Monday, July 13, 2026

Canada’s microbial fuel factories: How university researchers are turning microorganisms into the next generation of biofuels

Dr. Tim Sandle
July 11, 2026
DIGITAL JOURNAL

Algae on a canal. Image by Tim Sandle

As governments and industries search for alternatives to fossil fuels, biofuels remain one of the most promising routes toward decarbonising transportation, aviation and industrial processes. Yet traditional biofuels, produced from crops such as corn, wheat and sugarcane, have long attracted criticism due to land-use requirements, competition with food production, and variable environmental performance. Increasingly, scientists are looking elsewhere, to microorganisms.

Across Canada, university researchers are investigating algae, cyanobacteria, bacteria and engineered yeasts capable of converting carbon dioxide, waste streams and renewable biomass into fuels and fuel precursors. While commercial-scale deployment remains some distance away, the science suggests that microorganisms could become the basis of a new generation of sustainable fuel production systems.

Microorganisms offer several advantages over conventional energy crops. Many species grow rapidly, require little land, can be cultivated using wastewater or industrial emissions, and often produce oils, alcohols or hydrocarbons naturally. Microalgae, in particular, have attracted considerable attention because they are photosynthetic and can convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into energy-rich lipids. Researchers at Canada’s National Research Council have described algae as robust microorganisms capable of growth in photobioreactors, open ponds and wastewater systems without relying on agricultural land. The resulting biomass can then be converted into biodiesel, bio-oil, bioethanol and other renewable fuels.


Rather than extracting carbon from geological deposits formed millions of years ago, microbial systems recycle contemporary carbon already circulating in the atmosphere.
Algae remain the leading candidates

One of Canada’s most important academic resources in algal biotechnology is the Canadian Phycological Culture Centre (CPCC) at the University of Waterloo. The collection contains more than 400 strains of algae and cyanobacteria, many originating from Canadian waters, providing researchers with a vast genetic library for biotechnology applications, including biofuel development.

Several species stand out including Chlorella vulgaris. This freshwater microalga is among the most extensively studied organisms for biodiesel production. Under nutrient-limited conditions, Chlorella accumulates large quantities of lipids, which can be extracted and converted into biodiesel through transesterification. Researchers view the species as attractive because of its rapid growth and relatively high oil content.

Another microalga receiving attention is Scenedesmus obliquus. University of Toronto research has examined engineered biofilms containing this species, exploring ways to increase biomass productivity while reducing harvesting costs—one of the major economic barriers to algal fuel production.

Although often referred to as blue-green algae, cyanobacteria are actually photosynthetic bacteria. These organisms are particularly interesting because they can be genetically modified to directly produce fuel molecules, including ethanol, hydrogen and hydrocarbon-like compounds. The CPCC maintains numerous cyanobacterial strains specifically for biotechnology research, carbon sequestration studies and environmental applications.

A river with cyanobacteria on the water. Image by Tim Sandle

Beyond naturally occurring algae, Canadian researchers are increasingly applying synthetic biology to microorganisms. At the University of Calgary, biotechnology research includes microbial metabolic engineering aimed at producing renewable energy products through modified biological pathways. Researchers are investigating how microbial systems can be redesigned to manufacture valuable compounds more efficiently, potentially creating industrial-scale microbial production platforms.

Rather than relying solely on lipid accumulation, synthetic biology enables scientists to reprogram microbes to produce specific chemicals that can serve as advanced biofuels. These include isobutanol, ethanol, and sustainable aviation fuel intermediates.
Methane-eating bacteria: Another possibility

An intriguing area of Canadian research involves methanotrophs. These are bacteria that consume methane as their primary energy source. The University of Calgary’s microbial ecology research includes investigations into microorganisms involved in methane cycling. Methanotrophs possess enzymes capable of oxidizing methane into useful carbon compounds that can potentially be transformed into fuels, chemicals and biomaterials.

