|
.jpg)
We've heard the argument that using food crops for biofuel is driving up food prices. Just how much is debatable given the complex structure of our global food system, yet it hasn’t stopped research dollars from being directed toward “second-generation” biofuels: non-food crops, like grasses.
As we’ve learned from other biofuels, especially corn ethanol, nothing's a silver bullet. And we shouldn’t expect one. What we should expect, however, are net benefits from these fuels rather than greater risk and financial loss. Enter a report presented by scientists at a UN meeting in Bonn, Germany, yesterday that says second-generation biofuels might provide more problems than cures.
The reason is this: scientists say that the most popular second-generation biofuels overlap to “an alarming degree” with invasive species, risks that haven’t been sufficiently evaluated before plantings occurred.
According to the Global Invasive Species Program, the harm caused by invasive species costs the world upwards of $1.4 trillion a year (5 percent of the global economy).
While it's easy to understand why biofuel manufacturers are heading in this direction -- grasses grow fast with little to no human care -- it's also easy to see the problem: so do invasives. If many of the grasses being promoted for large-scale commercial planting are dubbed invasives, then we certainly do have a problem. We know that the few precautions taken to keep transgenic crops contained haven't worked. Are second-generation biofuel crops another disappointing quick fix with consequences that promise to change our landscapes forever?
Source: The New York Times
| 
