stuffed and starved logo
Four Lies about AgroFuels

 

Four Lies about AgroFuels

My mate Eric Holt-Gimenez, exec director at FoodFirst, has just published a splendid piece in the International Herald Tribune (original here in which he knocks down the following lies:

  • Biofuels are clean and green.
  • Biofuels will not result in deforestation.
  • Biofuels will bring rural development.
  • Biofuels will not cause hunger.

It's a fine take-down, and one that I know he won't mind if I repost here.
_____________________

The Biofuel Myths

International Herald Tribune
By Eric Holt-Giménez
Published: July 10, 2007

The term "biofuels" suggests renewable abundance: clean, green, sustainable assurance about technology and progress. This pure image allows industry, politicians, the World Bank, the United Nations and even the International Panel on Climate Change to present fuels made from corn, sugarcane, soy and other crops as the next step in a smooth transition from peak oil to a yet-to-be-defined renewable fuel economy.

But in reality, biofuel draws its power from cornucopian myths and directs our attention away from economic interests that would benefit from the transition, while avoiding discussion of the growing North-South food and energy imbalance.

They obscure the political-economic relationships between land, people, resources and food, and fail to help us understand the profound consequences of the industrial transformation of our food and fuel systems. "Agro-fuels" better describes the industrial interests behind the transformation, and is the term most widely used in the global South

Industrialized countries started the biofuels boom by demanding ambitious renewable-fuel targets. These fuels are to provide 5.75 percent of Europe's transport power by 2010 and 10 percent by 2020. The United States wants 35 billion gallons a year.

These targets far exceed the agricultural capacities of the industrial North. Europe would need to plant 70 percent of its farmland with fuel crops. The entire corn and soy harvest of the United States would need to be processed as ethanol and biodiesel. Converting most arable land to fuel crops would destroy the food systems of the North, so the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development countries are looking to the South to meet demand.

The rapid capitalization and concentration of power within the biofuels industry is extreme. Over the past three years, venture capital investment in biofuels has increased by 800 percent. Private investment is swamping public research institutions.

Behind the scenes, under the noses of most national antitrust laws, giant oil, grain, auto and genetic engineering corporations are forming partnerships, and they are consolidating the research, production, processing and distribution chains of food and fuel systems under one industrial roof.

Biofuel champions assure us that because fuel crops are renewable, they are environment-friendly, can reduce global warming and will foster rural development. But the tremendous market power of biofuel corporations, coupled with the poor political will of governments to regulate their activities, make this unlikely. We need a public enquiry into the myths:

Biofuels are clean and green.

Because photosynthesis performed by fuel crops removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and can reduce fossil fuel consumption, we are told they are green. But when the full lifecycle of biofuels is considered, from land clearing to consumption, the moderate emission savings are outweighed by far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation and soil-carbon losses.

Every ton of palm oil generates 33 tons of carbon dioxide emissions - 10 times more than petroleum. Tropical forests cleared for sugar cane ethanol emit 50 percent more greenhouse gases than the production and use of the same amount of gasoline.

Biofuels will not result in deforestation.

Proponents of biofuels argue that fuel crops planted on ecologically degraded lands will improve rather than destroy the environment. Perhaps the government of Brazil had this in mind when it reclassified some 200 million hectares of dry-tropical forests, grassland and marshes as degraded and apt for cultivation.

In reality, these are the biodiverse ecosystems of the Atlantic Forest, the Cerrado and the Pantanal, occupied by indigenous people, subsistence farmers and extensive cattle ranches. The introduction of agrofuel plantations will push these communities to the agricultural frontier of the Amazon where the devastating patterns of deforestation are well known.

Soybeans supply 40 percent of Brazil's biofuels. NASA has correlated their market price with the destruction of the Amazon rainforest - currently at nearly 325,000 hectares a year.

Biofuels will bring rural development.

In the tropics, 100 hectares dedicated to family farming generates 35 jobs. Oil-palm and sugarcane provide 10 jobs, eucalyptus two, and soybeans a scant half-job per 100 hectares, all poorly paid.

Until recently, biofuels supplied primarily local and subregional markets. Even in the United States, most ethanol plants were small and farmer-owned. With the boom, big industry is moving in, centralizing operations and creating gargantuan economies of scale.

