genetically modified wedge – a tank full of GMO derived gunk

http://www.bp.com

“…BP has a focused biofuels strategy, investing in the production of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil from lignocellulosic feedstocks, including dedicated energy grasses, in the US and the development of
the advanced fuel molecule biobutanol in partnership with DuPont…”

So what is the chemistry underlying this collaboration ? Genetically engineered micro-organisms :-

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352_supp/full/474S09a.html

“Chang recently found a way to boost butanol production by tenfold, at least in the laboratory. She plucked a combination of genes from different organisms and expressed them in Escherichia coli. Some of the genes are from a strain of the bacterium Clostridium that naturally produces butanol…James Liao, a chemical and biomolecular engineer at the University of California, Los Angeles…altered a pathway in Clostridium so that the bacterium produced the branched version of butanol – isobutanol…Several companies are trying to commercialize butanol or isobutanol production from biomass…In December 2010, the biotech company Green Biologics, of Abingdon, United Kingdom, announced a deal to provide its fermentation technology, based on a Clostridium strain, to two Chinese biochemical companies. Butamax Advanced Biofuels, a joint venture between the oil company BP and the chemical giant DuPont, has opened a demonstration plant in Hull, United Kingdom, and expects to have a commercial plant operating by 2013. And Gevo, an advanced biofuels company in Englewood, Colorado, is converting an ethanol production facility in Minnesota to produce about 68 million litres of isobutanol per year from 2012. Like ethanol, butanol would probably enter the market as a petrol blend…”

http://www.biobutanol.com/Biobutanol-Producers-Gevo,-Butamax,-Cobalt,.html

“…Butamax : Joint venture: BP and Dupont : Process utilizes the fermentation of corn : Will alter existing ethanol plants for isobutanol production : Commercialize butanol by 2012 – 2013 : Use of genetically engineered yeast : Will extend reach to brazil in 2013 with the construction of a butanol plant…”

To start to get a view on what could be viewed as BP’s truly gargantuan plan to take over the world with bioengineered fuel, you need to see this short YouTube film :-

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/BP.pdf

“BP’s role in the global agrofuel industry : Biofuelwatch, updated November 2009 : …UK Wheat ethanol: BP, DuPont and Associated British Foods (which includes British Sugar) are jointly building one of the UK’s largest planned wheat ethanol refineries, at Hull, with a 420 million litre per annum capacity. The company will operate under the name Vivergo Fuels and BP holds 45% of the shares. The plant will consume 1 million tonnes of wheat per year, at a time of record and fast rising wheat prices. BP expect the refinery to open in 2010 and state that they plan to later retrofit it to produce biobutanol. Together with another refinery which Ensus is planning to open shortly it will use 19% of the UK’s wheat harvest (based on 2009 figures) and makes it far more likely that the UK will become a net importer of wheat, pushing up wheat prices worldwide…”

“…A $200 million joint venture with DuPont, called Butamax, to build the world’s first demonstration plant to produce biobutanol. The joint venture was agreed in 2006 and the refinery is expected to open in 2012/13 and to produce 20,000 litres a year. Biobutanol is a biofuel made from solid biomass which could be used for aviation. Commercialisation depends on genetically engineering bacteria (synthetic biology). BP expects sugar cane to be the main feedstock for their biobutanol production worldwide…”

Of course, one potential way to avoid the competition between wheat grown for food and wheat grown for fuel is to genetically modify, patent and own a GM wheat crop, which could be branded as an “energy grass”, and not a food or a feed, because wheat is, after all, just a grass :-

http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/159/

“Defra Should Reject GM Wheat : £1.28 million of public money for a crop with “no market””

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/BP.pdf

“…joint venture with Mendel Biotechnology, Inc. to develop cellulosic biofuels, which commenced in 2007. BP has acquired shares of Mendel and is on their Board. The aim is to accelerate a plant breeding programme for perennial grasses which have been genetically engineered specifically for ethanol production…”

This type of activity could be just the chilling tip of a Frankenstein non-food non-feed iceberg – potatoes could be next – and we all know you can make potcheen alcohol with them :-

http://labelgmos.org/2011/06/help-stop-gm-potatoes-in-norfolk/

4. Hyping the vision : BP’s sales of liquid bio-source vehicle fuels each year are minuscule compared to its core business.

