Introduction
It is no surprise that there is a growing concern in today’s society regarding climate change. One of the world’s largest contributors to this issue is vehicle emissions and air pollution. When the average consumer fills up at the pump, they often do not take the time to think about the production, consumption, and affects of the fuel they are using. In fact, many are unaware that when Henry Ford first developed the car at the start of the 20th century, it was originally planned to run on pure ethanol, not gasoline (“Biofuels,” n.d.). It is a wonder how the oil and gas industry influenced the market in such a way that biofuel is now a forgotten resource. In this essay, I will discuss the benefits and drawbacks of biofuel, as well as the influence from fossil fuel companies and the government on biofuel as an alternative to conventional fuel.
What is Biofuel?
Biofuel is just that – living fuel. Technically speaking, conventional gas is also a biofuel since it is made from decomposed plants and animals. The only difference between a fossil fuel and biofuel is that fossil fuels are created from ancient biomass and biofuel comes from biomass grown today. Therefore, is a renewable energy source created from plants (“Biofuels,” n.d.). Some of the best crops grown for biofuel purposes are corn, canola, sugarcane, soybeans, and switchgrass (Perritano, 2010).
Biofuel is available in two common forms: ethanol and biodiesel (“Biofuels Basics,” n.d.). Ethanol, as many may know as an additive in conventional fuel, is an alcohol, which is produced by fermenting any high carb bio source such as starches and sugars with an agent such as yeast and bacteria (“Biofuels Basics,” n.d.; Perritano, 2010). In today’s automotive industry, engineers have developed Flex Fuel Vehicles that run on E85 – a fuel with a much higher ethanol content than other fuels (“Biofuels Basics,” n.d.). This is just one example of the many biofuel sources available. Biodiesels on the other hand are created by treating sources such as animal fat, vegetable oil and recycled cooking grease with an alcohol (“Biofuels Basics,” n.d.; Perritano, 2010).
Both forms of biofuel have been used to power boats, cars and even planes (“Biofuels: What Happened to Biofuels,” 2013). In fact, NASA conducted a study with Canadian and German agencies, and concluded that biofuels successfully powered a jet and reduced jet engine pollution by 50-70% (Northon, 2017). If a 50% blend of biofuel can power NASA’s DC-8 jet, then there should be no issue powering modern day vehicles with biofuel as well. As a matter of fact, some Brazilian vehicles successfully run on pure ethanol made from sugarcane, and have been doing so for decades (“Biofuels,” n.d.).
Benefits
There are many economic and environmental benefits to using biofuel. First and foremost, it is renewable and burns much cleaner than conventional fuel (“Alternative Fuels Facts,” n.d.) A key argument in favour of biofuel is that it is essentially carbon neutral. As crops grow to maturity, they absorb carbon in the air, which reduces overall carbon concentrations in the atmosphere (Cunningham, 2011). Green World Investor (2012) argues that the amount of CO2 released in the production and combustion of biofuel is equal to the amount that the biomass absorbs as it grows.
Another beneficial factor of biofuel is that industry promotes job growth and economic stability. Biomass intended for fuel can be grown locally, therefore stimulating the local market and ensuring economic independence. For example, farmers in rural Canadian towns would be able to hire more employees and sell more crops for biofuel (“10 Biggest Pros and Cons of Biofuels,” n.d.). This in turn generates income, boosts the economy, and increases the standard of living for these rural communities. In addition, biodiesel can be locally produced from sources such as recycled restaurant cooking oil and slaughterhouse waste in Canada, which once again promotes economic independence and growth (“Alternative Fuels Facts,” n.d.) Biofuel production has been proven to improve employment rate. For instance, in 2007 in the United States ethanol production created approximately 240,000 jobs and contributed $47.6 billion towards the American gross domestic product (Perritano, 2011).
Drawbacks
However, there are some cons to implementing biofuel as an energy source. Many argue that growing crops for fuel will drive up the price of food due to increased demand (Cunningham, 2011; Green World Investor, 2012). This is in contrast to fossil fuels, whose production does not interfere with the food supply. However, this can be avoided by growing crops with little to no nutritional value on land that otherwise would not be suitable for farming (“Biofuels: What Happened to Biofuels,” 2013). In addition, the increased demand for these crops will result in more pesticides and fertilizers being used (Cunningham, 2011). It also promotes monoculture farming, which is extremely vulnerable in terms of contracting diseases and being affected by pests, thus requiring even more chemical treatments (Cunningham, 2011). We are also presented with the flora vs. fuel argument. Although certain plants may be easy to grow and contain no nutritional value, they may have negative impacts on the environment. For example, giant reed can be easily converted to biofuel without impacting the food supply, however, it is a highly invasive weed (“Biofuels: What Happened to Biofuels,” 2013). This would be detrimental to surrounding ecosystems and could potentially harm crop biodiversity, which would again affect the food supply.
