Oh Magoo! The Digest looks at mainstream media’s coverage of renewables

The Blundermeisters of Media Misinformation are at it again. The world’s favorite advanced biofuel, biodiesel, gets another hit job from mainstream media. The Digest investigates.

AFP, the major international news service, reported last week that “Palm oil produced on tropical plantations that drive deforestation has become a major biofuel for vehicles in the European Union, industry figures released Tuesday by an environmental group revealed.”

Well, we could nit-picky about the grammar get. But instead, we’ll look at this story in the context of our 2014 guide to the 10 Top Mistakes in Covering Renewable Fuels.

1. Check facts, avoid expanding locally true conditions to universals, or mistaking upper limits of ranges for medians and averages.

Take this one from the AFP article.

“Second only to rapeseed as a biofuel, overall palm oil use in EU countries jumped six-fold from 2010 to 2015, accounting for a 34 percent increase in biodiesel consumption during that period, the figures showed.”

Sounds pretty definitive, eh? Well, maybe not. The US Foreign Agriculture Service says that EU biodiesel usage has dropped during this period.

It’s not hard to find that data — it’s right here below.

One reason? EU rules allow for double-counting of especially emissions-reducing biodiesel, and obligated parties are able to comply with less blending of biodiesel if they use more emissions-friendly sources — and palm oil biodiesel is not one of them. So it can look like gallons are going up, using one set of figures dervived from mandates, when wet gallons are actually going down.

The source of “the figures showed” is a report issued by an NGO, Transport & Environment, which is actively campaigning against palm oil biodiesel (as is their right) — the figure is from a press release which ties back to a T&E report which makes the claim without any other supporting reference.

2. Don’t wave the bloody shirt.

Try this example we just made up:

“Starbucks lattes compete for ever-scarcer milk needed to feed babies.“

Now, that’s just incendiary. We started with a commonplace fact — that Starbucks lattes contain milk — and inflated it, without any reference to supporting evidence, by introducing the allegation of potential shortage of milk. And we’ve linked this to the most painful possible outcome we can think of — in this case, the effect on innocent babies — generally, to suppress dissent and spur activists to action.

Again, we turn to AFP for evidence that this goes on in everyday journalism:

“These biofuels also compete for ever-scarcer land needed to grow food.”

Notice how we have simply varied the metaphor. Structurally, this assertion has the same foundation as the absurd example above. We’ve alleged a link between an action and a horrible reaction without offering any proof that the link is valid.

In addition, the article is supposed to be about emissions. It may well be that palm oil based emissions are worse. But palm doesn’t drive food shortages, really, because of the way that land is used. Palm in one of the most land-efficient crops in the world. according to this note by Sime Darby. Switching away from palm to another feedstock — for example, making up for a shortfall with soybeans, would use up more land, not less — and divert more arable land away from food production, not less. about emissions,  If that’s true, then food production would be more challenged by switching to a less-efficient feedstock.

3. Avoid quoting other media as a sole source, without checking the veracity or informing about the age of a given article, or as a substitute for readily available hard data.

Consider this example that we just made up:

In 2014, nearly half of the Coca-Cola used in Europe wound up in the cups of movie goers, according to data compiled by soft drink association EuroSofties, and obtained by a rival soft drink marketer. Coca-Cola causes three times more consumer dissatisfaction for movie goers than other soft drinks, according to a recent analysis.

What’s wrong here? Would it be interesting to you to know if the analysis quoted in the second sentence came from the same rival soft drink producer, and that they made the claim without any back-up information? It sure would devalue the article for us.

And that’s what happened in this AFP article, which stated:

In 2014, nearly half of the palm oil used in Europe wound up in the gas tanks of cars and trucks, according to data compiled by the EU vegetable oil industry association Fediol, and obtained by Brussels-based NGO Transport & Environment…Produced mostly in Malaysia and Indonesia, palm oil causes three times more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than diesel fuel, according to a recent analysis.