BP loudly trumpets its success in biofuels of all kinds :-

1.03 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008
1.66 billion gallons of biodiesel in 2008

http://www.bp.com

“BP is a major biofuels operator. For example, in the US we blended more than 1.03 billion gallons of ethanol and 1.66 million gallons of biodiesel into fuels in 2008…”

36 million gallons of Vercipia Biofuels projected for 2012 :-

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/BP.pdf

“BP’s investment in ‘next generation’ agrofuel research and development involves: A partnership with Verenium to develop and commercialise cellulosic ethanol, to turn whole sugar cane plants and miscanthus into ethanol, with BP investing $90 million. A second joint venture with Verenium, called Vercipia Biofuels, involves a cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands Country, Florida which BP expects to commence commercial production in 2012 and to produce up to 36 million gallons a year…”

Three mills in Goias and Minas Gerais states in Brazil each producing 480 million litres of ethanol equivalent per year and each mill will be able to export 340 GWh of electricity per year :-

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7067732

“BP has agreed to pay approximately US$680 million to acquire 83 per cent of the shares of CNAA and to refinance 100 per cent of CNAA’s existing long term debt…BP will acquire two operational mills and a third that is under construction. All the mills are in the Centre-South regions of Brazil, in Goiás and Minas Gerais states…The total planned combined crushing capacity of all three mills, when fully developed, is expected to be 15 million tonnes of sugar cane per year. At full capacity, each mill will have a production capacity of about 480 million litres of ethanol equivalent per year. Each mill will also have the capacity to export approximately 340GWh of electricity per year to the grid…”

Tropical BioEnergia mill in Edeia, Goias state in Brazil producing 435 million litres of ethanol per year, with another planned (of perhaps a similar size) :-

http://www.bp.com

“…Since 2008, BP has held a 50% share in Tropical BioEnergia S.A., which operates an ethanol mill in Goiás state with a production capacity of 435 million litres of ethanol per year. The ownership and operation of this mill is not impacted by this acquisition…”

http://www.bp.com

“Tropical fact sheet : In 2008, BP invested in a 50% stake in Tropical BioEnergia S.A., a joint venture established by Louis Dreyfus Commodities/Santelisa Vale (LDC/SEV) and Maeda Group, which will operate a 435 million litre (115 million gallon) a year ethanol refinery in Edéia, Goias State, Brazil. The joint venture also intends to progress plans to build a second ethanol refinery, investing a total of approximately US$1 billion (R$1.66 billion) in the two refineries…BP Biofuels a growing alternative…”

1.4 million gallons per year concept plant at Jennings, Louisiana, US.
36 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol from a Vercipia Biofuels plant in Highlands County, Florida, USA :-

http://www.bp.com

“Proving the technology : By developing a robust technology package and proving it at scale, BP will have the capability to deploy the technology package at commercial facilities for use in biofuel production in the US market. To support this objective, BP will acquire a 1.4 million gallon-per-year (40 ton/day feedstock) : demonstration facility in Jennings, Louisiana. The facility includes integrated enzyme manufacturing, fermentation facilities and an analytical laboratory…”

“BP will become the 100% owner of Vercipia Biofuels, based in Tampa, Florida. Vercipia is advancing next-generation biofuels through the development and commercialization of cellulosic ethanol. Vercipia will utilize dedicated energy canes and grasses, both abundant biomass feedstocks, in conjunction with BP’s proprietary, novel enzymatic conversion technology. Vercipia is currently progressing the design and engineering required to develop one of the first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol facilities in the US, located in Highlands County, Florida…The facility is expected to produce up to 36 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year…”

But the reality is that biologically sourced fuels make up only a tiny fraction of its global business :-

http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481

http://www.bp.com

BP Statistical Review of Energy 2011

Oil production page 8

Global annual production of fossil fuel liquid vehicle fuels : 82,095 thousand barrels per day, or 29,964,675 barrels of oil.

Biofuels production page 39

Global annual production of biofuels in 2010 : 59,261 thousands of tonnes of oil equivalent, or roughly 438,531 barrels of oil equivalent, that is roughly 1.5% of the amount of fossil fuel liquid fuels.

