Global Rush To Energy Crops Threatens To Bring Food Shortages and Increase Poverty, Says UN
· Winners and Losers In Huge Biofuel Industry· Oil Price Will Stabilize But Small Farmers at Risk
The global rush to switch from oil to energy derived from plants will drive deforestation, push small farmers off the land and lead to serious food shortages and increased poverty unless carefully managed, says the most comprehensive survey yet completed of energy crops.
The United Nations report, compiled by all 30 of the world organization's agencies, points to crops like palm oil, maize, sugar cane, soya and jatropha. Rich countries want to see these extensively grown for fuel as a way to reduce their own climate changing emissions. Their production could help stabilize the price of oil, open up new markets and lead to higher commodity prices for the poor.
But the UN urges governments to beware their human and environmental impacts, some of which could have irreversible consequences.
The report, which predicts winners and losers, will be studied carefully by the emerging multi-billion dollar a year biofuel industry which wants to provide as much as 25% of the world's energy within 20 years.
Global production of energy crops is doubling every few years, and 17 countries have so far committed themselves to growing the crops on a large scale.
Last year more than a third of the entire US maize crop went to ethanol for fuel, a 48% increase on 2005, and Brazil and China grew the crops on nearly 50m acres of land. The EU has said that 10% of all fuel must come from biofuels by 2020. Biofuels can be used in place of petrol and diesel and can play a part in reducing emissions from transport.
On the positive side, the UN says that the crops have the potential to reduce and stabilize the price of oil, which could be very beneficial to poor countries. But it acknowledges that forests are already being felled to provide the land to grow vast plantations of palm oil trees. Environment groups argue strongly that this is catastrophic for the climate, and potentially devastating for forest animals like orangutans in Indonesia.
The UN warns: "Where crops are grown for energy purposes the use of large scale cropping could lead to significant biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching. Even varied crops could have negative impacts if they replace wild forests or grasslands."
But the survey's findings are mixed on whether the crops will benefit or penalize poor countries, where most of the crops are expected to be grown in future. One school of thought argues that they will take the best land, which will increase global food prices. This could benefit some farmers but penalize others and also increase the cost of emergency food aid.
"Expanded production [of biofuel crops] adds uncertainty. It could also increase the volatility of food prices with negative food security implications", says the report which was complied by UN-Energy.
"The benefits to farmers are not assured, and may come with increased costs. [Growing biofuel crops] can be especially harmful to farmers who do not own their own land, and to the rural and urban poor who are net buyers of food, as they could suffer from even greater pressure on already limited financial resources.
"At their worst, biofuel programs can also result in a concentration of ownership that could drive the world's poorest farmers off their land and into deeper poverty," it says.
According to the report, the crops could transform the rural economy of rich and poor countries, attracting major new players and capital, but potentially leading to problems. "Large investments are already signaling the emergence of a new bio-economy, pointing to the possibility that still larger companies will enter the rural economy, putting the squeeze on farmers by controlling the price paid to producers and owning the rest of the value train," it says.
The report also says the crops are not guaranteed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Producing and using biofuels results in some reductions in emissions compared to petroleum fuels, it says, but this is provided there is no clearing of forest or peat that store centuries of carbon.
"More and more people are realizing that there are serious environmental and food security issues involved in biofuels. Climate change is the most serious issue, but you cannot fight climate change by large scale deforestation," said Jan van Aken, of Greenpeace International in Amsterdam.
"Bioenergy provides us with an extraordinary opportunity to address climate change, energy security and rural development. [But] investments need to be planned carefully to avoid generating new environmental and social problems," said Achim Steiner, executive director of UN Environment program yesterday.
Plant power
Biomass energy can be obtained from just about any plant or tree but is most commonly obtained from maize, soya beans, oil palms, sugar cane, sunflower and trees. The carbohydrates in the biomass, which are comprised of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen, can be broken down into a variety of chemicals, some of which are useful fuels. At its simplest, plant matter is simply burned but much of the energy is wasted and it can cause pollution. So, the plant is either heated and refined to break down into gases, fermented and turned into grain alcohol or ethanol, or chemically converted to make into biodiesel.
© 2007 The Guardian
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
25 Comments so far
Show AllTo scottdw
Yow! I wonder if that factor of ten estimate that I heard was way too low!!
This year, during what I call allergy Hell season, I tried completely cutting out all dairy products, and the allergy problem, while still there, was far less of a problem. Other people in my family are having it a lot worse than I am. I was already eating a lot less dairy than I used to, but, at least for me, zero seems to be the optimum amount.
