- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
For these countries to destroy rain forests for palm oil plantations, when the future of biodiesel is oil from a very different source - algae.
Certain types of algae produce more oil per unit mass than any other source, and the oil is much easier to extract than it is from other sources. They can be grown in a wide variety of marginal environments (such as sewage treatment ponds, brackish water, etc.) . It also eliminates many of the other concerns about biodiesel - the lack of recycled vegetable oil feedstock, the ethical issues of converting farmland that could be used for food for energy crops, and the fact that if soy-based biodiesel is assumed there is nowhere near the required arable land in the US to replace all diesel consumption.
Unfortunately, the main trade group in the US for biodiesel, the National Biodiesel Board (MBB), is dominated by the soybean lobby. All information from them assumes soy-based biodiesel. However, biodiesel can be produced from a wide variety of feedstocks, and algae is the most promising.
Isn't it be tragic to clear this rainforest when the price of palm oil will, in turn, be undercut by the price of algal oil? But I don't think the biodiesel industry is to blame for this; it is the policy of these countries to clear rainforest for profit that is at fault. Also, in any case it is more likely that this palm oil will fuel homegrown biodiesel production in those countries, rather than being imported to the US.
