Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Developed Countries' Demand for Biofuels Has Been 'Disastrous'
Production of crops such as maize and palm oil fuelling poverty and environmental damage in poor countries, says Christian Aid
The charity said huge subsidies and targets in developed countries for boosting the production of fuels from plants such as maize and palm oil are exacerbating environmental and social problems in poor nations.
A worker harvests oil-palm fruit in Malaysia. Photograph: EPA/Barbara Walton And rather than being a "silver bullet" to tackle climate change, the carbon emissions of some of the fuels are higher than fossil fuels because of deforestation driven by the need for land for them to grow.
According to a report, Growing Pains, by Christian Aid, industrial scale production of biofuels is worsening problems such as food price hikes in central America, forced displacement of small farmers for plantations and pollution of local water sources.
But with 2.4 billion people worldwide currently without secure sources of energy for cooking and heating, Christian Aid believes the renewable fuels do have the potential to help the poor.
The charity highlights schemes such as the growing of jatropha in Mali, where the plant is raised between food crops and the oil from the seeds is used to run village generators which can power appliances such as stoves and lights.
The report argues that talking about "good" or "bad" biofuels is oversimplifying the situation, and the problem is not with the crop or fuel - but the policies surrounding them.
Developed countries have poured subsidies into biofuel production - for example in the US where between 9.2 billion dollars and 11 billion dollars went to supporting maize-based ethanol in 2008 - when there are cheaper and more effective ways to cut emissions from transport, the report said.
The charity said biofuels production needed a "new vision" - a switch from supplying significant quantities of transport fuel for industrial markets to helping poor people have access to clean energy.
The report's author Eliot Whittington, climate advocacy specialist for Christian Aid, said: "Vast sums of European and American taxpayers' money are being used to prop up industries which are fuelling hunger, severe human rights abuses and environmental destruction - and failing to deliver the benefits claimed for them."
He said the current approach to biofuels had been "disastrous".
He added: "Christian Aid believes that the best approach to biofuels is to grow them on a small scale and process them locally to provide energy for people in the surrounding countryside. This can also increase rural people's incomes and has the potential to actually increase soil fertility and moisture retention, without compromising people's food security."
23 Comments so far
Show AllOh, we didn't see that coming! Global agribiz is disgusting enouugh, but biofuel plantations exceed even that degree of immorality. it's imperialism, isn't it - we are happy to starve and kill others in order to feed our ridiculous, wasteful standard of living .
Every day, in every way, it just gets better and better...
Biofuels work when you look at it holistically. There's nothing wrong with biofuel plantations, they are used to grow biomass used for biofuels. I don't know where you get the idea that we kill others in order to feed our standard of living. I like my standard of living as it is, what I do want is to have it while at the same time doing so in a sustainable fashion.
Longer term, we do have to move to something like very efficient solar cells, but we're half way there, at best. They'll be competitive when oil prices double from today's level, or if we develop better technology.
Wind power is already less expensive than the least expensive fossil fuel, coal.
Contract Photovoltaic power from leased Photovoltaic arrays is also presently a competetive option.
Wind power can only be installed where there's wind. And it's not a constant source, therefore it requires back up generation. I also question whether wind is less expensive than coal if you remove the tax subsidies wind receives.
Solar power isn't close to being competitive unless you happen to live very far from the grid.
Christian Aid is correct - see last paragraph, For more info, go to
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/aj991e/aj991e.pdf
For wiser use of ethanol, go to
alcoholcanbeagas.com
Anyone with a rudimentary brain could have seen this coming. The article mentions "huge subsidies and targets in developed countries" as the culprit, then names "the US where between 9.2 billion dollars and 11 billion dollars went to supporting maize-based ethanol in 2008", but conveniently omits the stupid EU mandate that requires 10% of their transport fuel come from renewable sources by 2020. Last year, there was supposed to be a review of this policy after food prices shot up and there was clear evidence of rainforest destruction in Asia for biofuel production. I can only try to visualize the kind of morons coming up with such policies. In the US, it's just plain old greed - driven by the agribusiness and the farm lobby - they are sitting on huge tracts of land, and want to sell whatever they produce. In the case of EU, did they honestly think they could become "green" by encouraging biofuel production? An elementary calculation would have shown the kind of land area that would be needed to produce various kinds of biofuels. So, before making a policy mandate, they should have seen where this land exists. If the existing land cannot supply the biofuel (that should have been easy to see - because the EU has land that can supply only about 2% of its biofuel requirements - the rest would have to come from elsewhere), then the only way was by clearing more forests. I have seen these suited monkeys working as consultants and experts, attending conferences and feeding all kinds of junk to elected politicians - most of whom haven't a clue and don't give a damn - they just want to blabber something that'll make them look good - and this is what we end up with.