Biofuels producers will be dependent on a cabal of companies for their seed, inputs, services, processing and sale. They are not likely to receive many benefits. Small holders will be forced out of the market and off the land. Hundreds of thousands have already been displaced by the soybean plantations in the "Republic of Soy," a 50-million hectare area in southern Brazil, northern Argentina, Paraguay and eastern Bolivia.

Biofuels will not cause hunger.

Hunger results not from scarcity, but poverty. The world's poorest already spend 50 to 80 percent of household income on food. They suffer when high fuel prices push up food prices. Now, because food and fuel crops compete for land and resources, both increase the price of land and water.

The International Food Policy Research Institute has estimated that the price of basic staples will increase 20 to 33 percent by 2010 and 26 to 135 percent by 2020. Caloric consumption declines as price rises by a ratio of 1:2.

Limits must be placed on the biofuels industry. The North cannot shift the burden of overconsumption to the South because the tropics have more sunlight, rain and arable land. If biofuels are to be forest- and food-friendly, the grain, cane and palm oil industries need to be regulated, and not piecemeal.

Strong, enforceable standards based on limiting land planted for biofuels are urgently needed, as are antitrust laws powerful enough to prevent the corporate concentration of market power in the industry. Sustainable benefits to the countryside will only accrue if biofuels are a complement to plans for sustainable rural development, not the centerpiece.

A global moratorium on the expansion of biofuels is needed to develop regulatory structures and foster conservation and development alternatives to the transition. We need the time to make a better transition to food and fuel sovereignty.

Eric Holt-Giménez is executive director of the Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy. This article was distributed by Agence Global.

Raj's blog | login to post comments

| | | |


Posted on 11 July, 2007 - 08:05

Submitted by watches (not verified) on 16 September, 2009 - 07:13.

replica watches

Discount Watches, Fashion Watches, Wristwatch, Fake Watch, Wholesale Watches, Jewelry Watches, Replica Jewelry Watches. After days of searching through the net I came across Patek Philippe Watches this beautifully done website which grabbed my Replica Rado attention. The watches displayed on replica watches this website Replica Piaget Watch are beautiful, you Omega Fake Watch shall find almost all the famous brand names of Replica wrist watches Jacob & Co. Replica Watches here. The layout of that website is well done which makes it easier for the customer to select his brand of watch and also selecting a particular watch in that given brand. The price of the replica watches watches displayed on www.buy-replicas.com are reasonable and I guess most of us can afford it.

Submitted by Ankit Mittal (not verified) on 13 May, 2008 - 10:44.

AGFLATION

Agflation \ag-flay-shun\ , the new kid on the block, as far as economics terminology goes. It is defined as-“the rising cost of food and drinks attributed to higher demand for biofuels made from agricultural products.” Biofuels are plant based liquid fuels like ethanol that could potentially take the place of petroleum. Its proponents see plant power as a way to break the whole worlds dependence on oil and produce auto fuel that is not harmful to the climate and can mitigate the effects of auto pollution on climate change. But biofuels which are distilled from crops like maize, corn & sugar cane are a blind alley, one that drives up food prices without saving the earth. Also, edible oils made from soybeans, mustard and sunflower are being mixed with diesel. Global cultivated land cannot be increased, so crops once devoted to human consumption are being fed into automobiles. This necessarily affects food supply and prices. Different countries have made different commitments to blend these biofuels with petroleum and diesel. While Brazil the world leader in biofluels uses 100% ethanol to run 40% of its cars, US is committed toward 15% , EU 5.75% and India 5%.

In the US, ethanol is made entirely from maize and corn. The area under maize has shot up from 78 million acres in 2006 to 87 million hectares in 2007. Ethanol swallowed a quarter of 2007’s US maize production. Ethanol demand has reduced maize stocks to 25-year lows relative to consumption. No wonder the price of maize has more than doubled in the last 24 months. The ripple effect has been felt on the prices of chicken and pork, which are typically fed on maize.

In late 2006, the price of flour in Mexico, which gets 80 percent of its corn imports from the United States, doubled thanks partly to a rise in U.S. corn prices from $2.80 to $4.20 a bushel over the previous several months. With about half of Mexico's 107 million people living in poverty and relying on flour products as the main source of calories, the public outcry was fierce. In January 2007, Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón, was forced to cap the prices of corn products.

