Biofuel Surge Could Have Severe Downside, Warn Experts
|
NEW YORK, Apr 3 (OneWorld) - The Bush administration's plans to increase biofuel imports could add to the suffering of millions of impoverished peasants in Brazil and other developing countries, food rights and environmental groups say.
"The benefits of biofuels cannot be achieved at the expense of food shortages and environmental degradation," says Celso Marcatto, an activist associated with the U.S.-based anti-poverty organization, ActionAid, in Brazil. ActionAid, like many other groups, fears that the growing U.S. demand for ethanol fuel could force agribusiness in Brazil to indulge in unhealthy competition for profits that might end up causing monopolies over farmlands and damage to the environment. Last month, during his visit to Brazil, U.S. President George W. Bush signed an agreement with his counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to cooperate in the development of biofuels like ethanol. Their talks on the subject continued as Lula made a trip to the United States last weekend. Bush has described biofuels as a tool to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil, but critics warn the shift in energy strategy will divert food crops from the world's hungry and promote single-crop agriculture and the unsustainable consumption of natural resources. Proponents of sustainable development models say they do not dispute the fact that ethanol is a viable alternative energy source, but its production also promotes single-crop agriculture, which can lead to the loss of biodiversity and create economic disparities. They are concerned as well that the surge in production of ethanol, which, in Brazil, is largely derived from sugarcane, is driving villagers off their native lands and destroying endangered rainforests, which are considered vital for the biological diversity of the planet. "The U.S. government should be thinking through a careful approach to biofuels based on diverse production of a mix of crops, including native grasses," said ActionAid's Karen Hansen-Kuhn in the United States. Emphasizing that local ownership and sustainable agriculture must be considered as "crucial" elements of the United States' biofuel policy, Hansen-Kuhn described Bush's approach as a "headlong rush." Some researchers claim as well that investments in ethanol to fuel automobiles are driving price hikes in food products around the world. U.S. investment in fuel ethanol, which in this country is largely derived from corn, has soared since late 2005, according to the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), an independent think-tank. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projected in early 2006 that fuel ethanol distilleries will require 60 million tons of corn from the 2008 harvest. But EPI research conducted a year later -- once the ethanol boom was apparent -- shows that distilleries will need approximately 139 million tons next year. This unprecedented diversion of the world's leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices every year, according to EPI. As the world corn price rises, so too do those of rice and wheat as consumers substitute one for the other and the crops compete for land. The U.S. corn crop accounts for about 40 percent of the global harvest and 70 percent of the world's corn exports. On average, every year, the United States exports 55 million tons of corn, which is fully 25 percent of the world's total grain exports. "Substantially reducing this grain export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy," says EPI's Lester Brown in a recent article on the impact of the demand for grain to fuel automobiles. Describing the automotive demand for fuel as "insatiable," Brown estimates that the same amount of grain needed to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol one time can feed one person for a whole year. "The competition for grain between the world's 800 million motorists who want to maintain their mobility and its 2 billion poorest people who are simply trying to survive is emerging as an epic issue," he says, in reflecting that soaring food prices could lead to urban food riots in many countries. In order to avoid such an eventuality, EPI points to the need for a moratorium on the licensing of new ethanol distilleries, with a policy goal that supports corn prices and farm incomes. "The world desperately needs a strategy to deal with the emerging food-fuel battle," says Brown. "We need to make sure that In trying to solve one problem -- our dependence on imported oil -- we do not create a far more serious one." ....................................................................................
.................................................................................... |
Related links
Comment List
"Biofuel is not Ecologically Friendly"Author:
Alan Moor
Time: 04/10/2007 03:12
Comment: While it's wonderful that we can make diesel fuel from grass, the problem is that it does nothing to reduce greenhouse gasses. Sure, we don't pump oil from the ground, but at the end of the day we are still burning oil. In this case, it's vegetable oil, but it still produces carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other gasses. Burning something different doesn't solve the root problem, which is the generation of greenhouse gasses. The solution has to come from two directions, 1) don't burn so much, and 2) grow more plants.