This approach has dual environmental value in terms of reducing methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas and producing valuable fuel feedstocks from waste methane streams. This means landfills, wastewater treatment facilities and agricultural operations could eventually become sources of renewable carbon for microbial conversion systems.

Many microbial biofuel systems are attractive because they can utilize materials that would otherwise be discarded. Researchers at the University of Toronto have explored biological conversion processes involving wastewater, biosolids and industrial emissions. Coupling waste treatment with microbial cultivation creates the possibility of simultaneously reducing pollution while generating fuel feedstocks.

This “circular bioeconomy” concept is gaining increasing support among policymakers and researchers because it addresses multiple sustainability challenges simultaneously. Instead of viewing wastewater as a disposal problem, it becomes a nutrient source and instead of treating carbon dioxide as waste, it becomes feedstock.

Perhaps the most significant future market for microbial biofuels lies in aviation. While passenger vehicles are increasingly electrified, aircraft remain dependent on energy-dense liquid fuels. Algal oils are chemically similar to some petroleum-based fuel fractions and can be upgraded into sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Researchers continue to investigate hydrothermal liquefaction and catalytic conversion technologies capable of transforming algal biomass into jet-fuel-compatible products.
The challenges remain substantial

Despite the scientific promise, microbial fuels have experienced cycles of hype and disappointment. The primary challenge remains economics, since producing fuel from microorganisms still typically costs more than extracting and refining petroleum. Harvesting microalgae, extracting oils, maintaining cultivation systems and scaling photobioreactors all require substantial investment. Numerous studies have concluded that while technically feasible, large-scale algal fuel production remains commercially challenging. There is also a biological trade-off in that many microorganisms grow rapidly but produce relatively little fuel. Others accumulate large amounts of oil but grow slowly.

Researchers have wrestled with this problem for decades, prompting increasing interest in genetic engineering and synthetic biology approaches designed to optimize both productivity and fuel yield. Yet, if Canadian researchers can improve microbial productivity, lower harvesting costs and integrate fuel production with carbon capture and wastewater treatment, microbial biofuels could become one of the country’s most important bioeconomy sectors over the next two decades. But the economics suggest that success will come from combining fuel production with multiple revenue streams rather than relying on fuel sales alone.

Dodging Dogma: Moving to Higher Ground in Higher Education


 July 13, 2026

Image by Nathan Dumlao.

Do universities need to foster more intellectual diversity among professors? Should there be affirmative action for conservative thinkers in disciplines such as sociology and social work? Asked less often, but just as relevant: Should business schools and economics departments hire a few socialists?

This long-running debate intensified in Trump’s second term, as MAGA forces ramped up attacks on any challenge to right-wing populist politics. Unfortunately, a principled question about the appropriate mix of ideologies in a faculty has been twisted to advance political goals.

Rather than offer policy recommendations for institutions coping with this mess (because I don’t have any), I want to speak in favor of intellectual diversity for individuals (because we all need to remember to keep an open mind). In my three decades in academia, I saw too many professors hang on too tightly to the conventional wisdom of their intellectual gang rather than entertain new ways of thinking.

My teaching career provides several examples of the dangers of dogma, on all sides.

For seven years, I was a Faculty Fellow in the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement, which was the DEI unit (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) of the University of Texas at Austin until a state law eliminated it in 2024. “Faculty Fellow” just meant that on top of my day job (teaching in the School of Journalism), I received a bit of funding for local projects, primarily to help launch a community center.

I enjoyed the community work but found that lots of people assumed, incorrectly, that they could predict my political positions from my association with the division. But I never fit comfortably on either side in the culture wars in higher education, a status not unique to me. I’m not suggesting I was a model professor but rather that reactions to my work show the dangers of dogma.

The politics of teaching

The first task is to clarify the relationship between intellectual work and political advocacy. Avoiding subjects with political implications is impossible in the social sciences and humanities. (Journalism departments are trade schools that include scholars drawing on both traditions; I taught about media law, ethics, and politics.) By political I don’t mean partisan battles but competing claims about human nature, a good society, and the distribution of wealth and power—questions that can’t be resolved by evidence and logic alone. Teaching is not merely politics, but there’s always an underlying politics to teaching about human affairs, whether acknowledged or not.

