No-bell laureate?
Posted on January 16, 2008 - Filed Under Headliners, Planet-friendly Ideas
German biochemist Hartmut Michel visited Manila last week and attracted considerable media attention when he warned officials about the perils of plunging into mega-scale production of biofuels, specifically causing an elevation in global warming when forests are cut down to give way to plantations for biofuel feedstock such as corn and sugarcane. Michel also cited price increases in meat and other foodstuff as ethanol production has jacked up prices of corn and sugar in global commodities markets.
Michel continues to make waves this week after his pronouncements were picked up by fellow academician Sen. Merriam Santiago who now wants an urgent review of the Biofuels Act that she co-authored with then Cong. Migz Zubiri . . . while at the same time chastising Sen. Zubiri for attacking “the opinion of a Nobel laureate in science”
Had Sen. Santiago verified Hartmut Michel’s scientific bona fides, she would not have been shooting from the lip as usual because . . . while Michel won the Nobel Prize for science in 1998 alongside two other colleagues . . . the award was in recognition of his advanced research on photosynthesis, which hardly makes him eminently qualified to speak on global warming relative to biofuels production.
In all fairness to the Nobel laureate, he had in fact hinted at his specialized expertise when he declared early on that it was not worth devoting vast tracts of land to biofuel ventures because “no more than 2% of the sun’s energy is stored in leaves of plants”. However, he may have chosen to ignore jatropha, a wonder plant that produces seeds with an oil content of up to 40% which can be converted to biodeisel with minimal processing. It may be safe to assume further that part of the Hartmut Michel’s selective ignorance is the fact that jatropha thrives on arid or marginal lands that would never be suitable for sugar or corn plantations. Finally, Michel’s concern for the denudation of Philippine forests can only be addressed with . . . thanks to decades of rampant illegal logging . . . “What forests?”
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.