This film does a good job of discussing the health and security risks of our oil dependence.
However, environmentalists and economists are increasingly opposed to biofuels for various reasons.
This film makes little mention of the downsides and risks of biofuels.
The film slams oil companies for funding pro-oil propaganda, but a quick look at the "sponsors" page on the website reveals that this film is a paid infomercial. Many companies stand to gain from the irrational promotion of biofuels.
This film is NOT fit for educational settings. It is pure propaganda.
UPDATE: As an example of the misinformation that biodiesel proponents are spreading, another commenter on this site claims that biodiesel production does not use or destroy food. This is a flat-out lie. Use of soy - the dominant biodiesel feedstock - absolutely destroys food. There is some residual value, just as there is with corn ethanol. But using soy for biodiesel is precisely why the cost of soy has good through the roof (just like corn).
The writer claims that algae can be used for biodiesel -- but this statement is misleading. Why, for example, would the author be imploring us to plants CROPS for biodiesel if algae were truly the panacea he claims?
The reality is that - today - algae yields oil that can be used for biodiesel, but this is only done on small scale lab settings. The reason millions of $$ of VC money has gone to startups is because no one has figured out how to do this economically. No one.
Biofuels today are driving up food prices, using obscene amounts of water, and soaking up huge amounts of our tax dollars. Corn ethanol is currently the worst culprit, as it also uses huge amounts of energy inputs (natural gas).
But around the world, rainforests are being burned down to plant soy to make biodiesel. The Europeans are already well aware of this, and have passed legislation to attempt to prevent the use of plant oils from non-sustainable crops.
The only honest assessment we can make today is that the current generation of biofuels (ethanol AND biodiesel) are robbing the world of food and water, and the "next generation" of biofuels is purely experimental right now.
Its funny that there's always a "next generation" that will be here shortly and solve all of our problems. That's exactly what they said about ethanol 10 years ago, but now environmentalists are running away from it.
Field of Fuel only adds to the hysterical and profoundly UNscientific mania for biodiesel, and we will all be shaking our heads over this film in 5 years. Actually, the producers and sponsors will be desperately trying to hide their involvement in this film, as they will have moved on to the next fiscal and environmental boondoggle -- which will probably be called "algae biodiesel" or "switchgrass ethanol".
Please refer back to this comment in 2013 -- and do not let so-called "environmentalists" say that they didn't know better, or that no one warned them. Despite their claims about the "science" of global warming, this is an extremely unscientific crowd. Emotional films like this exclude the opinions of *many* scientists and environmentalists who disagree with them. They bury the debate and claim that only oil companies could oppose them.
If climate change mania causes everyone to jump on bandwagons like this, it will set us back decades in our quest for both energy security and pollution-free energy sources. There are many respectable voices warning against this deluded thinking, so no one will be able to claim that they didn't know any better.
However, environmentalists and economists are increasingly opposed to biofuels for various reasons.
This film makes little mention of the downsides and risks of biofuels.
The film slams oil companies for funding pro-oil propaganda, but a quick look at the "sponsors" page on the website reveals that this film is a paid infomercial. Many companies stand to gain from the irrational promotion of biofuels.
This film is NOT fit for educational settings. It is pure propaganda.
UPDATE: As an example of the misinformation that biodiesel proponents are spreading, another commenter on this site claims that biodiesel production does not use or destroy food. This is a flat-out lie. Use of soy - the dominant biodiesel feedstock - absolutely destroys food. There is some residual value, just as there is with corn ethanol. But using soy for biodiesel is precisely why the cost of soy has good through the roof (just like corn).
The writer claims that algae can be used for biodiesel -- but this statement is misleading. Why, for example, would the author be imploring us to plants CROPS for biodiesel if algae were truly the panacea he claims?
The reality is that - today - algae yields oil that can be used for biodiesel, but this is only done on small scale lab settings. The reason millions of $$ of VC money has gone to startups is because no one has figured out how to do this economically. No one.
Biofuels today are driving up food prices, using obscene amounts of water, and soaking up huge amounts of our tax dollars. Corn ethanol is currently the worst culprit, as it also uses huge amounts of energy inputs (natural gas).
But around the world, rainforests are being burned down to plant soy to make biodiesel. The Europeans are already well aware of this, and have passed legislation to attempt to prevent the use of plant oils from non-sustainable crops.
The only honest assessment we can make today is that the current generation of biofuels (ethanol AND biodiesel) are robbing the world of food and water, and the "next generation" of biofuels is purely experimental right now.
Its funny that there's always a "next generation" that will be here shortly and solve all of our problems. That's exactly what they said about ethanol 10 years ago, but now environmentalists are running away from it.
Field of Fuel only adds to the hysterical and profoundly UNscientific mania for biodiesel, and we will all be shaking our heads over this film in 5 years. Actually, the producers and sponsors will be desperately trying to hide their involvement in this film, as they will have moved on to the next fiscal and environmental boondoggle -- which will probably be called "algae biodiesel" or "switchgrass ethanol".
Please refer back to this comment in 2013 -- and do not let so-called "environmentalists" say that they didn't know better, or that no one warned them. Despite their claims about the "science" of global warming, this is an extremely unscientific crowd. Emotional films like this exclude the opinions of *many* scientists and environmentalists who disagree with them. They bury the debate and claim that only oil companies could oppose them.
If climate change mania causes everyone to jump on bandwagons like this, it will set us back decades in our quest for both energy security and pollution-free energy sources. There are many respectable voices warning against this deluded thinking, so no one will be able to claim that they didn't know any better.