Second, while scholars in the natural sciences strive to identify laws of nature, there are no laws of human affairs. We search for patterns in a complex world, looking for clues about people and societies, but we shouldn’t pretend to be laying down the law of anything—people are more complex than particles. In my teaching about journalism and society, I offered what I thought were the best analyses of those patterns and explained my reasons. I tried to be upfront with students about my politics, the moral principles behind my political commitments, and how they influenced my intellectual inquiry.

When professors follow the conventional wisdom of the dominant culture—“U.S. foreign policy supports democracy abroad,” for example—the political dimensions of a course might seem invisible. When my teaching challenged those conventions, as it often did, I was never surprised that many people thought I was imposing my politics on students. My focus here: Why did people so often guess wrong about the political positions I advocated outside the classroom?

Intellectual life shouldn’t be about choosing sides, but too often people defend their team without question. I was a left-leaning DEI guy and critiqued the dominant culture and many conservative claims, but I tried to avoid the dogma of the left or DEI. During my 26 years at UT, I annoyed people of every political persuasion, not to be a gadfly but by striving for intellectual honesty. How well did I do? As a teacher, students are the best judges of my performance. As a citizen, I offered arguments in extensive public writing that anyone can evaluate.

My politics

I’ll start with my approach to human affairs. Our behavior is unpredictably complex because individual variation (the product of genes and early experience) plays out in social systems that shape behavior (often in ways we can’t see or don’t understand in the moment), within the parameters set by human nature (which is universal, despite cultural differences). It’s hard to argue with that statement at that level of abstraction. Disagreements come from how we weigh those three aspects of human experience.

Race: In the late 1990s, I started writing about white privilege, the unearned advantages that we white people have in contemporary U.S. society. The brutal white supremacy behind genocide, slavery, and legal segregation eventually morphed into today’s kindler-and-gentler white dominance, which isn’t always kind or gentle. I have tried to articulate an analysis in plain language rather than academic jargon, but my politics on race are in line with DEI principles. Yet I have long bristled at the counterproductive nature of many DEI trainings, which often are weighed down by that jargon and a tone of moral superiority.

Sex/Gender: My intellectual and political foundations are in feminism, but not today’s most common feminism that leans liberal and sounds postmodern. My writing on pornography, prostitution, and the sexual-exploitation industries is rooted in radical feminism, which rejects fashionable liberal/left rationalizations for “sex work.” For more than a decade I have also critiqued the ideology of the transgender movement, again from a radical feminist perspective. That put me in conflict with DEI advocates and institutions, both in my university and in liberal/left political circles.

Global affairs: There is much talk today of the threats by countries such as Russia to the rules-based international order created after World War II under U.S. leadership. Russian politicians and oligarchs are, indeed, a threat to that order, as well as to their own people. But U.S. politicians and oligarchs—Republicans and Democrats—typically act as if the United States is exempt from most of those rules, and if some people don’t have to follow the rules then rules aren’t really rules. My writing and organizing activities, especially after the U.S. military response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, argued that U.S. citizens should hold our government accountable for violations of international law and war crimes. That work, which led the university’s president to condemn me publicly, is squarely in the leftie camp.

Economic inequality: People have the capacity to be both cooperative and competitive. Critics of capitalism point out, appropriately, that designing an economy to intensify competition guarantees inequality. Harnessing our capacity for greed and self-interest may increase the gross national product, but the outcomes will be grotesque, a society of billionaires and homeless. I am one of those critics, but I don’t think that transcending capitalism is the answer. That would be a good start, but in societies with millions of people, the cooperative aspects of human nature are a thin reed on which to lean. I remain a critic of capitalism but don’t think democratic socialism can solve problems at the scale we face today.