Government and Industry Influence
Corruption is something that plagues many nations in today’s world. Many suspect that the oil and gas industry has great influence on the government and its decisions. In Canada alone, the Alberta tar sands have great influence on ideologies and thus the actions regarding climate change. In fact, in the Alberta region, only 41 percent of people believed that humans and their dependence on fossil fuels negatively impacted the climate (Klein, 2014). These polling results are quite alarming as they depict just how much of an influence the fossil fuel industry has. But it is not only the oil and gas industry that has an effect on environmental policies; free trade agreements also play a negative role.
Free trade agreements promote trade of resources between at least two countries. Considering this is usually a mutually beneficial agreement for all parties, it is no wonder that countries opt to maintain the status quo as to avoid disrupting peace between one another. As Klein (2014) puts it,
“Any attempt by a government to regulate the sale or extraction of particularly dirty kinds of fossil fuels is also vulnerable to similar trade challenges. The European Union, for instance, is considering new fuel quality standards that would effectively restrict the sales of oil derived from such high-carbon sources as the Alberta tar sands. It’s excellent climate policy, of the kind we need much more, but the effort has been slowed down by Canada’s not so subtle threats of trade retaliation.” (p. 71)
It is a wonder why Canada, a nation with such vast green space, cannot seem to use a natural, renewable resource as an energy source. Canada is proudly the home of 347 million hectares of forest, which is about 9 percent of the world’s total forest space (“How much forest does Canada have?” 2017). Instead of utilizing the renewable aspect of this space, the government continuously approves projects that destroy it, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, which threatens over 4 million hectares of the Canadian Boreal Forest (Minicucci, 2015). As Klein (2014) mentions in her book,
“The Alberta tar sands, meanwhile, are growing so fast that the industry will soon be producing more of its particular brand of high-carbon oil than current pipeline capacity can handle – which is why it is so determined to push projects like Keystone XL through the U.S. and Northern Gateway through British Columbia.” (p.312)
Unfortunately, these oil and gas powered initiatives are growing, not coming to a halt. Kim Cornelissen, a former politician claims that even sections of Quebec have now been claimed by gas and petrol companies (Klein, 2014). It is quite shocking to me, considering other countries around the world have already diverted from such a heavy dependence on fossil fuels. For example, some cars in Brazil run solely on ethanol produced from sugarcane (“Biofuels,” n.d.). Additionally, Europe is known to use biodiesel produced by palm oil (“Biofuels,” n.d.). Canada and the United States are commonly seen as world leaders, but one much ask if this is really the case when other countries are actively pursuing green initiatives while we are not.
It is no doubt that the oil and gas industry is extremely wealthy. In fact, ExxonMobil holds the record for the largest U.S. corporate profit with $45 billion in 2012 (Klein, 2014). Although these oil and gas companies claim that they invest some of their profits into green alternatives, they are often times very miniscule contributions. In fact, it has been reported by the Center for American Progress that most major companies were only spending about 1% of their profits on green initiatives (Klein, 2014).
However, there are some companies and influential business owners who do genuinely care about the climate and try to make a difference. Richard Branson is the founder of the Virgin Group, which is a British venture capital corporation that oversees many companies. Branson has pledged to spend approximately $3 billion over a decade to develop biofuels as a viable alternative to fossil fuels (Klein, 2014). This is great news considering Branson is a very wealthy man with a great deal of influence over many companies. David Keith is another wealthy, influential man willing to make a difference. Keith owns the startup company Carbon Engineering in British Columbia, which looks at creating technologies that capture and reuse carbon from the atmosphere (“Carbon Engineering,” n.d.). Their investor list includes Bill Gates and Murray Edwards, who owns one of the largest oil companies in Canada, Canadian Natural Resources (Klein, 2014). Once again, this is very promising news for a step in the right direction towards alternative energies.
There are also some other promising government and corporate ventures that are looking bright for the future. For example, energy giant Shell had started 10 biofuel projects in search of a suitable alternative to conventional fuel (“Biofuels: What Happened to Biofuels,” 2013). In addition, the National Renewable Diesel Demonstration Initiative (NRDDI) had been created and set out to address consumer questions and doubts regarding biodiesel and the Canadian climate (“NRDDI Final Report,” 2010). They currently have many approved projects underway. For example, they have partnered with Manitoba Hydro to assess the performance of biofuels in generators in Northern Manitoba, where there is often extreme cold weather (“NRDDI Final Report,” 2010). Canadian Pacific Railways is assessing the quality and power of biodiesel blends in locomotives travelling between Calgary and Edmonton (“NRDDI Final Report,” 2010). Also, the Prairies Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI) is comparing the quality of biofuels that have been stored for various periods of time, up to 2 years, to test the stability and integrity of various biodiesel blends (“NRDDI Final Report,” 2010). Together, these initiatives work towards perfecting biofuel blends and assuring that this renewable resource can withstand Canadian climate.
Conclusion
Biofuel is not a new technology, yet it still has not hit mainstream usage in may countries around the world. Biofuel has the potential to answer to all of the world’s energy demands without harming the environment in the same way that fossil fuels do. Throughout this paper, I have argued the benefits of biofuel, discussed the issues surrounding it, and illustrated the effects of government and corporate influence. It is my hope and ambition to prove that as a nation we CAN shy away from fossil fuels and make biofuel the fuel of the future.