Sure, biofuels are technically "renewable" - but unless they can be shown to deliver a substantial net carbon reduction, why even bother? The concept of ecological footprint (and water footprint too) is really simple - it is mind-boggling to me why it's not used as a basis for evaluating options and for making policies. Why wait until after the damage is done, when you can clearly see how much land and water will be required to produce ANYTHING?! And to absorb the CO2 produced. A single master's thesis can produce all the data one would need - about how much land area will be needed to produce a given amount of biofuel of various kinds, and what exactly will be the net carbon reduction (if any) from each route. Now I suppose there will be more meetings to "review" the policy mandate, reports produced and discussed, and they'll carefully underplay their blunder and talk in generalities, and by the time put a stop to their stupid policy, more forests would have disappeared.
Many biofuels show a net carbon zero balance. They don't necessarily show a reduction, but that's not a realistic goal.
The policies are import/export models.
Instant augmentation in all phases of carbon foot print, implicitly ethnocidal and genocidal policies of population displacement, biodiversity loss exacerbated by agrochemical and extractive (privatized) and excessive water use. Unsustainable.
The golbalization model is a failure in every aspect. It is built on economic theories that 'externalized' both short and long term costs - regarded by some as the built in karma factor. Marginalization of specific realities are the origin of the profit margin and marginalization of the industrial moral compass.
I like globalization, it helps poor people get jobs and develop their economies. Look at China.
What Christian Aid will never say is that global overpopulation is fueling poverty and environmental damage in poor countries.
Hear hear
Madagascar had it's government overthrown when it allowed South Korea to buy up half the island and turn it into a biofuel plantation.
No, not completely true. Daewoo Logistics signed the 99-year lease to grow corn and palm oil. While palm oil is cited as a biofuel, it is also used as a cooking oil in Asia. The main use for the corn was going to be as animal feed. Korea is one of the major importers of beef (from the US, Canada and Australia). Ordinary Koreans, like people in MANY countries, seem to be oblivious of the finite nature of resources and concepts such as ecological footprint and water footprint.
As an aside, ever noticed how the British media goes to town on stories like this - whenever companies from OTHER (especially non-white) countries sign leases for mining, farming, etc., in what used to be THEIR colonial outposts? They actually call this the "new colonialism". I guess it takes one to know one.
Simple solution, low-tech, available now. Free public transit.
http://freepublictransit.org
"'Vast sums of European and American taxpayers' money are being used to prop up industries which are fuelling hunger, severe human rights abuses and environmental destruction - and failing to deliver the benefits claimed for them.'"
This paragraph could also serve as a good description of the US health-insurance industry.
Biofuel was a great idea as long as the intent was to produce it from crop and cooking waste. Diverting crops to biofuel is one example of how greed leads to stupidity.
q
"let's burn down the cornfield" - an old Randy Newman song: rather appropriate.
There is a huge amount of corn planted in the U.S., because it is well subsidized by the Federal government. Corn is not good feed for cattle. Their stomachs can't really digest all of the starch and if they are fed a diet exclusively of corn, they will die. The corn that is grown in the U.S. is not suitable for human consumption because it is mostly genetically modified and other countries will only purchase it to be used to feed their livestock. One saving grace about ethanol production from corn is that the byproduct is more easily digested by cattle and has a higher protein content that helps them gain weight more quickly. If you want to see a great film about corn, rent King Corn on Netflix.
Also, corn only produces up to 392 gallons of ethanol per acre. Whereas prickly pear cactus can produce up to 900 gallons per acre. Cattails can produce about 2,500 gallons per acre and if it is grown as part of a sewage treatment facility, it can produce up to 10,000 gallons per acre. So, I would not discount using some crops for biofuels. I wish folks were better informed when they make generalized statements of how biofuels are taking up all of the available cropland.
lgnyc, assuming that the numbers you've presented are reasonable estimates, they still don't mean much without considering the following:
* How much biofuel (of whatever kind) can be produced on a SUSTAINABLE basis over, say, 10-15 years, per acre of land? By sustainable, I mean with little to no use of oil-based fertilizers? And also, preferably with no ongoing subsidies to the farmers - because they would clearly distort the comparison.
* How much "spare" land is there to produce this fuel?
* What's the total amount of fuel that can be produced, using this "spare" land, on a sustainable basis?
* How does this compare with the demand for fuel? That is, what percentage of fuel demand can be met using biofuel on a sustainable basis?
