by afew
Tue Mar 27th, 2007 at 08:57:19 AM EST
It seems that not a week goes by without a warning being sounded, from one quarter or another, against the massive adoption of first-generation biofuels for vehicles - that has already been decided on by the US government and by the European Commission
George Monbiot, always an opponent of biofuels, has another crack at them today in The Guardian:
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | George Monbiot: If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels
In 2004 I warned, on these pages, that biofuels would set up a competition for food between cars and people. The people would necessarily lose: those who can afford to drive are richer than those who are in danger of starvation. It would also lead to the destruction of rainforests and other important habitats. <...> Well in one respect I was wrong. I thought these effects wouldn't materialise for many years. They are happening already.
Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year". According to the UN food and agriculture organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from maize and wheat.
Well, we could add that hot summers probably due to global warming have been responsible, over the last few years, for a fall in wheat yields, but otherwise it's essentially correct that demand for ethanol is tightening the market. (See what's happening to China on this score).
More from Monbiot:
Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum. The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022. Just five years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn't happen until 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into biodiesel for the European market. This is now the main cause of deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the extinction of the orang-utan in the wild.But it gets worse. As the forests are burned, both the trees and the peat they sit on are turned into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times as much as petroleum produces. I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.
There are similar impacts all over the world. Sugarcane producers are moving into rare scrubland habitats (the cerrado) in Brazil, and soya farmers are ripping up the Amazon rainforests. As President Bush has just signed a biofuel agreement with President Lula, it's likely to become a lot worse.
If you think Monbiot doth protest too much, there's food for thought in the Washington Post:
Economist: Biofuel May Raise Food Prices - washingtonpost.com
LINCOLN, Neb. -- Increased production of biofuels such as ethanol might help farmers' bottom lines and address climate-change concerns, but it could inflate food prices worldwide, warns a former White House economist.
"Worldwide, especially in developing countries ... food price increases are definitely something we're going to have to come to grips with," said David Sunding, who served on former President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers.
And this too:
Corn Can't Solve Our Problem - washingtonpost.com
Some biofuels, if properly produced, do have the potential to provide climate-friendly energy, but where and how can we grow them? Our most fertile lands are already dedicated to food production. As demand for both food and energy increases, competition for fertile lands could raise food prices enough to drive the poorer third of the globe into malnourishment. The destruction of rainforests and other ecosystems to make new farmland would threaten the continued existence of countless animal and plant species and would increase the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
David Tilman, one of the authors of the latter piece, was online for a discussion here: Outlook: The Negligible Benefits of Food-Based Biofuels
Focusing on Current Ethanol Sources Could Raise Food Prices, Hurt the Environment -- and Make Almost No Impact on Fossil Fuel Use.
I've been seeing some of the other aspect of unsustainability - the effect of biofuel production on agricultural practice in the developed world - here in maize-producing South-West France. With the prices they see dangling in front of their noses, farmers are planning to increase maize production. They can do that by increasing surface (getting permission to plough fallow, for example), but they're also hoping to count on GM corn. At a recent town-hall meeting I attended, they were talking of 10-20% yield increases thanks to Monsanto's BT corn. They didn't mention that those 10-20% will have to be fed by increased inputs of petro-chemicals, increased energy use in work and haulage, and (perhaps most important here) increased abuse of water resources. And, of course, that they meant to go right on with a monoculture which is degrading the soil...