Ecological crises: Climate change may be today’s most dramatic environmental challenge, but other threats to ecosystems are no less vexing: soil erosion and degradation from agriculture, chemical contamination from industry, and biodiversity loss from human exploitation of land and water. The problem is not just fossil fuels but overshoot—humans drawing down the ecological capital of the planet beyond replacement levels. Consumption is not equally distributed, of course, but too many people are consuming too much in the aggregate. Eight billion people living in high-energy/high-technology societies—no matter what the economic system or energy sources—is unsustainable. Because almost no one—left, right, or center—endorses collectively imposed limits on consumption, my writing on ecology gets me labeled a “doomer” by people across the political spectrum.

Summing up: On race and international affairs, I support positions that are common on the left. On sex/gender issues, I am a feminist but reject the current liberal/postmodern dogma on so-called sex work and transgenderism. I critique capitalism but am wary of naïve celebrations of socialism. And when it comes to the multiple cascading ecological crises, I argue that no contemporary political project adequately confronts our predicament.

Coping with complexity, living within limits

I reject the MAGA movement’s anti-intellectual attacks on universities, but I think people’s annoyance with intellectual elitism is justified. I favor confronting inequality but find some DEI training to be tone-deaf to the complexity of everyday life. Much of my work is rooted in feminism, but by the time I retired in 2018 I wasn’t welcome in most women’s studies spaces. I critique capitalism and imperialism but think anti-capitalist and anti-imperialistic rhetoric is sometimes as simplistic as defenses of those systems. And on the most daunting challenge of our time—the ecological viability of a large-scale human presence on Earth—I think almost everyone denies or ignores harsh realities.

If I were still teaching, I likely would have trouble navigating the political struggles on campus. I would resist the threats to faculty independence but urge professors to recognize our collective failure to be accountable to the public. I would want professors to stand firm in analyzing oppressive systems but also to self-reflect on how that commitment can calcify and become counterproductive. And I would continue to ask all of us to face economic and ecological problems that have no easy solutions, perhaps no solutions at all if we refuse to turn away from modern techno-industrial society.

The more I know, the more I am aware of what I don’t know. Intellectual humility is more important than ever—for everyone. If any of my arguments are off base, I invite critique to improve our understanding of the world—I don’t assume I have the correct analysis of every issue. Professors need to challenge society but also challenge each other to meet intellectual standards and live up to moral principles that we claim to embrace. That doesn’t eliminate conflict but at least can make conflict more productive.

My three decades in academia taught me that it’s hard to be critically self-reflective about that conflict. As a young professor, I was too sure of my conclusions and not self-critical enough of my ideology. These days I hope I’m less self-righteous and more open to challenges. We all need to strive for the higher ground that higher education promises.

Robert Jensen is an emeritus professor in the School of Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin and a founding board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. He collaborates with New Perennials Publishingand the New Perennials Project at Middlebury College. Jensen can be reached at rjensen@austin.utexas.edu. To join an email list to receive articles by Jensen, go to https://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/jensenupdates-info.html. Follow him on Twitter: @jensenrobertw

“Wrap It Up, Trotsky!” On the DSA Guidelines for Respectful Discussion


 July 13, 2026

Still from the opening scene of Michelangelo Antonioni’s Zabriskie Point. (Fred Gardner was one of the screenwriters.)

I’m always encouraged when Democratic Socialist candidates advance at the polls. I never had a negative thought about the party itself, until a friend forwarded this document, which helped me picture a membership meeting (as noted in italics).

DSA Guidelines for Respectful Discussion

Meetings are more productive — and more fun — when the conversation includes everyone.

Not everyone is there to talk. Many just want to listen. This baseless assertion puts subtle pressure on everyone to say something.

 You can read these before meetings and forums. (We’ve sometimes asked for volunteers to read each one off.)

Making us read or listen guidelines in order to take part in a “respectful discussion” is hardly respectful

This has been helpful at DSA and YDS meetings, especially when new people are present.

The guidelines are an important form of indoctrination.

We’ve also shared them with our coalition partners as a useful resource.

Other “activist” leaders might be impressed.

