a paler shade of green

1
Editorial SINCE George W. Bush pledged a major US effort to develop biofuels in his State of the Union address earlier this year, it seems the whole world has joined the rush to convert corn, sugar, cassava, sorghum and palm oil – not to mention cooking fat and farm waste – into the fuels of the future. From China and Indonesia to India and Cuba, everyone wants to turn crops into energy. The European Union is even considering a mandatory 10 per cent biofuel content at every pump. The dream is to cut reliance on fossil fuels while also reducing net greenhouse gas emissions and even helping hard-pressed farmers. And yet, there is a downside to all this. With today’s biofuel technologies, filling fuel tanks this way would require a huge amount of land – enough to transform the world’s agriculture (see page 36). The prospect of growing corn to make ethanol is already helping to push up global grain prices and reduce emergency food stocks. Areas earmarked for palm oil biodiesel production in south-east Asia threaten to finish off the region’s surviving rainforests. What’s more, a rash of studies suggests that the greenhouse gains from biofuels are far less than commonly assumed. True, the carbon emitted by burning biofuels is absorbed by the next crop as it grows, but manufacturing the fertilisers and pesticides needed to grow most biofuels requires large amounts of energy, as does turning the product into fuel. The net emissions reductions compared with conventional fossil fuels are often small – little more than 10 per cent in the case of corn, Bush’s biofuel of choice. Does this mean that biofuels are a wasted cause? Certainly not. The good news is that the technology is only just getting started. The trick will be to find ways to use plants that grow well without a sea of chemicals, and to process them more efficiently. We shouldn’t dismiss all biofuel projects until each new technology is up and running. Modest use of biofuels today is perfectly acceptable and passably green – for instance, there are few downsides to converting used cooking oil into biodiesel, recycling farm waste or growing biofuels on disused land. The key here is caution. Research into advanced biofuels has been starved of funds for decades. It is at a very early stage and may one day deliver, so we must give it time to mature. Meanwhile, we cannot grow our way out of the twin crises of climate change and energy security. There is a real danger of creating a biofuels bubble that will burst, leaving behind a pungent whiff of chip-fat oil, burning rainforests and rotting fields. THE idea that what we eat affects our health is deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness. Most people know that the wages of dietary sin are a slew of diseases including obesity, cancer, heart disease, diabetes and osteoporosis. The World Heath Organization, too, sees unhealthy eating as a major problem. It estimates that non-communicable diseases will account for 75 per cent of all deaths worldwide by 2020, and considers an unhealthy diet to be one of the main causes. That’s all very well, but what actually constitutes a healthy diet? Obesity-inducing gluttony aside, it’s surprisingly hard to say. When nutrition researchers have attempted to find definitive links between diet and health, all too often they have drawn a blank (see page 42). There are many reasons for this, such as flawed study designs and the difficulty in getting research subjects to stick to a particular regime. But there is another possibility that researchers seem strangely reluctant to consider: that there are no strong links between diet and chronic diseases. While that seems unlikely, it is a possibility that nutrition researchers ought to entertain. If it were true, it would be something worth knowing. At the very least it would suggest that the magnitude of dietary changes required for a person to significantly reduce their risk of disease are simply too great to maintain in the long run. Then we could all stop worrying about what we’re eating and focus our energies on lifestyle changes that have a genuine chance of succeeding – stopping smoking, cutting down on alcohol and taking more exercise. Who says diet is the key to beating disease? www.newscientist.com 23 September 2006 | NewScientist | 3 A paler shade of green Biofuels may be less than perfect, but they’re still worth a shot New Science Publications Editor Jeremy Webb Personal Asst & Office Manager Anita Staff Executive Editor Karl Schneider Associate Editors Liz Else, Stephanie Pain News Editor Matt Walker Editors Linda Geddes, Rowan Hooper, Anil Ananthaswamy, Helen Knight Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Reporters LONDON Andy Coghlan, Hazel Muir, Paul Marks, Zeeya Merali [email protected] BOSTON US Bureau Chief Ivan Semeniuk David L. Chandler [email protected] Celeste Biever [email protected] Gregory T. Huang [email protected] SAN FRANCISCO Bureau Chief Peter Aldhous [email protected] TORONTO Alison Motluk [email protected] BRUSSELS Debora MacKenzie [email protected] MELBOURNE Australasian Editor Rachel Nowak [email protected] Features Editors Ben Crystall, Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen, Graham Lawton, Michael Brooks, Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page, Caroline Williams Features Assistant Celia Guthrie Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1230 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Opinion Senior Editor Michael Bond Editors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter, Alison George Opinion Coordinator Eleanor Case Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Researcher Lucy Middleton Magazine Assistant Cheryl Forde Production Editor Mick O’Hare Asst Production Editor Melanie Green Chief Sub John Liebmann Subeditors Vivienne Greig, Ben Longstaff, Julia Brown, Katharine Comisso, Barbara Kiser Art Editor Alison Lawn Design Craig Mackie, David Knight, Michelle Ofosu Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave Johnston Pictures Adam Goff, Ludivine Morel Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Careers Editor Richard Fisher [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1248 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Consultants Alun Anderson, Barry Fox, Stephen Battersby, Marcus Chown, Fred Pearce, Rob Edwards, Mick Hamer, Justin Mullins, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines, Jeff Hecht, Helen Phillips, Gabrielle Walker, Richard Fifield, Bob Holmes, Emma Young Press Office UK Claire Bowles Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1280 US Office Tel +1 617 386 2190 NEWSCIENTIST.COM Online Publisher John MacFarlane Online Editor Damian Carrington Deputy Online Editor Shaoni Bhattacharya, Gaia Vince Editors Maggie McKee, Will Knight Reporters Tom Simonite, Roxanne Khamsi, Kelly Young, David Shiga [email protected] Special Reports Editor John Pickrell Online Subeditor Sean O’Neill Web team Neela Das, Ashis Joshi, Michael Suzuki, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner, Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey

Upload: vudung

Post on 30-Dec-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: A paler shade of green

Editorial–

SINCE George W. Bush pledged a major US

effort to develop biofuels in his State of the

Union address earlier this year, it seems the

whole world has joined the rush to convert

corn, sugar, cassava, sorghum and palm

oil – not to mention cooking fat and farm

waste – into the fuels of the future.

From China and Indonesia to India and

Cuba, everyone wants to turn crops into energy.

The European Union is even considering a

mandatory 10 per cent biofuel content at

every pump. The dream is to cut reliance on

fossil fuels while also reducing net greenhouse

gas emissions and even helping hard-pressed

farmers. And yet, there is a downside to all this.

With today’s biofuel technologies, filling

fuel tanks this way would require a huge

amount of land – enough to transform the

world’s agriculture (see page 36). The prospect

of growing corn to make ethanol is already

helping to push up global grain prices and

reduce emergency food stocks. Areas

earmarked for palm oil biodiesel production

in south-east Asia threaten to finish off the

region’s surviving rainforests.

What’s more, a rash of studies suggests that

the greenhouse gains from biofuels are far less

than commonly assumed. True, the carbon

emitted by burning biofuels is absorbed by

the next crop as it grows, but manufacturing

the fertilisers and pesticides needed to grow

most biofuels requires large amounts of

energy, as does turning the product into fuel.

The net emissions reductions compared with

conventional fossil fuels are often small – little

more than 10 per cent in the case of corn,

Bush’s biofuel of choice.

Does this mean that biofuels are a wasted

cause? Certainly not. The good news is that the

technology is only just getting started. The

trick will be to find ways to use plants that

grow well without a sea of chemicals, and to

process them more efficiently. We shouldn’t

dismiss all biofuel projects until each new

technology is up and running. Modest use of

biofuels today is perfectly acceptable and

passably green – for instance, there are few

downsides to converting used cooking oil into

biodiesel, recycling farm waste or growing

biofuels on disused land.

The key here is caution. Research into

advanced biofuels has been starved of funds

for decades. It is at a very early stage and may

one day deliver, so we must give it time to

mature. Meanwhile, we cannot grow our way

out of the twin crises of climate change and

energy security. There is a real danger of

creating a biofuels bubble that will burst,

leaving behind a pungent whiff of chip-fat oil,

burning rainforests and rotting fields. ●

THE idea that what we eat affects our health

is deeply ingrained in our collective

consciousness. Most people know that the

wages of dietary sin are a slew of diseases

including obesity, cancer, heart disease,

diabetes and osteoporosis. The World Heath

Organization, too, sees unhealthy eating

as a major problem. It estimates that

non-communicable diseases will account for

75 per cent of all deaths worldwide by 2020,

and considers an unhealthy diet to be one

of the main causes.