Once again, we’ve varied the players but not the structure of the argument. In this case, the source of “the recent analysis” is the same NGO running the anti-palm campaign, which is not mentioned here. And, we might add, the “recent analysis” is a conclusion reached by the NGO in a report that offers no direct supporting 3rd-party evidence. Not that it makes their conclusions wrong — but it does make them unproven.

4. Avoid straw-man comparisons.

Consider this example we just made up:

Recent research has shown that the pollution impact of so-called “first generation” primates – mainly chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans – is in fact greater than for nuclear waste dumps, once you take into account the impact of rotting banana peels. These primates cause three times more pollutants per pound of bananas than spent uranium rods, according to a recent analysis.

Sounds pretty stupid, eh? The error of course is in setting up straw men, the faceless purveyors of “recent research” we didn’t actually identify, who make absurd statements that real-life researchers doing a balanced assesment would never make.

Could it actually happen? In the aforementioned AFP article, it did. We quote:

Recent research, however, has shown that the climate impact of so-called “first generation” biofuels — mainly rapeseed, palm, sunflower and soy oil — is in fact greater than for fossil fuels, once deforestation is taken into account….Produced mostly in Malaysia and Indonesia, palm oil causes three times more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than diesel fuel, according to a recent analysis.

As you can see, in the crazy banana peel example above, we simply varied the topic to illustrate the point. In fact, the US EPA estimates that palm oil biodiesel reduces emissions by as much as 17 percent compared to fossil diesel (that’s here). The ICCT calls out the EPA for using old data that unfairly favors palm oil biodiesel, and they do agree that palm biodiesel is worse than ULSD diesel, but not by much. Something like 10 percent, not 3X worse. That’s here.

5. When citing problems, if there are easy remedies, discuss them and don’t discount them without reason.

Consider the following that we just made up:

Dr. Jones also said that “only certified safe lunchmeats can be used to feed children. This ensures that today, European products are the most safe lunchmeats in the world.” But many NGOs question whether these standards are met in practice. 

Certifying a source as “safe” via a third-party organization, and committing only to using that source, that’s an easy and obvious remedy. We mentioned it, but then we cited unnamed “NGOs” raising questions that we don’t explain, to undercut the reader’s confidence that the food is safe. You see how we have undercut Dr. Jones by citing an unmaed source, based on unexplained allegations from unknown persons? But we sure didn’t give Dr. Jones an opportunity to respond, and we didn’t under-cut the undercutter, did we?

Does it ever happen? Consider the AFP article, which asserts:

Lecocq also said that “only certified sustainable palm oil can be used to produce biodiesel. This ensures that today, European biofuels are the most sustainable biofuels in the world.” Many NGOs question whether these standards are met in practice.

It could be the case that NGOs question whether standards are met in practice. But, do questions equate proof. And, who are these NGOs, anyway? What do we mean by many, and what is the basis for these questions? It could well be the NGOs are on to something important — or not,. We are left to guess.

6. Avoid citing “business as usual” as “news”.

Consider this example we just made up:

Destroying old sets and repainting others to make way for film productions also cause health-wrecking pollution and destroy some of the planet’s most valuable sites for film buffs.

Now, it may be the case that there’s a kernel of news that is somewhere buried under that absurd example of “news coverage”. Maybe there’s an especially egregious example of set re-construction going on; maybe toxic materials aren’t being handled safely. But the story is nonsense. Making movies and rebuilding sets is business as usual.

Does it ever happen? Again we turn to AFP.

Clear-cutting and burning to make way for palm oil plantations also cause health-wrecking pollution and destroy some of the planet’s richest “hotspots” for biodiversity.

Now, here’s the problem. Burning causes pollution, but when you compare all the burning that goes around all over the world everyday — from forest fires to combusting fuels to everything else, the specific pollution from converting palm plantations should be put into context. Consider that according to this anti-palm NGO that 4 million hectares of Indonesia have been converted to palm. But, in 2006, Slate reported that “a record-setting 96,385 wildfires destroyed about 9.87 million acres of forest in the United States.” That’s roughly 4 millon hectares on fire, in one year — compared to 4 million hectares over a long period.

That doesn’t make converting Indonesian peatlands into palm a good idea for the eonvironment, but it does put it into context.