Maybe it's time to go vegan. All the things in your letter apply to dairy, as well.
Great Gregory:
Give me an example of how we as a society would institute population limits?
Like China does?
Or do you incentivize non-procreation? As it is right now, we incentize procreation with tax deductions, AFDC, social welfare & other programs which encourage us to go forth and multiply.
What's a workable solution in your estimation?
Dave Harpe -
Are you familiar with the UN report: Livestock's Long Shadow? Here is an overview of what the UN study found:
Atmospheric Damage
Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in
CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. In addition to CO2, environmentally
toxic gases produced by livestock include nitrous oxide, methane, and ammonia generated from
the animals' intestines—belching, flatus, and manure. The report says "The impact is so severe that it needs
to be addressed with urgency."
Livestock:
ô€„ Produces 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming
Potential (GWP) of CO2.
ô€„ Accounts for 37 percent of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2).
ô€„ Generates 64 percent of the ammonia, which contributes to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.
Land Damage
ô€„
The total area occupied by grazing livestock is equivalent to 26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial
surface of the planet. In addition, the total area dedicated to producing feed crops for these animals
ô€„
Clearing forests to create new pastures is a major source of deforestation, especially in Latin America
where, for example, some 70 percent of former rainforests in the Amazon have been turned over
to grazing. The forests are the major "sinks" for removing the greenhouse gases from the atmos-
Water Damage
The livestock business is among the most serious users of the earth's increasingly scarce water resources;
in addition, contributing to water pollution, excessive growth of organisms, depletion of oxygen, and the de-
ô€„ The major water-polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries,
fertilizers, and the pesticides used to spray feed crops.
ô€„
In the United States livestock is responsible for 55 percent of the erosion and sediment, 37 percent
of the pesticide use, 50 percent of the antibiotic use, and a third of the load of nitrogen and phos-
ô€„ Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground
water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
Species Loss
ô€„
Livestock's very presence in vast tracts of land and its demand for feed crops also contribute to loss
of other plants and animals; livestock is identified as a culprit in 15 out of 24 important ecosystems
that are assessed as in decline.
This was an excerpt from Dr. McDougall's newsletter from December 2006. You can find more at:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/dec/061200.htm
Not all biofuel crops are food crops or use food crop ready soils. For example jatropha grows on land that is unproper for food crops and is not a food crop itself. The problem with this crop is its toxicity but it's a minor problem that can be solved by equipping the people who work with this plant with the right gear.
I think the first step towards sustainable biofuel production is to make sure that the biofuel is first produced and consumed at a local level in small scale production facilities before being shipped across the world.
Our association www.oliomobile.org helps to developp this small scale production projects in Africa. The main target is to make sure the production does not go for biodiesel or ethanol production as this is energy inefficient and kills the local consumption by the high price of the final product. We are trying to make sure the biofuel is used pure as SVO in order to limit the processing to the strict necessary. Obviously this is not supported by bigger biofuel insutries as they are set aside in this production method.
www.oliomobile.org
www.oliomap.com
Industrial Hemp.
If this sounds like a long hair tie die t-shirt solution for what is wrong with society you better think again.
Anyway you look at it industrial hemp provides a reasonable solution for the production of biofuel (seed and leaves)as well as paper fiber (stalks), cloth (stalks) and even plywood (stalks) without supplanting the crops normally used for food. Depending on the type of food crops grown industrial hemp may benefit if used as a rotational crop like alfalfa.
The amount of energy needed for the cultivation of industrial hemp is far lower than that of many of its competitors. Before it was eradicated, by the federal government, from the hills, prairies and deserts of the united States it was almost everywhere. If it could grow abundantly without efforts to cultivate it imagine what it could do as a cash crop for struggling nations and economies.
I would not be surprised if Monsanto has a "Roundup Ready" version in their seed bank waiting to be released upon the world.
One thing that can be done that would be better than making straight corn ethanol, would be to follow what the state of Florida is doing. We already have plans to build an ethanol plant, and it will eventually run off of celulosic ethanol. That is ethanol derived from corn and sugar cane wastes as well as other things such as mulch waste. That sounds alot more usefull to me than raising food prices and having shortages due to feeding our cars and not our people.
Fossil fuel industry launches massive PR war against biofuels:
The greatest short-term threat to the fossil fuel industry is the loss of market share due to biofuels. However, there are conflicting interests here, as the same banks that control oil corporations also control the world's largest agriculture corporations.