1) don't burn so much Nuclear, solar, hydro-electric, and wind energy need to take more of load. The US hasn't built a nuclear plant in 40 years. Funny enough, it's the same environmentalists bitching about global warming that put an end to the nuclear energy industry. If we had gone with more nuclear plants, we would be in better shape economically and ecologically. We need to turn that around. 2) grow more plants We MUST stop the deforestation of the planet. This isn't just Brazil, it's Peru, Ecuador, Malaysia, Indonesia, central Africa, central America. The millions of acres being cut down every year magnify the damage caused by CO2 production. Trees, especially in the rain forest, consume a tremendous amount of CO2 and release oxygen in its place. I am convinced that at least part of the spike in global warming can be directly attributed to the shrinkage of rain forests worldwide. |
"only solution is solarenergy"Author:
sadhan sanyal
Time: 04/07/2007 23:30
Comment: to reduce the globalwarming all efforts should be directed to use the solarcells/energy as though it at present economically nt.viable but if the cost to pay in 20/40yrs time to tide over the disaster which without any doubt is a must wiill be many times higher than the apparent higher cost now which we all see from economic point of view for immediate benifit but that will be greatest mistake .Calculate the disaster ,sufferings that will come by the uncontrlled use of fossile fuel. Use of biofuel will enhance the problem nt.by helping contain the rise of carbondioxide,but by creating huge shortage of foodsupply.So all efforts should be to give subsidies to encourage the use of solarcells/energy. Globalwarming is appolitical ,does nt know the political boundaries,it may affect immidiate to the poorer nation first but ultimately will harm entiremankind.Why there are somany hesitations to use the solarenergy/cells.Cost should be taken in factor that entire world economy has to pay which will be much ,much higher than the present cost of difference.
|
"FEED MY TUMMY NOT MY GAS TANK"Author:
Don Brewer
Time: 04/06/2007 09:37
Comment: Ethanol is evil. Actually I think it is a vegan plot to force everyone to stop eating meat and dairy products since the price of all of these will go up too because of all the corn being used for ethanol. Ethanol is not cheaper than gasoline and it will make everything else more expensive. The only ones who benefit are the farmers and really how many small farmers are there anymore it's all big corporations like ADM. Instead of whining about Big Oil, we can whine about Big Corn.
FEED MY TUMMY NOT MY GAS TANK! SAY NO TO ETHANOL! |
"Re: Stockpiles"Author:
Seth Ward
Time: 04/05/2007 22:12
Comment: Thanks for the insight. I wasn't sure if stockpiling was still in practice here or not. This issue is already being blamed for the increased cost of eggs at our bakery in the US, as the cost of corn chicken feed is supposed to be way up. So even if this story is not as urgent as presented, it may affect us more directly than we think.
|
"Biofuels and food"Author:
Daniel Gilman
Time: 04/05/2007 20:16
Comment: Unfortunately there is nothing simple about how biofuels are going to impact food production. The US government stopped stockpiling corn to regulate price years ago (which is why corn prices had been below the cost of production for years) and in any case with ethanol using more than 20% of the total corn crop for this year stockpiles are just a drop in the bucket. Sugarcane can't grow in the Amazon (it needs colder weather to stimulate sugar production) but soybeans can and American farmers are planting less soybeans to grow more corn. Of course the vast majority of both corn and soybeans go to feed cows and livestock not people so even the impact on food prices is not as clear cut as some would make it. Brazil's sugarcane industry is infamous for poor working conditions, but they have set up their biodiesel program with a "Social Fuel Seal" to support small farmers in poor regions. Bioenergy issues meet at the nexus of agriculture, environment, energy and economics and untangling the web to get the real picture isn't easy. We are trying to map it all out at www.bioenergywiki.net, so come by and help us build a sustainable future for bioenergy!
-- The BioenergyWiki (http://www.bioenergywiki.net) |
"Stockpiles?"Author:
Seth Ward
Time: 04/05/2007 04:27
Comment: It would be interesting to know how much corn is stockpiled and wasted each year in order to prop up the price, relative to the amounts discussed here. Can this waste can be diminished or eliminated to address biofuel demand before people are faced with the problems you describe?
|
"Ethanol"Author:
T Cass
Time: 04/05/2007 02:47
Comment: 1) Ethanol is not cost effective when a rigorous analysis of its cost is undertaken, i.e., there is substantial reason to believe oil costs to produce ethanol outweigh the price of the oil for which it substitutes. Simply, it costs more oil to produce ethanol than directly purchasing the oil ethanol replaces.
2) Ethanol as a policy continues to use and increase demand for oil under present production technologies. The policy of ethanol substitution also masks the continued dominance and reliance on oil based economies and technologies and doesn't advance real energy alternatives. |
"Why is it our responsibility?"Author:
Alan Moor
Time: 04/05/2007 02:06
Comment: This article makes the presumption that the US is responsible for Brazilian government policy. I find it a little hard to swallow. If the US had said, "we will import your ethanol, but only if 90% of the profit is handed out to people in tin shacks", I'm sure there would have been an equal outcry about our "meddling" in the internal politics of a sovereign nation. The problems in Brazil are well-documented. The environmental devastation they are allowing to occur dwarfs the global warming "crisis" that is so popular now. Hmmm Maybe CO2 levels are rising so sharply because there are millions fewer hectares of rainforest to convert it to oxygen than there was 10 years ago? No, it has to be the fault of the US. Everything else is.
|
Printable version
Back to top