Some economists suggest that cultivable land may be fixed in the short run but can be expanded significantly in the medium run. But guess where would this land come from?
Clearing forests of course. Brazil plans to clear millions of acres of forests to cultivate more sugarcanes and soybeans. Already large sections of the Amazon have been cut down. That too when 20% of world’s carbon emissions come from carbon released into atmosphere via deforestation. So the whole purpose of shifting towards “greener fuels” is defeated. Also these crops, now destined for our cars, are eating into the cultivable land that was previously meant to be cultivated for food, for farmers find it more profitable.

And in our typical fashion the Indian government is following the suite. Why? Well, because the West is doing so! In India, where every inch of land is fought over, it would be unrealistic for the government to expect more than a token shift to ethanol producing crops. So the whole policy falls flat on its face.

The International Food Policy Research Institute, in Washington, D.C., has produced sobering estimates of the potential global impact of the rising demand for biofuels. The rapid increase in global biofuel production will push global corn prices up by 20 percent by 2010 and 41 percent by 2020. The prices of oilseeds, including soybeans, rapeseeds, and sunflower seeds, are projected to rise by 26 percent by 2010 and 76 percent by 2020, and wheat prices by 11 percent by 2010 and 30 percent by 2020. In the poorest parts of sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where cassava is a staple, its price is expected to increase by 33 percent by 2010 and 135 percent by 2020. The projected price increases may be mitigated if crop yields increase substantially or ethanol production based on other raw materials (such as trees and grasses) becomes commercially viable. But unless biofuel policies change significantly, neither development is likely.

The production of cassava-based ethanol may pose an especially grave threat to the food security of the world's poor. Cassava, a tropical potato-like tuber also known as manioc, provides one-third of the caloric needs of the population in sub-Saharan Africa and is the primary staple for over 200 million of Africa's poorest people. In many tropical countries, it is the food people turn to when they cannot afford anything else. It also serves as an important reserve when other crops fail because it can grow in poor soils and dry conditions and can be left in the ground to be harvested as needed.

European Union has mandated that biofuels should account for 5.75% of transport fuel by 2010. In Europe though, good sense seems to be prevailing with a large section of EU MPs now airing doubts over the benefits of ethanol and seem convinced that going forward with ethanol would only produce counterproductive effects in the fight against global warming.

In Indonesia forests are fast disappearing ironically against a fast growing alternative-energy business. Palm oil is used for cooking and as a food additive. Growing it has long been a big business in South East Asia. But it can also be used in the production of a relatively ‘clean-burning’ alternative fuel: biodiesel. As oil prices have soared in recent years, Indonesian companies have been converting vast tracts of forests into palm-oil plantation to feed automobiles. Between 1995 and 2005 land under palm-oil plantations

has increased by 8.6 million acres (more than double). The biodiesel boom has high environment cost. Tropical forests help remove millions of tones of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year. Burning and clear-cutting not only eliminates one of the
planet’s crucial air-filtration systems, the process also releases even more carbon dioxide into the air, in smoke or as gases released during the decomposition of forest waste.

Fidel Castro describes the biofuel industry as a "colossal squandering of cereals destined to fuel production" which undermines the broad objective of combating poverty and famine in the developing World.

The world's poorest people already spend 50 to 80 percent of their total household income on food. For the many among them who are landless laborers or rural subsistence farmers, large increases in the prices of staple foods will mean malnutrition and hunger. Some of them will tumble over the edge of subsistence into outright starvation, and many more will die from a multitude of hunger-related diseases.
The future can be brighter if the right steps are taken now. Limiting our dependence on fossil fuels requires a comprehensive energy-conservation program. Rather than promoting more mandates, tax breaks, and subsidies for biofuels, the government should make a major commitment to substantially increasing energy efficiency in vehicles, homes, and factories; promoting alternative sources of energy, such as solar and wind power; and investing in research to improve agricultural productivity and raise the efficiency of fuels derived from cellulose. World’s fixation on food-based biofuel has distorted the global agenda and diverted its attention from developing a broad and balanced strategy.

ANKIT MITTAL