[ UPDATE : THESE FIGURES ARE FOR GLOBAL PRODUCTION OF BIOUELS. THE NUMBERS INCLUDE BP'S PRODUCTION. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A DEFINITIVE ACCOUNT OF BP'S ACTUAL OWN BIOFUELS PRODUCTION. AND YES, BEFORE YOU ASK, I HAVE READ VIRTUALLY ALL THE REPORTS I CAN FIND ON THEIR WEBSITE. SOME LINKS I HAVE TRIED : http://www.bp.com/...&contentId=7068633 http://www.bp.com/.../renewables_section_2011.pdf http://www.bp.com/...&contentId=7066907 http://www.bp.com/.../BP_Annual_Report_and_Form_20F.pdf http://www.bp.com/.../BP_Summary_Review_2010.pdf http://www.bp.com/...&contentId=7066618 http://www.bp.com/.../FOI_2006_2010_full_book.pdf http://www.bp.com.../bp_first_quarter_2011_results.pdf ]

5. Hidden failings : the social and environmental negatives from BP’s biofuels business

The BP advertisement shows paralympian Stef Reid sailing through a field of “energy grasses”. One senses a nobility, a triumph of will over circumstances.

It would be far more accurate to replace the athlete with the sun-burned, landless serfs of Brazil who are indentured to harvest the energy crops.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/?1463/biofuels-unethical-Europe-policies-alternative-fuels

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/13/biofuels-targets-unethical

http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/07/brazilian-government-frees-sugarcane.html

http://lynnadventuringabroad.blogspot.com/2009/11/camping-in-backlands-researching-in_28.html

If the industry gets mechanised, the poor workers will be further disadvantaged. Originally thrown off land to make way for the energy crop plantations, they will no longer have any means of growing their own food, or of earning even a seasonal living :-

http://www.greenlaunches.com/biofuels/brazil-sugarcane-workers-are-soon-to-feel-the-corporate-axe.php

For the environment, however, it might be good to move from sugarcane to grasses :-

http://www.dailytech.com

Further reading on fuel blending and genetic modification for the production of fuels and fuel additives and biological components :-

http://www.ecotravel.org.uk/fuels.html

“…Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) …introduced in April 2008 and by 2011 5% by volume of UK road fuel sales must be from renewable sources. The Government will review the 5% limit after 2011 with a view to increasing the percentage mix of biofuel if possible. Using biofuels helps to reduce emissions. The actual reduction in CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions varies widely depending upon the feedstock and the production method. Some methods result in more CO2 being released than using standard fuel whilst others are CO2 negative (they remove more CO2 than they emit). It is anticipated that the biofuels introduced under the RTFO will result in at least a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions. For instance a 5% biofuel (5% bio element 95% petrol or diesel) reduces CO2 emissions by about 2.5%. To begin with most biofuels at the pump will be limited to a 5% maximum mix. This is due to the fact that most manufacturer engine warranties will currently only allow 5% biofuels to be used, although some manufacturers already allow B30 (30% biodiesel 70% diesel) to be used. Specialised “flex fuel” vehicles are already available which will allow any mix between pure petrol and E85 (85% bioethanol 15% petrol) to be used…”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352_supp/full/474S09a.html

“Chang recently found a way to boost butanol production by tenfold, at least in the laboratory. She plucked a combination of genes from different organisms and expressed them in Escherichia coli. Some of the genes are from a strain of the bacterium Clostridium that naturally produces butanol…Similar attempts by other researchers have [...] suffered from low productivity…So, instead of importing the entire butanol-making pathway of Clostridium, Chang mixed in genes of two other bacteria, Treponema denticola and Ralstonia eutropha…Shota Atsumi, a chemist at the University of California, Davis…has also inserted genes from other organisms into E. coli to induce the bacteria to produce various forms of butanol, as well as the five-carbon alcohol pentanol…Atsumi’s collaborator on the project – James Liao, a chemical and biomolecular engineer at the University of California, Los Angeles – recently produced a higher alcohol in a process that combines two sought-after advantages over ethanol production from corn. He started with a species of Clostridium that, unlike many butanol-producing strains, can digest cellulose, thereby enabling more of the available biomass to be used. Instead of pressing E. coli into service, Liao altered a pathway in Clostridium so that the bacterium produced the branched version of butanol – isobutanol. Isobutanol has the same chemical formula as butanol but a different structure that improves its engine performance and makes it easier to synthesize into other chemicals. Several companies are trying to commercialize butanol or isobutanol production from biomass…”

http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2011/03/faster-butanol-bio-synthesis-from-uc.html

