University Funding Pulled For Anti-Biofuel Research
The ethanol industry isn’t the only group up in arms about pervasive negative reporting on biofuels (see yesterday’s post: Ethanol Industry: Jobs Are Better Than Food?).
Two soybean growers’ groups have suspended $1.5 million in funding from the University of Minnesota, due to research showing that biofuels could worsen global warming:
The study, by University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman and others, said that dedicating huge amounts of land to grow corn, soybeans, sugarcane and other food crops for fuel could drastically change the landscape and worsen global warming. Farmers in the U.S., Brazil, Indonesia and other countries will need to clear forests, grasslands and peat lands on a massive scale to grow more of those crops, according to the research, unleashing far more carbon dioxide from natural vegetation than is saved by the lower emissions of the biofuels.
Is anyone really surprised about this finding? Suspension of the funds appears to be only temporary, until the groups have a chance to meet with the Dean of agricultural science. Jim Palmer, the executive director of the two soybean groups, summed up the situation: “The university hurt the farmers’ feelings, OK? That’s probably the best way to say it.”
- » See also: Biofuels Breakthrough: Making Fuel From Air With Engineered Microbes
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Ethanol industry officials also had their say in the matter:
Ethanol industry officials criticized the study as a simplistic analysis that doesn’t include the economic benefits for those who grow biofuel crops or the environmental cost of continuing to rely on petroleum.
“The study was over the top by implying that biofuels were bad,” Palmer said. “Farmers were extremely surprised that it came out, why it came out, and that it came from the University of Minnesota.”
This would certainly be an issue if the University of Minnesota was in the business of promoting biofuels, and not interested in the usual process of scientific review.
The Tilman study was reviewed by independent scientists, a standard procedure, before being published in the journal Science. The report is not “anti-ethanol,” said Tilman in an interview when it was published. It recommends that biofuels be produced in the future from crop waste products such as corn stalks or from perennials such as switchgrass and native prairie plants.
The two soybean groups have a right to fund anything they want, but threatening to pull grant funding for “undesirable” research results may be a bit extreme.
Want to evaluate it for yourself? The study can be found here.
Related Posts:
Ethanol Industry: Jobs Are Better Than Food?
Study: Buying Biodiesel May Be A Gamble
Ethanol Industry Pays Off Subsidies, Boosts U.S. Economy (Bigtime)
Source: Startribune (Feb. 25, 08): U biofuels study has farmers upset
Dear Mr. Cornell:
A summary of MY research: Your blog is bad, wastefull and is killing our planet. i just published this online, and held a news conference to announce my findings.
PS: Please pay me $500 so I can continue my research, please.
Take a closer look — those studies in Science have been roundly slammed by nationally recognized fuel scientists and even by the US DOE.
This blog does a nice job of offering both points of view.
http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2008/03/searchinger-and-fargione-on-biofuels.html
Bob,
Thanks for the comment, but I think you miss the important point:
The issue is really about a special interest group (whether they actually intend to or not) trying to strong-arm academic research. There are plenty of studies showing some biofuels have significant potential for bad effects (and minimal benefits) with respect to climate change.
Bio-fuels were never the “answer” because we can not sustain the amount of fuel we are using by switching to something else. The situation requires that we think differently about energy usage and land management in general. Agriculture is powered by petroleum in planting, spraying of pesticides, cultivation and transportation; we can not use petroleum to plant, water, cultivate and distribute corn for bio-fuel and think that it’ll make a difference. Use the corn for food, phase down the meat industry (a major contributor to pollution and petroleum use) and curb wasteful spending and disposable consumerism.
Point taken. But this was less of a “strongarm” than a shot across the bow. The soy groups just wanted their concerns taken seriously, and they felt that the U wasn’t listening.
They are now.
@2 R. Bouchard: You’re right that biofuels are no silver bullet, but it’s possible they could substitute for 30% or more of our fuel usage (see posts on Coskata’s cellulosic ethanol and Solazyme’s Algae biodiesel). The other 2/3 will have to come from increases in efficiency and overall reduction in usage.
@2 Bob: I think that if the University is engaging in faulty research practices, the funding organization has every right to be questioning their monetary involvement. But ‘hurt feelings’ doesn’t seem like a reasonable excuse to take up arms like that - science is going to give you contradictory conclusions, making the bulk of evidence so important.
[...] original news source Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
Guess that’s the price you pay for outsourcing your Universities to the highest bidder.
[...] Posts: University Funding Pulled For Anti-Biofuel Research First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Goes Online, Makes Fuel From Wood Waste Ethanol Industry: Jobs Are [...]