The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by burning wood chips, we are pumping extra carbon into the atmosphere - in fact more so that simply using petrol or coal.
This environmental economics error was pointed out by an unlikely figure Tim Searchinger, who was originally a lawyer. But he was also obsessive about going into detail and was able to present clear argued logic against the use of biofuels... only to have governments repeatedly ignore him. Admittedly this was in part because he seems to have been something of a pain. But it's no excuse.
There's an irony here that the country least likely to give any consideration to the environment (drill baby, drill) is the one where much of this story plays out in the book - although the US is not alone in making use of biofuels it was here that the corn farmers held sway (in the UK, for instance, it's more about beet), and it was here that the scientists and economists seemed to first totally lose the plot in assuming this approach was environmentally friendly, followed enthusiastically by the EU.
After the biofuels section we get onto another beef (as it were) - food production. Michael Grunwald presents well the really difficult balance between animal welfare and the environment, pointing out, for instance, that intensive factory farming may be distasteful... but it is usually better at limiting carbon emissions. Inevitably, then, the focus moves to taking the meat out of the system, which (particularly with cattle and sheep) is an incredibly inefficient way to produce protein. However, Grunwald is no vegan bore - he makes it clear most of are going to want to go on eating something that is at least meat-like so looks at both substitutes and lab-grown (apparently labelled 'cultivated meat' after the meat business objected to the term 'clean meat'). This part lacked some of the cohesion of the previous one as, rather than focussing on a single figure like Searchinger, we get the stories of a whole host of enthusiasts and wannabe food entrepreneurs. Even so, the story of the over-hyping and bursting of the bubble is powerful, with ultra-processed fake meat products disappearing from the shelves post-Covid. There's still the potential to provide some workable solutions here: but, as Grunwald makes clear, the first wave was disastrous.
Although Searchinger is mostly in the background during the meat-substitute section, he's back more openly for the final section on regenerative farming, which has been pushed on the assumption (with little scientific measurement to back it up) that this will result in carbon being sequestered in the soil, so much so that it is promised it will counter global warming. Suddenly, cows, for example, are not the bad guys: with regenerative farming they're an important part of the system. But once again Searchinger is the voice crying in the wilderness, pointing out the lack of evidence that there is any significant climate benefit. In fact, as soon as you take into account decreased yield it inevitably is more of a problem than a solution.
Grunwald gives us all this with enough storytelling expertise to keep us interested. The only criticism I have is that he does tend to go into too much detail. After I while, in various sections, I was thinking 'Okay, I get the point, move on,' while he went into yet another startup or attempt to persuade governments. That doesn't stop this being an impressive book, though. Recommended.
Hardback:   |
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Comments
Post a Comment