1) Assume good faith in your fellow comrades

Assume good faith in each other. Please try to speak from experience, speak for yourself, and actively listen to each other. When someone makes a point, repeat what you heard, summarize, and ask clarifying questions like “did you mean X” or “what makes you say that” to get more information. Encourage yourself and others to maintain a positive attitude,

“Brighten the corner where you are…”

honor the work of others, avoid defensiveness, be open to legitimate critique and challenge oppressive behaviors in ways that help people grow.

We want to “call each other in” rather than calling each other out — in other words, if you are challenging someone’s ideas or behavior, do it respectfully, and if you are being challenged, receive it respectfully.

“And I hope you recieve it well, depending on the way that you feel that you’ve lived.”

2) Know whether you need to “step up” or “step back”

Help create a safe and inclusive space for everybody.

THIS IS WERNER ERHART LINGO!

Please respect others by recognizing how often, much, and loud you’re speaking and whether or not you’re dominating conversation. Step back to leave space for others to voice their opinions and feelings. If the facilitator of the meeting asks you to wrap up, recognize that you should step back. This especially applies to participants who have privileged backgrounds.

Wrap it up, Trotsky.

On the other hand, if you don’t often speak up, we encourage you to do so now!

Subtle pressure to say something, even if you don’t really want to. 

3) Please ask yourself “Why am I Talking?”

We have a limited amount of time for discussion and to accomplish the tasks before us. When in discussion, please ask yourself “Why am I talking (WAIT)?” Consider whether or not what you want to say has already been said, whether what you want to say is on topic or if there’s a better time and place to say it, and other methods for showing how you feel about the conversation (nodding your head, etc.)

Everybody knows these behavioral basics. Assuming we don’t is beyond disrespectful, it’s condescending, contemptuous.

4) Please recognize and respect others feelings, background, and cultural differences.

Many people have different levels of experience, knowledge, and feelings in social justice and radical activism and all participants should respect and embrace this diversity.

Many people from different backgrounds have different definitions of what it means to be an “activist” or “radical.” While we all don’t have to agree on everything, we should respect our diversity of opinions. Recognize that everyone has a piece of the truth, everybody can learn, and everybody has the ability to teach and share something. Don’t use language that’s clearly oppressive or hurtful.

The reader of these “Guidelines” has decided to attend a meeting of the Democratic Socialist Party. Do they really need to be told not to call people spades and chicks and wops and spicks and greasers and micks and mockie jew bastards?

Please, refrain from using acronyms or complicated language that could exclude others.

How will newcomers to the scene pick up the lingo?

5) We have “one mic” so do not interrupt or speak while others are talking

Many of us will have different opinions on matters.  However, speaking while others are talking or adding comments when they cannot respond appropriately does not build community. If you have a disagreement, wait for your turn to address it. This is basic politeness.

As everybody knows.

6) Respect the facilitator when they use Progressive Stack

Progressive Stack is a form of leading discussions which involves a facilitator keeping a list of names of people who wish to speak. The facilitator scans the group during discussion and if someone wishes to speak, they raise their hand and catch the facilitator’s eye. The facilitator nods and makes eye contact to indicate the person is now put on the list to speak, and then the person can put their hand down so it does not distract other discussion participants. However, the facilitator does not simply write a list of names in the order that people raise their hand. Rather, if someone who has not spoken raises their hand, they go to the top of the list. If someone who is of an oppressed group raises their hand, they go to the top of the list

Wouldn’t the newcomer feel embarrassed about bumping the veteran who has something to say? Ditto the person “of an oppressed group?”

unless they have already contributed significantly to the discussion.

7) Have a sense of humor

Who said movement building can’t be fun?  This is a great opportunity for people to get to know one another, building lasting friendships and relationships, to laugh, love, and build a movement.

And maybe get laid.

And, as always, please inform organizers of inappropriate behavior immediately.

“Inform” as in rat, snitch, squeal… I especially like “immediately.”

Fred Gardner is the managing editor of O’Shaughnessy’s. He can be reached at fred@plebesite.com