ExxonMobile and Archer Daniels Midlands are tied together via Barclays Bank, UK (and many others). Barclays is trying to manage the situation by making sure that all biofuel production is controlled by its subsidiaries and holdings; other banks are following the same strategy.
How did the banks get control of all the agricultural land? Well, there was this thing called "The Great Depression" in the 1930s, during which banks foreclosed on farmers all across the United States... (a practice that was repeated during the Reagan years) resulting in the current situation, where most farmland is under the control of banks, who have also sponsored factory farming of hogs, cattle and chickens... and who use immigrants as their indentured low cost servants, all while collecting massive subsidy checks from the US government.
Go and watch "Fast Food Nation" for all the gory details.
P.S. for about the 100th time, the corn prices in Mexico are due to manipulation of the market by the likes of Cargill under NAFTA trade rules and have absolutely nothing to do with ethanol production. Cargill undercut the market with cheap US corn produced using subsidies, and now that they've driven all the small Mexican farmers off their land and over the border to work on Cargill land in the US, they've jacked up the profits: corner the market, jack the price. Get your facts right, please!
Human folly has been taken to a new level.
Plant crops to feed cars. Make humans compete with machines for food. Expand agriculture and replace all natural ecosystems with monoculture to feed the beast.
Now we take delusion to a new level…tell the world we will reduce GHGs.
We can't reduce GHGs when we are destroying natural carbon sinks on a wholesale basis. It also takes massive carbon inputs to grow the biomass for fuel. The crops need fertilizer and herbicides, both are petrochemical based. The machines that till the fields and harvest the crops run on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are used to transport the product to refineries. More fossil fuels are used to transport the finished product to consumers. In addition, the lower cost gasoline, if in fact that happens, will encourage more driving and more GHGs. Every step of the process burns more fossil fuels. The result is a net increase in GHGs.
This is no different than the drunk who thinks he can sober-up by taking another drink. If we were smart, we would limit population and phase out the automobile, not encourage more unsustainable consumption.
Thank you for information about Terra Preta, black earth. who's resulting product, black carbon, known as bio-char, reduces the need for fertilizers and can also be used as a fuel"
We must seek sustainable solutions and live more simbiotically; it is the responsibility of human freedom.
Everybody needs to watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" if you haven't already.
Biofuels are a scam, it takes more fossil fuel to refine and transport ethanol than what is produced. Agro-business and oil companies teamed up to buy off government for huge subsidies for biofuel, because biofuels increase the price of food leading to higher profit margins for agro-business, and increase the price of oil because more oil is used to make ethanol.
Even if it is a TINY BIT better for CO2 emissions (which is debatable) the "7.5 billion gallons of ethanol mandated by the 2005 Energy Bill by 2012 could be compensated by an increase of car mileage by just one mile per gallon, excluding gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks." - http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BFOA.php
Remember, Bush SUPPORTS biofuels... how many things has Bush supported that has been good for the American people? (It's hard to think of anything)
Bush does NOT support electric cars. The DOJ under Bush Administration filed an Amicus Brief supporting Auto-Manufacturers when they sued California for requiring them (by law) to manufacture electric cars. Bush replaced all initiatives to develop electrics, with HYDROGEN, he gave $1.5 billion in handouts to auto-manufacturers just to look into Hydrogen when they had wonderful working electric cars and SUVs like this...
http://geeklimit.com/2006/05/09/i-drive-a-30k-80mph-166mpg-suv/
Biofuels are the second scam. Auto-companies needed another scam after it was obvious no progress is going to be made on the "Hydrogen economy", another absurd scam-based technology.
Transportation based on electricity is the first step to being completely free of fossil fuels. It's either switch to electricity, go back to the transportation system of the 1800s, or everyone dies from climate change. Those are the options.
Cap wealth/power direct democratically.
Unlike fossil fuels, biofuels provide a great opportunity to help emancipate and strengthen local economies worldwide. The range of benefits in shifting energy production away from the establishment toward small, independent, sustainable enterprises is great. La Via Campesina seems to be a good organization to work through, and internet sites like Journey to Forever are good information resources.
