Opinion Sur Joven

Over the last years, global warming has been more present than ever in the public agenda. Climate change is here to stay and its consequences are suffered day after day. And both scientists and ecologists have been searching different ways to change this situation for decades now.

The main problem is the greenhouse gases emission that generates the temperature increase of the Earth. That is, a climate change caused by human activity, ranging from major industrial complexes to the simplest task, such as taking the kids to school by car or traveling by plane. All and each one of those actions are little pieces forming the environment alteration puzzle.

If the problem is inherently related to the day-to-day activities of all the people in the world, the solution must obviously be structural. That was the aim of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, under which the richest countries committed to reduce, for 2012, 5% of their greenhouse gas emissions, that is, the oil and mineral coal combustions prevailing in human activity.

This is where biodiesel appears. If the current fuels (gas, diesel, fuel oil) are partially or totally replaced, a much eco-friendlier or less contaminating balance of emissions may be achieved.

Before explaining its pros and cons, and the political and economical consequences it brings, we must put it in context. Biodiesel is grouped within the so-called biofuels or green fuels. Unlike other resources such as oil, these are renewable sources of energy because they derive from living organisms, such as the sunflower plant or animal fat. The most used and developed biofuels are biodiesel and bioethanol [1].

They reduce contamination, they’re renewable and inexhaustible and their usage will diminish oil dependency and the political elites controlling it. Since there would be more competition, the hydrocarbons price would be forced to decrease and the world wouldn’t be so easily blackmailed by the countries owning the black gold.

Besides, oil reserves would last longer, thus bringing more stability to the activities which necessarily depend on said hydrocarbon.

French fries everywhere

“Even though biofuels generate carbon dioxide, when said carbon dioxide is burned it’s consumed in a very short time, because it works within a closed carbon cycle and it’s not accumulated in the environment”, explains Doctor Carlos Querini, researcher of the Chemistry School of the Litoral National University, in an interview published in Universia’s website.

The biological cycle of the biofuels develops a balance where the carbon dioxide produced during combustion is absorbed by the same plants that generate it, so there’s permanent recycling.

Biodiesel, developed more than one century ago , is the most produced and used green fuel in the world. For those who don’t know what it is about, it’s a liquid with properties very similar to those of the diesel oil, but it’s obtained from renewable products: animal or vegetable fat, such as soya, rape, palm, peanut, etc. By means of a complex chemical process, these oils are combined with alcohol (ethanol or methane) and their compositions are altered to derive into biofuel.

Moreover, it’s the only alternative fuel that may be directly used in any diesel engine, no modification needed. Since its properties are similar to oil diesel’s, they can both be simply mixed in any proportion.

It’s totally biodegradable, non-toxic and essentially sulfur-free and aromatics-free. In less than 21 days, its remainings fully disappear from the planet. Its toxicity is lower than common salt’s and its combustion generates a smell similar to the one of cookies or French fries (depending on the vegetable oil used to manufacture it).

Germany’s the main global manufacturer, embracing 63% of the production. It’s followed by France with 17%, the U.S. with 10%, Italy with 7% and Austria with 3%. In Europe it’s mainly elaborated with canola oil. For technical details about its manufacturing, click here .

Another advantage of biodiesel is that it may extend the useful life of the engines because it has better lubricating qualities than the oil’s derivate. It is also safer to handle and transport because it’s biodegradable and, in case of spillage in rivers or seas, it’s less lethal to flora and fauna.

Regarding the unavoidable economic factor, biodiesel is more expensive than traditional fuels for now, although it is expected that, as production increases, economies of scale emergence will enable their cost to decrease, adding it to the allowances that many countries are granting.

For instance, the Argentine Congress has just set forth a law through which it’s ruled that said type of products take part of 5% of the domestic supply within three years. Tax benefits and investment amortization are also provided in this law in order to promote the use of green fuels.

There are also hopes that biodiesel generates employment, since it requires an amount of people larger that the one required for oil production; besides, it may be entirely manufactured within the country, in no need of feedstock import.

Finally, it would locally help develop marginal regions. According to a research by the San Martín National University, crops to elaborate biofuels such as rape or jatropha could be established in geographical areas that have so far been agriculturally underdeveloped, such as the Argentine precordillera or the Chaco forest. This means that, apart from its environmental advantages, the green phenomenon could become the key for underdeveloped economies to improve.

However…

Some sectors are suspicious of it and criticize it. Before we analyze this, we must clear up that many people think that researches and opinions against biofuels are financially supported by the oil lobby. In spite of that, hearing both sides of the tale is always a good thing.

On the one hand, there are the usual technocrats, adulators of the almighty market, focusing on the fact that the production costs of said alternative source are too high and that, economically, using oil and gas is still more convenient, even if the Earth is boiling.

Of course, many countries supported that idea. Even the U.S. (the world’s largest gas-emitter) totally rejected the idea of promoting biofuels, until something changed: the issue became amazingly hot in the public agenda and the country warned that depending on foreign oil will become more difficult every time. Now, George Bush is seeking a hemispherical alliance with Brazil for ethanol production. As we can see, geopolitics and biopolitics are bonded.

Also, some people think that the ecological advantage it brings is otherwise lost. Since oleaginous plantations will be needed, many fear that natural sources of water and humid areas dry, and that this results in loss of tropical forests and their rich biodiversity. This effect is called “green desert”. Besides, according to criticizers, burning forests to establish plantations generates much more carbon dioxide than what can be saved.

There are even more radical opinions stating that biofuels demand potentiates monoculture. This would cause more extensive use of pesticide and herbicide, thus contaminating water too, which would mainly affect regional communities from different places in the world that make a living out of their less profitable plantations. This most alarming –though also true- position warns about a possible “agricultural counter-reformation” in favor of the large agricultural companies.

However, the most worrying element of the biofuels boom is the feeding factor, which primarily affects the poorest sectors and it’s much more tangible. Although underdeveloped countries are benefited because of the price increase of feedstock, their poorest social classes are affected by a higher cost when consuming this raw material as food. A sort of competition has started between food production and fuel production.

For example, it’s paradoxical that the U.S., the largest corn-producer in the world, is potentiating the manufacture of bioethanol, which is almost entirely produced based on that crop only; this doubled its price over the last year. That’s how prices of basic food for popular consumption have increased. The most affected ones are the poor neighbors of the South, who the largest U.S. corn importers. The tortilla for taco, essential food for Mexicans, is elaborated with said grain.

Burn of crops that are useful as food is not an irrelevant issue in a world full of hunger, even if it’s meant for manufacture of fuels that would enhance the Earth’s health. Estimations state that there are more than 800 million starving people, who will suffer even greater starvation if basic products such as corn or soya are so overpriced.

Nevertheless, something is to be cleared up: the misery so many people live immersed in is a consequence of the terribly unequal wealth distribution. It would be good if we combined caring about food access with fighting against global warming, given that they’re both the 21st century’s scourges. It’s the coming world challenge. That’s already come.