One other item worth noting. Again, according to Slate, “The fires that swept across Indonesia in 1997, for example, burned relatively thin-trunked tropical trees. But the devastated forests were also covered in carbon-rich peat, with deposits measuring up to 20 meters thick. As a result, the Indonesian fires were estimated to have released between 0.81 and 2.57 gigatons of carbon—between 13 percent and 40 percent of the world’s annual emissions at the time.”

The fires covered 8 million hectares of prime peatland. Couple of notes here — the fires were likely caused by land-clearing activities that got out of hand, as this source avers.  Land-clearing activities that clearly predated the rise of biodiesel — so, is this business as usual or something linked intimtely and uniquely to the rise in usage of palm oil biodiesel?

7. Compare apples to apples, and use statistics in reasonable ways with context where data is unfamiliar.

It’s easy, in a fast-moving sector, to make slipshod comparisons by selectively picking out factors and ignoring others. But also, in using data in absurd ways, we can destroy the effectiveness of articles.

Consider this one we just made up:

The EarthquakeAlarmist figures showed that the plates along the San Andreas fault shifted 500 million Angstroms last year, or some 1.37 million angstroms per day.

OMG, get the kids in the car, we’re leaving California! Just kidding, there’s nothing new that you should worry about. The plates along the San Andreas Fault shift that much every year, about 2 inches. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think about earthquake preparation. Just that we might have unduly alarmed you with a gigantic-sounding number that sounds like big news when it really isn’t.

Isn’t that the structure of what happened, here?

The Fediol figures showed that 3.5 billion litres of palm oil were burned as fuel in 2014, some 10 million litres per day.

The problem here is the problem of using meaningful numbers. 10 million liters per day sounds like a gigantic number to most people. Until you consider that the world’s oil producers pump 14.28 billion liters of oil every day.  So, we’re looking at around 0.7% of the world’s liquids consumption here. We think that readers like to see percentages and volumes together where needed for context. Too often, the percentages or volumes are omitted when they are negligible, because it makes the story less spicy.

For example, we might report that BigTime Enterprises boosted its earnings by 67% last year — and that might tempt you to look into investing in thestock. But what if the boost was from a global profit of $1.00, to $1.67?

8. Exaggerated pictures are worth 11,000 words.

Well, we’ve heard the claim that a picture is worth 1,000 words, and when we look at the page views for 8-Slide Guides compared to a 1,000 word article, we tend to be believers.

But what about an article that discusses a 3X change in a market condition, accompanied by a very vivid picture that claims a 33X change in that same condition? Is that fair and balanced?

We see it in the AFP article as it happens. In the vivid 800×530 pixel illustration, we see the green-clad protester making the claim that palm oil is responsible for “carbon emissions 33x worse than fossil fuels.” No wonder the young woman is out there protesting against palm oil fuels, if she believes the impacts are that severe.

But are they, really?

The article itself reports nothing worse than a 3X increase in emissions, and that claim is from a NGO engaged on a campaign.  And, as we noted in item #5 above, the United States Environmental Protection Agency — not widely regarded as  a”stooge for industry”, estimates that palm oil biodiesel reduces emissions compared to fossil-based diesel, and that even critics of the EPA’s math come nowhere near 3X, much less 33X.

So, ask yourself, Was the photo chosen because it advances a fair and balanced argument, or because it was vivid and spicy even if biased? We think there’s bias in there.

A couple of other Common Mistakes that we have flagged in the past, that we didn’t see here?

1. Use current data, or make a reasonable attempt to secure the latest updates.

In a fast-changing field like renewables, the data shifts fast, and furiously. When we covered, for example, oxidative coupling of methane (OCM) technology this week in the Digest, we could have cited any number of skeptics, writing back in the 1980s or 1990s, who thought that OCM would never be economically viable — but a revolution in the techniques of catalyst design and deployment has opened up new possibilities,. As has a Moore’s Law environment in the costs in genomics.