Individuals may support through their trade habits several key goals: Keep land ownership highly distributed, enforce efficient and sustainable energy production/consumption methods, and limit consumption. The power and responsibility are always in the hands of the people. "we must be the change we wish to see in the world" -Ghandi.
collidingrivers, just go for it. Plant your own biofuel crops. Ultimately you have to exercise perseverence and dedication to fully emancipate yourself from the establishment. Everyone should do it. It builds character. It seems Tesla was more interested in serving people while Edison and Westinghouse were more interested in buttressing the establishment.
moonraven, your concern about biofuels displacing food crops is very important. First and foremost, we want land and food sovereignty worldwide, plus other rights. The model to communicate the desired policy goal might be this: Half of humanity should be able to secure a small plot of viable land to provide for one's self plus produce a cash crop. Governments subsidize service industries that increase the efficiencies of this mode of production. The farmer produces his own biofuel. The cash crop can be biofuels or something else.
The internal combustion engine is highly beneficial to societies in some very specific areas of application. So a limited amount of biofuel production is a good idea. This is true for things in general. Things fall apart to the extent that you allow the capitalist beast to influence things. One of the challenges is to disseminate the information so that people can effectively uphold their civic responsibility in their trade.
"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." - Jefferson
We can trust the capitalist system to come up with solutions that are profitable and destructive
Addiction to oil = addiction to transport. Replacing one mechanism to fuel a treatable addiction with another will only make a small dent in the gw trend. To make a serious impact, for our grandchildren to survive in a livable world, requires a complete change in lifestyle.
"Environment groups argue strongly that this is catastrophic for the climate, and potentially devastating for forest animals like orangutans in Indonesia."
Seriously, it looks like animals will be the first to hit the top of the human population curve. Where are the hundreds of mammals that are going extinct in the outcry against human suffering?
If we had a limitless and exponentially increasing supply of energy and could keep raising the roof on the population, would we? The answer is yes, because we have no choice. Humanitarian reasons keep us locked into this course. Given that, it is only logical that eventually humans will all live in massive high-rises in 5x5x5 cubicles.
Whatever happens, the top of the population curve means human suffering and poverty.
We need to IMPEACH Bush over this! Cheney is to blame! Alberto Gonzales is behind this madness! JAIL RUMSFELD!
Will it EVER stop? Geeze! If the current administration does ANYTHING, or NOTHING ~ it doesn't matter. They are to blame for the crisis, real or imagined! I mean, honestly, if this administration did not actively explore the option of bio-fuels, the headline would read: BUSH REFUSES TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE FUELS!
I'm no big Bush supporter, but I do tire of reading headline after headline of monday morning quarterbacks who line up to second guess every decision or action. Typically, with no alternatives!
I know we're headed for at least four years of a Democratic administration, I've already surrendered to that concept ~ but you know what? It'll be the same damn thing over again. Corruption, scandal & waste. Will they have any better ideas? No. Will they get their time in the breech to try and come up with some solutions? Yes. Will we all be there to pick apart every move and missed step? Yes.
I figure after four years of President Pelosi ~ we'll be ready for change again!
By the way, animals are conscious beings, no doubt about it. Just because they can't talk does not mean it's OK to treat them the way we do now.
There is a way to greatly increase food supplies without using GMOs or any other weird technologies, and it will make you healthier, and it is easier on the environment as well. It can even save you money. It takes 10 times as much land, water, and other resources to produce a pound of meat than it does to produce a pound of vegetables, including high protien stuff such as soy beans and hemp seed. If all Americans, Australians, eastern Europeans, and others who eat a heavily meat based diet could reduce meat consumption to 20 percent of what they consume now, there would be plenty of food for everyone. I consume way less than that, and my health is a lot better than it used to be. Just a thought.
Both Fidel Castro (in several long articles públished recently here in Latin America) and Hugo Chavez have been warning about the immorality of feeding cars instead of people.
In both Venezuela and Cuba there have been pilot ethanol projects based on sugar cane.
I live in a cane growing state in central Mexico, and know full well the damage cane does to fields that could be used for growing real food crops.
Bio-fuel
It is not necessary to use food crops, or destroy natural habitat to supplement our addiction to oil.
It seems counter intuitive, but making bio-char from crop residue creates energy, sequesters carbon, and enhances soil.
Research the links below for Terra Preta 'technology' for potential to alleviate climate change and aid sustainable development of food and fuel.
Terra Preta is Portuguese for black earth. "Rich black soil – terra preta – was created by humans up to 4000 years ago in infertile regions of the Amazon. The high nutrient content of terra preta is recreated today by low-temperature slow burning pyrolysis of biomass. The resulting product, black carbon, known as bio-char, reduces the need for fertilizers. It can also be used as a fuel." (1.)
