Biofuels!

Biopact, a European biofuels advocacy group:

In order to reduce poverty -- the main cause of deforestation and environmental destruction -- small initiatives have virtually no impact. The only way to reduce the environmental destruction by poor people in the South is to increase economic growth and prosperity by having the poor generate incomes themselves and by having governments in the South reduce their dependence on expensive fossil fuels (which are an extremely heavy burden on these economies). The development of an export-oriented biofuels industry might be the best opportunity of the past and coming five decades to do exactly that (as many developing countries are beginning to recognize). Unlike the North, the South has competitive advantages to produce biofuels: vast expanses of unused (non-forest) land and suitable agroclimatic conditions for the production of biofuels that can compete with fossil fuels. Energy independence is within their reach.

The best cases are offered by Brazil, Nigeria and Indonesia. In these countries, biofuels programs are expected to bring millions of jobs to some of the world's poorest people. Without sustainable jobs and increased incomes, the environment in these countries is set to suffer much more in the future, and contributions to climate change will only increase as a consequence (e.g due to deforestation and reliance on primitive biomass technologies). Investing in income generating, large-scale biofuels production is a sine-qua non for poverty reduction in the South. On the level of states, achieving energy independence through biofuels is becoming a reality in the South. By reducing the economically disastrous dependence on ever more costly oil and gas governments can save large amounts of money that can be invested in poverty alleviation and social development.
...
The era when farmers in the South were dependent on a single crop, and at the mercy of international prices for that crop, is now over. In the past, this single-crop dependency has resulted in mass poverty, mass food insecurity and even total social collapse, with entire communities breaking down when the market for their single crop collapsed.

Luckily, with the emerging market for biofuels, this disastrous situation can finally come to an end. Farmers in Malawi and Lesotho, for example, who used to be dependent on tobacco, are now rejoicing in the fact that they can invest in an alternative crop (a biofuel crop). They are the ones who understand the benefits of diversification. They are the ones who are massively investing in it.

Moreover, now that the farmers have two markets to play on simultaneously, they can do the calculus of investing more in food or more in fuel depending on the prevailing market situation. This again, offers major economic benefits.

I found this stuff in an article Salon that goes on to say:

[John Mathews, Professor of Strategic Management at Macquarie University in Australia] makes one core assertion that should be a central part of the debate: the calculus of the pros and cons of biofuels changes when you move from developed to developing nations.

"There is a huge literature hostile to biofuels, accusing them of being energy-intensive in cultivation; taking land from food crops; and enhancing monoculture," writes Mathews. "But these are largely arguments stemming from developed countries and describing developed country conditions -- particularly in U.S. and northern Europe."

In many developing nations, contends Mathews, "there are vast tracts of degraded and semi-arid land that can be utilized for fuel crops." Biofuels with higher energy efficiency can be produced at lower costs than in the developed world.

If true, this is a critical point. If cassava or jatropha can be cultivated in Nigeria or Senegal or India on semi-arid land that is no longer suitable for food cultivation, then the equation of biofuels with rainforest destruction does not hold.

I know next to nothing about biofuels, 'cept that I like to rib Atrios for never posting about them.  At first blush they seem to be an attractive energy alternative, but I see that there are some additional things that need to be considered.

Pretty much everything in life has pros and cons.  So the problems with monoculture and land-use issues are certainly valid concerns, but are they show stoppers?  Perhaps the questions raised should mere be viewed as the natural challenges that must be met as we move to a new fuel economy.  Heck, we'd never have gone to the moon if people just said, "yeah, but you know there's no oxygen in space, and it's cold, and the moon's wicked far away."  Those were merely things to methodically be overcome during the endeavor.

At our company meeting several weeks ago we learned a lot about brainstorming techniques.  It's very easy to criticize and even self-censor when trying to come up with new solutions.  Our default tends to be "this won't work because..."  However, we really need to start with things like "this has great potential and here's how we can handle the downsides..."

The fact of the matter is that we cannot rely on fossil fuels forever, so we'd best start thinking and acting in ways that allow us to wean ourselves from the oil teat, er...spigot now.  I've said before we could take some of the 2 trillion dollars that the Iraq war will ultimately cost us and invest in an Apollo-like program to meet the energy challenges of the 21st century.

There seems to be a good business case that can be made for biofuels as well.  Ford might consider investing serious money in research as the fortunes of oil-based vehicles inevitably will wane.  Or what about the tobacco industry?  If moving from raising a destructive cash crop to one that can solve problems can work for farmers in Malawi, why not in the US?  Again, it's all about reinvention as survival, and embracing threats as opportunities.

The 20th century is often called The American Century.  It's quite clear that the 21st century will not be ours.  Some say it's China's, but I suspect that country has similar problems with inertia as we do.  Regardless, it will be the rest of the world's century in some fashion because many places outside the US have more of a "greenfield" opportunity, not being saddled with the baggage of old-school industrialization. 

I suspect all the new energy innovations will be coming from India and elsewhere.  And eventually we Americans will also benefit.

ntodd