Did anybody in the ethanol industry see the food vs fuel fight coming? Did anybody predict that biofuels would switch from being the greenest of green, to being suspect because environmentalists believe U.S. biofuels should be assessed the GHG emissions from land conversion in tropical rainforests?

I've got an article in the production process now for the March issue of Ethanol Producer Magazine on "Tackling Indirect Land Use." Bruce Dale and his friends at Michigan State University had a paper published last week that runs the numbers on land conversion impacts with a different set of assumptions. (I've got a webby submitted covering the story that should be posted to the EPM website in the next day or so.) In short, the published study that spread like wildfire just a year ago bashing biofuels was based on worst case scenarios. The MSU team used models to assess what GHG impact there would be from land conversion that used the latest no-till technology, cover crops and the best conservation practices. The carbon debt from grassland conversion takes just four years to pay back, according to their calculations.

My question to the biomass industry – is anybody out there doing the deep thinking required to anticipate possible future controversies? What is the Achilles' heel of biomass? Waste streams would appear to be safe, but are they? I remember when spreading sludge on fields was going to be the answer, until a build up in heavy metals became a serious concern.

Certainly, the folks looking at crop residues know they will have to strike a balance between returning carbon to the soil and harvesting the residue.

Those working on dedicated energy crops are going to have to follow the indirect land use change issue. Unless you're planting crops on saline soils, a dedicated energy crop could potentially displace food crops.

Those working on utilizing forest slash are well aware that the national forests were removed as a biomass source in federal legislation. Now they face the daunting task of having legislation reversed. The details of sustainable harvest techniques and removal of underbrush that could replace controlled burns (or uncontrolled forest fires) can be difficult to communicate to a fickle public. Catastrophic calls from luddites make better press.

There's an understandable desire to minimize the potentially negative side to an exciting new technology. Responsible companies and scientists need to examine those carefully. As an industry we need to be proactive about exposing our Archilles' heel, and convincing critics we've given due consideration to their concerns. The hard part, of course, is anticipating what those concerns will be before they emerge. Be advised, though, greenwashing (trying to make yourself sound green when you really aren't) is going to be a cardinal sin of the environmental movement. If you don't believe, read what is said about Malaysia's attempts to improve the image of palm oil.