Email from Sierra Club re: Biofuels

A few months ago I reported in this blog about a biofuels forum hosted by the Sierra Club in Berkeley. I finally got around to composing an email to several Sierra Club national energy policy people regarding the club's policy on biofuels, and recently got a reply. Read on:

***
Hi Kent,

Thanks so much for all of your work and for your question. There is an important distinction between cellulosic ethanols and ethanol produced from agricultural products such as corn. The Sierra Club does not support agricultural-based ethanols for the reasons you mentioned below; mainly because they upset the food markets, invade otherwise untouched land, and generate significant amounts of carbon dioxide to convert the corn (or other product) into ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol is different because you can convert sources of energy (such as switch grass) that already exist in abundance. In other words, you do not have to create extensive farm land and drastically increase the price of products such as corn and sugar.

In short, the energy policy's description of biofuels derived from starch and sugar sources is quite negative, expressing many concerns about the harmful effects of these biomass sources, while not explicitly using the word "oppose." If produced properly, biofuels hold much promise and could be part of the solution to curb global warming. This is the reason we do not have a blanket opposition to ethanols - as usual, the devil's in the details.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Katie

Katie McLoughlin
Program Assistant
Sierra Club Global Warming and Energy Program
408 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(T) 202.675.2386
(F) 202.547.6009

To: katie mcloughlin at sierraclub dot org
Subject: seeking guidance on Sierra Club Biofuels policy

Dear Katie,

A few months ago, our local group in Oakland and Berkeley hosted a forum on biofuels in conjunction with other public discussions about the recent UC-Berkeley agreement to accept a 10 year, $500 million grant from British Petroleum / BP to research cellulosic ethanols. I have attached the program handout, which includes highlights of the Club's biofuels policy (which I believe came from the clubhouse site).

During and after the event, I have been asked numerous times why the Club doesn't oppose biofuels on the basis that it raises global food prices (e.g. doubling of the price of corn last 12 months), and is simply a substitute for other, carbon-based fuels that contribute to global warming? I have no good response, other than that it seems to be a good thing to reduce our dependency on foreign oil (which is not an environmental issue, really).

What is the response of the Sierra CLub Global Warming and Energy Program? Or other Sierra Club Global Warming advocates at the national level?

Sincerely,

Kent Lewandowski