Now, for the most important part:
* What exactly is the net carbon reduction? Of course, we need to consider the energy used in production of this fuel (for crops, processing, transportation, etc.) as well as end-use - such as in a vehicle.
When we have clear numbers for these - not forgetting the criteria of using only spare land and sustainable production, and having some reasonable estimates for the net carbon reduction (if any), sure, like you said, we don't have to "discount using some crops for biofuels". But making any kind of policy mandate that requires a certain minimum content of biofuel nationwide (or across nations, as in the case of the EU) without considering the above factors would only lead to serious consequences - such as deforestation, rise in foodgrain prices, etc. - which they later claim conveniently as "unintended". Unintended consequences? Yeah, right. I'm saying that it's easy to look at the numbers BEFORE you enact any kind of policy on biofuels and decide if that's warranted or not.
Biofuel, solar, wind, or whatever - we are still talking only of the supply side. Unless we address the demand side - through conservation, public transportation, less consumption, etc., it's clear that nothing much will come out of all this.
Alcyon,
How much biofuel can be produced on a sustainable basis? I think that prickly pear cactus planted with mesquite is a good example of a crop that is very sustainable. Since mesquite fixes nitrogen in the soil, prickly pear cactus would do very well with no need for oil-based nitrogen fertilizers. Let's cut subsidies for farmers? Okay, if there are no subsidies for farmers, how about cutting out the subsidies that U.S. taxpayers foot for the oil industry? How much has our government spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures?
How much "spare" land is there to produce this fuel? According to David Blume's Alcohol Can Be A Gas, an area the size of the Texas Panhandle is about 26,000 square miles. If mesquite were grown alone, without an understory crop like prickly pear cactus or utilizing the cellulosic yield of the mesquite, the yield would be about 5.5 billion gallons of ethanol. This equals just a touch over 1% of the agriculturally rated land in the U.S. In 2008, the U.S. consumed about 137.80 billion gallons of gasoline.
Also, ethanol can be made from kelp, which would do quite well in the "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico that are overflowing with fertilizer and sewage runoff. The American Gas Association calculated that kelp from just the California coast would produce about 23 quadrillion btu a year for methane. If kelp were fermented into alcohol, approximately 90 billion gallons of ethanol could be produced and the remaining mash could be fermented a second time for methane. China and Japan are already growing kelp in nets off their coasts for food. If they can grow it for food, the U.S. can grow it for fuel.
The carbon reduction is neutral. You burn what you sequester.
lgnyc, thanks for the reply. I never said we should rule out biofuels - only drew attention to the consequences of a policy mandate without a careful and realistic evaluation of what's possible, so as not to mess up food prices and cut down more forests.
How about cutting out the subsidies to the oil industry, you ask? No question. Not just that - tax them to the max, and remove any loopholes for tax evasion on offshore operations/accounts. The Iraq and Afghanistan (mis)adventures should never have happened. There's plenty in the empire that can be safely let go or wound down. Each of these is a separate issue. But in the name of fighting climate change, we should not introduce one more monster that would take a life of its own (biofuel driven by subsidies), with the other consequences. Biofuels should find a place in any energy market - we just need to be clear on what would be an appropriate level. I also think there is a difference between ongoing subsidies to agribusiness and big farmers for biofuel and a one-time subsidy or tax credit for other renewable systems such as solar PV, solar thermal and even wind power. Maybe not forever, but for a few years, so that these industries can be up and running. And these subsidies could be gradually tapered down. I am also not against subsidizing public transport - in the name of cutting down greenhouse gas emissions and job creation.
Well when your greedy politicians and greedy enviro's want to throw your tax dollars at those greedy farmers to produce corn etc for the greedy biofuel mfg's to make greedy enviros happy about starving people so greedy they wanted to eat can you imagine the gall.
Now NY State just discovered 65 yrs worth of natural gas in shale deposits. Oh my can you the imagine all the greed of NY wanting tax receipts, greedy people wanting gas for their homes and greedy biz people want it for their work to hire all those greedy people wanting greedy wages, greedy health ins, greedy pensions, greedy self esteem and greed as a 'right'
Greed is so awful, somebody else's greed that is.
'The charity said biofuels production needed a "new vision"'
No, the vision was well known a century ago. Biofules production, like everything else, needs to be people-driven, not profit-driven. The mainstream media usually avoids focusing on the solution that solves all problems, because it needs readers to keep coming back for more.
For the most comprehensive and informative source on making biofuels please go to the following website:
http://www.permaculture.com
David Blumes "Alcohol can be a gas!" tells you everything you ever wanted to know about making biofuels from everything but the kitchen sink. Check it out!