“2 March 2011 : A Faster Butanol Bio-Synthesis from UC Berkeley Chemists : University of California, Berkeley, chemists have engineered bacteria to churn out a gasoline-like biofuel at about 10 times the rate of competing microbes, a breakthrough that could soon provide an affordable and “green” transportation fuel…The advance is reported in this week’s issue of the journal Nature Chemical Biology _UCBerkeley : Butanol is far superior to ethanol as either a fuel additive in gasoline and diesel, or as a drop-in substitute for gasoline in modern engines. Up until now it has been too expensive to ferment butanol from sugars, but UC Berkeley’s gene-modified chimeric E. Coli may be the beginning of a new butanol age. By transplanting genes from Clostridium acetobutylicum, Treponema denticola and Ralstonia eutrophus, into E. Coli, the Berkeley scientists are helping lay the groundwork for a brave new microbial world of frankenstein fuel factories…”

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/bp-makes-major-agrofuel-move-ucla-beats-cal/

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1tg0n7wk;jsessionid=C0CB2282B71F9F0EF5063D96CCDBA08B

“Metabolic engineering of microorganisms for biofuels production: from bugs to synthetic biology to fuels : Author: Kuk Lee, Sung : Publication Date: 07-13-2010, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/19/chemistry.agriculture
“Synthetic biology aims to solve energy conundrum : Designer enzymes are big business as the need to produce viable biofuels grows – but can they offer a long-term alternative? Chris Edwards,
The Guardian, Thursday 19 June 2008″

A little history of resistance on this :-

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/3612-biofuels-and-the-green-resistance-stop-bp-berkeley

“15 March 2007…The still nascent Stop BP movement began as a response to British Petroleum’s offer to fund a secretive half-billion dollar bio-energy laboratory on the University of California at Berkeley campus. Ostensibly, the idea is to genetically engineer plants to yield more ethanol, but other likely projects include research into better burning ethanol. BP learned awhile back in New South Wales that high ethanol content burns out engines. They learned this from their customers who were livid to discover the damage after they had breakdowns and stopped buying BP products. But such incidents now seem to serve BP’s interests since they make the issue of biofuel research seem pressing, thus helping them push research deals through quickly and out of sight. The Stop BP at Berkeley Campaign, however, worries not only about a lack of oversight, but also that there is no guarantee that BP or UC Berkeley will devote any of this research treasure to ensuring the safety of food supplies and fragile ecologies as these new organisms (or products) are grown and released…”

A little up-to-date resistance :-

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/bp-genetically-modifying-gulf-of-mexico/

http://www.soci.org/Chemistry-and-Industry/CnI-Data/2010/3/Synthetic-biology-breakthrough-may-fuel-future

