Environment News
From "Maple Street Co-op News", June/July 2008
"Robbing Food to Make Fuel"
By Lori Sturtz
The amount of grain it takes to make enough biofuel to fill up the average
SUV can feed one person for a full year. Lester Brown, president of
the Earth Policy Institute (a group promoting an environmentally sustainable
economy), wrote this in The Washington Post (September 2007).
He also said that even if the US converted its whole grain harvest into
ethanol, it would meet less than 16 per cent of its automotive 'needs'.
Brown said the US ethanol boom is "setting the stage for an epic competition...a
battle between the world's 800 million auto owners, who want to maintain
their mobility, and the world's two billion poorest people, who simply
want to survive" (www.alternet.org).
Biofuels are made from agricultural grain crops such as corn, wheat,
potatoes, sugarcane and palm nuts. The sugar and starches from these
grains are fermented to produce ethanol. Animal fats (tallow), vegetable
fats, algae and jatropha trees can be processed into biodiesel. Waste
product oils from the fast food industry are another source of biofuels.
Biofuels are doing more harm than good
It has been claimed that biofuels are better for the environment than
fossil fuels because they produce less greenhouse gases, such as carbon
dioxide (CO2). Corn-based ethanol is said to produce between zero and
30 per cent less carbon than fossil fuels.
However, green groups are now saying that promised lower carbon emissions
have not materialised as a result of biofuel use, and that the reductions
do not justify devastating ripple effects. They say this powerful push
for biofuels has led to a rapid increase in environmentally-stressful
fertiliser usage and worldwide deforestation.
Josh Brandon, agricultural Greenpeace campaigner, says "I think it's
becoming pretty clear across NGOs and in Europe as well as in North
America that biofuels, generally, are becoming more of an environmental
problem than a solution" (www.nationalpost.com).
A study published in Science magazine (March 2008) found that as rainforests
and peat swamp forests are levelled to produce biofuel crops, the net
carbon levels appear worse than from petrol. When emissions inherent
in biofuel production are factored in, ethanol consumption generates
more carbon per gallon than petrol. Conversion of other crops, such
as sugarcane and soy, results in the same problem.
Resource Efficient Agricultural Production Canada (a university think
tank) said in February 2008 that ethanol "won't appreciably reduce greenhouse
gas emissions." Paul Krugman, leading liberal economist with the New
York Times, called "the rise of demon ethanol...a terrible mistake".
Time magazine's cover story in March 2008 was called "The Clean
Energy Scam". Recently, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Right to
Food, labelled biofuels a "crime against humanity" ("Biofuels Go From
Saviour to Villain", Kevin Libin, National Post, Calgary, Canada,
11 April 2008).
Scientists, analysts and world leaders are growing very concerned about
using food to make fuel. Liberals and conservatives alike seem to be
voicing the same concerns. Dennis Avery is director of a conservative
think tank on global food issues at the Hudson Institute in Washington
DC. A few days after Brown's Washington Post piece, he published
a paper that showed how ethanol couldn't provide enough fuel to make
any significant impact on US fuel consumption. He wrote: "The world's
total cropland resources seem totally inadequate to the vast size of
the energy challenge. We would effectively be burning food as fuel in
a world that is not fully well-fed now, and whose food demand will more
than double in the next 40 years." He also wrote that "it would take
more than 546 million acres of US farmland to replace all of our current
gasoline use with corn ethanol" (American crop land only covers about
440 million acres!) (www.alternet.org).
Even if all US farmland was planted with ethanol-producing corn, it
would only replace 12.5 per cent of all US petrol consumption (www.nationalpost.com).
The US government subsidises US corn-belt farmers to grow fuel crops
instead of food crops. The International Monetary Fund found that America's
huge appetite for biofuel has been a major factor in rising commodity
prices. More biofuel crops have led to reductions in food grain production,
and this is pushing up prices. Robert Zoellick, president of the World
Bank, says that rising food prices have put the fight against poverty
back about seven years. He wants countries that subsidise fuel crops
to make big contributions to the World Food Program to provide for emergency
food supplies for the world's poorest people.
Friends of the Earth Executive Director, Tony Juniper, says the production
of grain-based biofuels should be halted due to the very damaging consequences:
"Policymakers have inadvertently created a competition between the drivers
of big vehicles and people who do not have enough to eat" ("Darling
calls for urgent review of biofuel policies", Heather Stewart and Larry
Elliott, The Observer, 13 April 2008).
Robert Bryce, managing editor of US-based magazine Energy Tribune,
says that for those who "worship at the altar of ethanol, no subsidy
is too great, no corn field is too big, as they push their bilge about
the perils of foreign oil." Farmers, politicians and big agriculture
insist that ethanol production benefits rural communities as well as
providing for national security. However, Bryce says there is a bigger
moral issue involved: "...are we going to use our precious farmland
to grow food, or are we going to subsidise the growth of an industry
that turns food into a commodity?" ("Ethanol: Feed a Person for a Year
or Fill Up an SUV", CounterPunch, 5 March 2007, www.alternet.org).