"Inspired by the fascinating properties of Terra Preta de Indio, bio-char is a soil amendment that has the potential to revolutionize concepts of soil management. While "discovered" may not be the right word, as bio-char (also called charcoal or biomass-derived black carbon, recently in context of agricultural application also named agri-char) has been used in traditional agricultural practices as well as in modern horticulture, never before has evidence been accumulating that demonstrates so convincingly that bio-char has very specific and unique properties that make it stand out among the opportunities for sustainable soil management.
The benefits of bio-char rest on two pillars:
1- The extremely high affinity of nutrients to bio-char
2- The extremely high persistence of bio-char
These two properties (which are truly extraordinary - see details below) can be used effectively to address some of the most urgent environmental problems of our time:
1- Soil degradation and food insecurity
2- Water pollution from agro-chemicals
3- Climate change
'Soils with bio-char additions are typically more fertile, produce more and better crops for a longer period of time.'" (2.)
"Important lessons can be learned from the recalcitrance of black carbon and its effects on the biogeochemistry of soils. Given the apparent ubiquity of black Carbon established by several authors (Schmidt and Noak, 2000; Skjemstad et al., 2002), refinements of global Carbon models and sequestration estimates may be necessary. Further, the potential for enhancing sequestration by active management of black Carbon could be established with important linkages to energy production and land use." (3.)
"Eprida offers a revolutionary new energy technology for sustainable fuels and sustainable income while producing co-products which also allow us to remove greenhouse gases from the air. We mimic nature's methods for biomass conversion and build a sustainable food and energy production." (4.)
(1.) http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/February/20020601.asp
(2.) http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_home.htm
(3.) http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm
(4.). http://www.eprida.com/home/index.php4
A year a go or so, we started getting excited about the idea of these biofuels- wanted to becoem involved ourselves, ina rural area, to reduce fuels costs and help the environment- it was hot topic of discussion around here. But we also thought about what could happen, envisioning that the best crops for the oil would become the focus of economic manipulation- but we still can't believe how fast that actually happened, and how instantly devestating.
This past year, I also found out about NIKOLA TESLA, a Serbian born, US citizen and scientist, (1856-1943) who developed the A/C power systems we still use today (and the Tesla coil, radio, remote control and more)- but he had the technology for utilizing the earth's resonance (how "green" is that?), and dreamed of a world where power was basically free for the masses, which he believed could result in helping the poor out of poverty.
So, Tesla technology could still be a reality. Some underfunded scientists are trying to develop these technologies, but of course, those most able to fund such work are usually interested in huge profits. Everyone that cares should start researching about these scientists, and find ways to help fund their important research, you rich progressives can help out here, big time- it might not be too late to save the world!
There is always an easy solution to every...problem - neat, plausible, and wrong.
HL Mencken
A modest proposal:
Given that Bangaladesh is likely to be submerged by global warming, we need to find a new home for the 40 million inhabitants of that country - and the need for cheap labor to grow biofuels in Third World countries provides a win-win situation for all the interested parties.
The Caribbean was once the center of a thriving agricultural system that employed cheap labor imported from Africa. Some called this 'slavery' but really it provided great employement opportunities for hundreds of thousands of poor African farmers who had previously lived lives of back-breaking poverty. In the Caribbean, they were given food and shelter and were allowed to engage in productive work.
If Bangaldeshis are transported en masse to the Caribbean and set to work on biofuel plantations, we could see the establishment of a thriving economy that would ship biofuels all over the world - just as rum and sugar were shipped all over the world some centuries ago. This proposal meets all the requirements of a modern globalization strategy, vis-a-vis Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat".
Let's all work together to save the people of Bangladesh!
OK...back to reality. Biofuel production is the fermentative production of alcohol, a technology that is at least 4000 years old. If small farmers can convert their excess food production into ethanol, that's all very well - see http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meCh7.html for a good backyard design - but this 'globalized biofuel production' is a recipe for disaster. This is why we need reform in trade rules - we need real free trade, not the neocolonial practices that currently exist.
Now we just need to ramp up the prison industrial complex to staff the cane fields. Let's make marijuana possession a manditory minimum of 20 years.
"You want Oil? We own the production wells. You want Uranium? We own the production mines. You want biofuels? We own the production fields...
...You want Solar and Wind? Solar and Wind are not feasible."
-Big Energy