“Synthetic biology breakthrough may fuel future : Andrew Turley, 08/02/2010 : Bacteria that can produce ‘high-energy’ biofuels, such as biodiesel, direct from simple sugars, or light up in coordinated waves could provide a turning point in the fortunes of synthetic biology – a field that has so far failed to fulfil its early promise. Researchers from the University of California, US, engineered E coli to produce biodiesel, or fatty esters, from glucose, without the need for other carbon sources (Nature 2010, 463, 559). They then engineered the same strain to express hemicellulases, enzymes that break down hemicellulose, a step towards bacteria that can produce biodiesel direct from cellulosic biomass. Global biodiesel consumption is more than 2bn gallons/year. Companies make fatty esters commercially by reacting triglycerides from vegetable – or less commonly animal – oils with alcohols. But using vegetable oils as a fuel feedstock is economically and environmentally problematic, critics say. For example, as farmers switch to crops for biodiesel, food production could fall, exacerbating food scarcity and driving up prices. In addition, high demand for energy and land scarcity could encourage farmers in ecologically rich, but economically poor, regions to cut down forests to make way for crops. Biodiesel can be made from cellulosic biomass, waste plant material, such as wood chips, or nonfood crops, such as grasses. But, using current methods, it is more difficult and more expensive. Scientists hope to bring the cost down by getting bacteria to do the hard work. E coli, for example, will grow on plant sugars. In earlier work, scientists made E coli that produced ethanol, which they used to chemically convert fatty acids into fatty esters (Microbiology 2006, 152, 2529). But fatty acids are not a commercially viable feedstock, which limits the potential of this approach. Therefore, the Californian researchers redirected the E coli fatty acid metabolism towards fatty esters and other commercially useful fuel and chemical products. Crucially, they encouraged the bacteria to produce more fatty acids, while expressing key enzymes that caused esterification. Commercially viable bacteria that performed all the steps in the chain inside their cells – bacteria for ‘consolidated bioprocessing’ – would make biofuel production easier and cheaper, the researchers say in the paper. ‘This engineering strategy supports yields of these products within an order of magnitude of that required for commercial production,’ they add…”

http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12478

“Venter’s one-man algae fuels bubble : Monday, 13 September 2010 : 1.Craig Venter’s one-man algae fuels bubble : 2.One-Third of Americans Back Ban on Synthetic Biology : 3.Berkeley-BP Deal Only Looks Worse Post-Spill : EXTRACT: “The truth is, neither [Venter nor Keasling] will succeed in replacing petroleum for many reasons, including the fact that [genetically modified organisms] are not as robust as wild species.” NOTE: Related articles: *Biofuels, BP-Berkeley, and the New Ecological Imperialism: http://ht.ly/2CCFo : *Gates, BP and DiFi’s spouse buy into company using genetic engineering to produce biofuels: http://bit.ly/bSbzjn : *Democracy Now: Why is Oil Giant BP Helping Develop California Schools Environmental Curriculum? http://bit.ly/bVndFr : *BP, the fox in the public school henhouse: http://bit.ly/cCieQ…”

http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/07/05/x-fuels-and-x-bugs/

“X-fuels and X-bugs : Jim Lane, July 5, 2011 : Bio-adjacent, low-carbon extreme fuels and extremophile organisms open up new horizons in yields and sustainability : There are a class of fuels that are deeply rooted in biological process, and share the goal of replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon substitutes, but are not strictly biofuels. Huh? Well, think of fuels that are generated directly from biomass precursors, such as CO2, water, and sunlight. Some use micro-organisms to perform the transformation, some are thermo-chemical in nature – but they are making organic molecules, even if they are not making or using life forms that contain DNA. They are distinct from, say, synthetic fuels made from fossil-based sources, such as coal-to-liquid fuels, because they are low-carbon in nature, even if they are not made from biomass. There are also a group of new processes bubbling up from the labs – based in extremophile micro-organisms, or new understanding of the role played by symbionts (co-operative “hosted” organisms, such as the bacteria that assist organisms in digestion). What can we call all these extreme organisms and hard-to-categorize processes? Here at the Digest, we are broadly categorizing them as X-fuels and X-bugs…”

http://www.bp.com

“U.S. Regulatory Environment : In pursuit of energy security, lower carbon fuels, and rural development opportunities, the U.S. government provides the regulatory framework necessary to develop a scaled and sustainable cellulosic biofuels industry. The Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS 2) creates a robust and carefully considered regulatory structure for the development of various types of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic biofuels. By 2022, the RFS 2 requires the blending of 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels, which would represent nearly 10% of the U.S. gasoline supply. In addition, the RFS 2’s requirements for environmental performance ensure that the next generation of biofuels achieves at least a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to gasoline.”