That’s all very well, but what actually

constitutes a healthy diet? Obesity-inducing

gluttony aside, it’s surprisingly hard to say.

When nutrition researchers have attempted

to find definitive links between diet and

health, all too often they have drawn a blank

(see page 42). There are many reasons for

this, such as flawed study designs and the

difficulty in getting research subjects to stick

to a particular regime. But there is another

possibility that researchers seem strangely

reluctant to consider: that there are no strong

links between diet and chronic diseases.

While that seems unlikely, it is a possibility

that nutrition researchers ought to entertain.

If it were true, it would be something worth

knowing. At the very least it would suggest

that the magnitude of dietary changes

required for a person to significantly reduce

their risk of disease are simply too great to

maintain in the long run. Then we could all

stop worrying about what we’re eating and

focus our energies on lifestyle changes that

have a genuine chance of succeeding –

stopping smoking, cutting down on alcohol

and taking more exercise. ●

Who says diet is the key to beating disease?

www.newscientist.com 23 September 2006 | NewScientist | 3

A paler shade of greenBiofuels may be less than perfect, but they’re still worth a shot

New Science Publications

Editor Jeremy Webb

Personal Asst & Office Manager Anita Staff

Executive Editor Karl Schneider

Associate Editors

Liz Else, Stephanie Pain

News Editor Matt Walker

Editors Linda Geddes, Rowan Hooper,

Anil Ananthaswamy, Helen Knight

Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210

Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280

Reporters

LONDON Andy Coghlan, Hazel Muir,

Paul Marks, Zeeya Merali

[email protected]

BOSTON

US Bureau Chief Ivan Semeniuk

David L. Chandler

[email protected]

Celeste Biever

[email protected]

Gregory T. Huang

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO

Bureau Chief Peter Aldhous

[email protected]

TORONTO Alison Motluk

[email protected]

BRUSSELS Debora MacKenzie

[email protected]

MELBOURNE

Australasian Editor Rachel Nowak

[email protected]

Features Editors Ben Crystall,

Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen,

Graham Lawton, Michael Brooks,

Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page,

Caroline Williams

Features Assistant Celia Guthrie

Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1230

Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280

[email protected]

Opinion

Senior Editor Michael Bond

Editors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter,

Alison George

Opinion Coordinator Eleanor Case

Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240

Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280

[email protected]

Researcher Lucy Middleton

Magazine Assistant Cheryl Forde

Production Editor Mick O’Hare

Asst Production Editor Melanie Green

Chief Sub John Liebmann

Subeditors Vivienne Greig, Ben Longstaff,

Julia Brown, Katharine Comisso,

Barbara Kiser

Art Editor Alison Lawn

Design Craig Mackie, David Knight,

Michelle Ofosu

Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave Johnston

Pictures Adam Goff, Ludivine Morel

Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268

Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250

Careers Editor Richard Fisher

[email protected]

Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1248

Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280

Consultants Alun Anderson, Barry Fox,

Stephen Battersby, Marcus Chown,

Fred Pearce, Rob Edwards, Mick Hamer,

Justin Mullins, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines,

Jeff Hecht, Helen Phillips, Gabrielle Walker,

Richard Fifield, Bob Holmes, Emma Young

Press Office

UK Claire Bowles

Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1280

US Office

Tel +1 617 386 2190

NEWSCIENTIST.COM

Online Publisher John MacFarlane

Online Editor Damian Carrington

Deputy Online Editor Shaoni

Bhattacharya, Gaia Vince

Editors Maggie McKee, Will Knight

Reporters Tom Simonite, Roxanne Khamsi,

Kelly Young, David Shiga

[email protected]

Special Reports Editor John Pickrell

Online Subeditor Sean O’Neill

Web team Neela Das, Ashis Joshi,

Michael Suzuki, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner,

Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey

060923_R_Editorial.indd 3060923_R_Editorial.indd 3 19/9/06 5:02:37 pm19/9/06 5:02:37 pm