By 2010, global ethanol production is forecast to be close to one per
cent of world fuel consumption. By 2020, 400 million tonnes of grain
will be burned as biofuel. The UN's environment program estimates that
world food production will have to increase by 110 per cent to meet
food demands in the next 40 years. Research has found that at the same
time half of the planet could be in drought. As soon as 2025, water
shortage may result in annual losses of 350 million tonnes of food (the
equivalent of losing today's world rice harvest!) ("Drought, population
and biofuels threaten food supplies", Daniella Miletic, The Age,
18 January 2008).
Increased biofuel production is not the only reason for rising food
costs, but it is more controllable than drought in Australia, increased
fertiliser costs or higher meat consumption in China.
Biofuels in Australia
Deborah O'Connell, CSIRO sustainable ecosystems analyst, says that currently
there is no food versus fuel debate in Australia, but that as the Australian
biofuel industry "grew then it could cut into food supplies" ("Biofuels
look beyond setbacks", Brendan O'Keefe, Weekend Australian
26-27 April 2008).
Bruce Harrison, CEO of the Australian Biofuels Association, says that
one hope for the biofuel industry is microalgae. Microalgae are single-celled
microscopic organisms that use photosynthesis to produce energy. The
Federal Government has announced $15 million for research and development
grants for second-generation fuels such as microalgae. Flinders University
chemist and biodiesel expert, Stephen Clarke, says that the right strain
grown in the right conditions, in theory, could produce about the same
amount of fuel as agricultural crops using 30 times less land. Microalgae
can grow in salt water, sequestering carbon dioxide. It costs about
$5 a litre to produce, but Clarke believes it could be competing with
petrol prices in two to three years.
Grasses are another source of biofuel. O'Connell says that corn crops
use a lot of water and nitrogen for small amounts of fuel. If fuel grasses
can be grown on low-production land, she says that the value adding
is high. However, a report released in 2007 by the Invasive Species
Council (ISC) warned about the weed risks of many of these grasses.
ISC spokesperson and author Tim Low wrote the report, which assessed
the weed risks of 18 proposed biofuel species. He said: "Australia should
not try to solve one environmental problem by creating another. In Australia,
seven considered biofuel plants are banned noxious weeds. Two species
(giant reed and spartina) appear on the World Conservation Union's List
of 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Species."
The ISC wants all proposed biofuel plants to be assessed first for environmental
impact. Low has said that "disappointingly, Australian governments and
biofuel experts have so far failed to acknowledge that the weed risk
exists, an unacceptable situation."
In the US, many seemingly benign crops have become invasive species.
One example is Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), which causes up to
US$30 million in cotton and soy crop losses a year. A proposed biofuel
crop, miscanthus can grow up to 2.4 metres in six weeks and is described
as "Johnson grass on steroids". These invasive species alter ecosystems
that may cause ecological and economic harm (www.terradaily.com/reports/Biofuel).
The Cuban solution
So what is the solution to our energy needs if it is not biofuels? We
need to drive less and adopt more energy efficient lifestyles for starters.
We also need to prioritise sustainable development. We need to adopt
food production methods that do not depend so much on fossil fuels.
Organic farming practices alleviate our need for petrol-derived pesticides
and fertilisers. Small-scale farming systems need to be developed so
that we are less dependent on oil.
Cuba is the only country in the world to have achieved this to date.
Cubans farm organically and do not use more resources than are sustainable.
Not that long ago, they were also dependent on large-scale machinery
and petroleum-based pesticides and fertilisers. With the collapse of
the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba risked widespread hunger as oil imports
decreased by 53 per cent. The Cuban government announced the Special
Period in Peacetime in the same year. After a nationwide discussion
with millions of Cubans, they decided to convert the high input agriculture
with low input, self-reliant farming methods. In 1993 the government
launched the "linking the people with the land" program. By 1998, around
Havana alone, there were 8,000 urban farms and gardens run by 30,000
people ("Cuba's green revolution: threat of a good example", Zoe Kenny,
Green Left Weekly, 16 February 2007).
Cuba's loss of oil imports contributed to a growing awareness of energy
conservation and led to government initiatives in renewable energy and
energy efficiency. Transportation became more energy efficient, with
government subsidies to encourage people to use public transport and
bicycles; 2006 was declared the year of the "energy revolution". Research
into renewable energy, such as solar, wind, thermo-oceanic and biomass
has been undertaken.
Cuba's example shows us what is possible given the political will. However
most of these achievements have been ignored by corporate media and
Western politicians. Many believe this is because the success of Cuba's
organic agriculture represents a threat to the multi-billion dollar
agribusiness interests.
The Cuban experience shows us a reality that can spread to other countries
around the world. It proves that it is not only possible but that it
is already happening. The success of our future will depend on self-sufficiency,
decentralisation and relocalisation - not biofuels that will inevitably
deprive people of food.
[From "Maple Street Co-op News", June/July 2008; published by The Maple
Street Co-operative Society Ltd, 37 Maple Street, Maleny, Qld 4552,
Australia, tel (07) 5494 2088, email maplest.co-op@serv.net.au,
website http://www.maplestreetco-op.com.au]