But, you don’t always have to access the latest scientific journals to get the hard, current data. In oilprice.com this past week, we saw this:

“Using high-percentage biodiesel in your diesel vehicle could, in fact, invalidate the warranty. Mercedes-Benz, one of five manufacturers of diesel-vehicles sold in the U.S., tells potential owners, “Any damages caused by the use of such non-approved fuels will not be covered by the Mercedes-Benz Limited Warranty.”

Oops, not so, grasshopper. Try a tour of the National Biodiesel Board’s up-to-the-minute Scorecard on engine manufacturers, here. There, you see that Mercedes-Benz supports B20 in Illinois, since November 2013.

2. Avoid using facts selectively to form a biased argument.

Facts are sometimes hard to tease out, and reporters are often on tight deadlines, but there’s a clear difference between “not finding a balancing source” and “picking out one damaging factoid out of a list, to lead the reader astray”.

From the same oil price.com article:

“There is also evidence that links biodiesel to higher tailpipe emissions of nitrous and nitrogen oxides.”

Here’s the actual quote from the Penn State guide to biodiesel that was linked by the author inside the same article:

“Pollution from engine exhaust: biodiesel results in much less air pollution due to its higher oxygen content and lack of both “aromatic compounds” and sulfur. The one exception to this is nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, which tend to be slightly higher when using biodiesel. Proper tuning of the engine can minimize this problem, however.”

See how “slightly higher” is converted to “higher”? How the information on aromatics and sulfur are omitted? See how the simple remediating factor “tuning your engine” is left out, so that it looks like a problem without a solution?

3. Avoid rating claims that can’t be verified. Practice “if so, then what” journalism where needed.

Consider the following we just made up:

“Smith Vehicle Systems has built a successful perpetual-motion road vehicle that gets 100,000 BTUs in output for every 50,000 BTUs of input, a 2-to-1 energy-in to energy-out ratio. The SVS1 vehicle will be available commercially in six weeks, and will be priced at half the price of the lowest priced available conventional sedan.”

Here’s what we could have written:

“Smith Vehicle Systems said it has built a perpetual-motion road vehicle that gets 100,000 BTUs in output for every 50,000 BTUs of input, a 2-to-1 energy-in to energy-out ratio. The company said that its SVS1 vehicle will be available commercially in six weeks, and will be priced at half the price of the lowest priced available conventional sedan.

Joe Bloggs, spokesman for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, noted that “Unfortunately, the laws of physics apply and no vehicle could achieve the results claimed.”

However, Jane Doe of Doe Advisors said: “We’ve seen the vehicle, and while it will not be available commercially in six weeks and does not get the energy returns claimed by the company, we believe it will deliver 20% better fuel economy based on its unique fuel compression technology, and that’s good news for consumers.” Doe added that tests on fuel economy were being conducted at Independent FuelTesters Unite and the Dallas FuelBuyers Club and would be available at truthinenergyreporting.com on September 22nd.

If the company could achieve a 20% market share, that would reduce foreign oil imports by 10%, if Doe Advisors’ math holds up.”

If you’ll note, in the first instance we simply parrot the claim, and present the assertion as fact.

In the second, we bring in a dissenting voice (which is not always available by press time). More importantly, we report claims as claims, and do not endorse the claim in the reportage, and focus on an “if true, then what” statement in terms of the potential impact, if such a claim is proven true, plus some kind of milestone event where we think the claim will be proved or disproved.

The Bottom Line

Reader, beware. Most shortcomings in articles are easy to spot and mild in impact — and no writer is perfect and no article, either. Neither is the Digest.

But epic and multiple fails in one article might rightfully cause you to toss the article — and to weigh it as a factor next time you read the reporter’s work or access that media outlet.

Do keep in mind that new technology is full of question marks — and like a driver who can help mitigate failures by simply maintaining a vehicle properly, you have a role to play when you read:

Bring a degree of skepticism to unusual claims AND some willingness to entertain unusual ideas.

Technology is on a journey, and just because it took a million years for mankind to reach the moon, and the technology that succeeded looked nothing like the first designs, doesn’t mean it was impossible to do.

And — by the way — based on the multiple fails we saw in the AFP story we analyzed — biodiesel is a far better proposition than the article asserts.