Alternative energy

Late in 2005, George Monbiot wrote an article on the subject of biodiesel. His central point is that, in terms of overall ecological footprint, biodiesel may be much worse than fossil fuels. The article is worth a read.

What stood out, to me, was this quote:

In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44 x 1018 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota". In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals.

In even more plain English, this means that we are consuming energy 400 times in exceess of what is coming into the global system. Imagine spending 400 times what you earn...how long could you do it?

What I find significant--most of the press I read about the future of energy focuses on replacement fuels for oil, and not on the fundamentally unsustainable rate of consumption. No amount of wind, hydro, solar, biodiesel, or even solar roadways, are really an answer for the rate at which humans are spending energy. It is the energy consumption rate, and not the source, that must shift if carbon emissions are to be reduced.

...

Fine print:
Some people will argue the number 400. I'll concede that the number may be wrong--it may be high, it may be low. The accuracy of the number 400 may be questioned--what is unquestionable, however, is the fact that we're using reserves more quickly than they can replenish.