“Feedstocks : Ethanol will be produced from feedstocks such as energy cane and energy grasses using proprietary technology. Energy grasses contain large amounts of energy in the “sugars” held in their cell walls. These sugars can be difficult to extract, but using new advanced technologies it is possible to convert the sugars into liquid fuel. This means higher volumes of fuel produced from each tonne of feedstock, and each acre of land, compared to current-generation biofuel feedstocks like corn and other advanced biofuel feedstocks such as agricultural wastes. High-yield energy grasses can produce an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 gallons of biofuel per acre, compared with approximately 400 to 500 gallons per acre from corn and 150 to 200 gallons per acre from agricultural wastes. Energy grasses can be grown on lower quality agricultural land – land that is not well suited to growing food crops economically.”

“Fueling the future with biofuels : BP has announced that it will make a strategic acquisition of Verenium Corporation’s biofuels business. The transaction will enable BP to advance its objective to produce advanced cellulosic ethanol in the US through the development of low cost, low carbon, sustainable biofuels at scale using proprietary technologies. A diverse energy mix is important to future U.S. energy security. In growing a material U.S. biofuels business, BP will contribute to energy security by providing low-carbon biofuels to the transport sector. BP will also create new jobs in the construction and operation of biofuel facilities. In addition jobs will be created in the agricultural sector, particularly in the south eastern states where climatic conditions support the production of biomass such as energy cane at the scale required to supply large-scale, commercial biofuel production facilities.”

“A strategic acquisition : BP is committed to building a large-scale biofuels production business with a technology platform based on the biological conversion of sugars to biofuels using sustainable, low cost feedstocks. The company is producing Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, is accelerating the commercialization of bio-isobutanol as an advanced biofuel, and is developing the technology to convert sugars to biodiesel. It is also building a worldclass ethanol plant in the UK. A significant strand of the company’s strategy is building an industry-leading cellulosic ethanol business in the US.”

“The acquisition of Verenium Corporation’s biofuels business will give BP access to proprietary biomass-to-ethanol conversion technologies, a leading edge research and development (R&D) capability and a biofuels demonstration facility necessary to advance the company’s cellulosic ethanol strategy. This capability will initially be focused on supporting BP’s strategic goal to build its US-based cellulosic ethanol business, and will enable BP to integrate other proprietary biofuel technologies through R&D and scaleup in the future.”

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39592

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/11/us-bp-idUSTRE72A4BX20110311

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9025016&contentId=7066349

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9030039&contentId=7055156

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9030051&contentId=7055185

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9030044&contentId=7055172

http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2008/02/us-epa-raises-biofuel-target-for-2008.html

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/biofuels-need-more-production-reports-says-rfa/1007155.article

And finally, BP continues to interfere with the educational process by engaging young engineers in a competition to design a fake carbon capture system (when the fuel is burned, the carbon dioxide is re-released !) :-

http://www.gradcracker.com/blog/article/83/imperial-colleges-meltdown-win-bp-ultimate-field-trip

Energy Poll #8 : Renewable Gas

Jo — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:54:52 +0000

Results from Question 4 : Would you be ready to save money to buy a new compressed gas car ?

For the Energy Matrix survey “Are We Ready for Energy Change ?” click here.

Question 1    Have you heard reports about how vehicles can run on compressed Renewable Gas made from animal and plant waste ?
Regularly.
Sometimes.
Not sure.
Occasionally.
Hardly ever.
Other (please specify)

Question 2    Do you think we will need to give up using petrol and diesel burning cars in cities for air quality reasons ?
Definitely.
Probably.
Don't know.
Probably not.
Definitely not.
Other (please specify)

Question 3    Are you keen to see cleaner-burning engines in vehicles ?
Strongly agree.
Agree.
Neutral.
Disagree.
Strongly disagree.
Other (please specify)

Question 4    Would you be ready to save money to buy a new compressed gas car ?
Definitely.
Probably.
Don't know.
Probably not.
Definitely not.
Other (please specify)

Question 5    Do you think that compressed gas cars could have the same performance and economy as diesel and petrol cars ?
Absolutely.
Fairly.
Neutral.
Not very.
Doubtful.
Other (please specify)

Background Information : please give a few brief details about what kind of person you are, to help us check that a representative sample of people have answered the survey.

What region are you living in ?
How old are you ?
What gender are you ?
How do you prefer to keep up to date with science ?

Is Climate Change really happening ?
Is Peak Oil really happening ?
Do you know a lot about energy ?
Enter your e-mail address if you want the final results