Biofuels are not clean and green. Biofuels will result in deforestation. Biofuels will not bring rural development. Biofuels will cause hunger.
Today’s International Herald Tribune, with more than one million political and influential subscribers worldwide, published an opinion piece by Food First’s executive director, Eric Holt-Gimenez. Moving full speed ahead with biofuels could result in environmental disaster and increased human suffering.
Tags: Environment, Hunger
The alarmists headlines that biofuel will not bring rural development, will cause hunger, it will push the prices of food up are plans and strategies forwarded by the oil industry under the guise of scientific findings so as to prevent the demise of the oil industry. It is a similar tactics employed long time ago when “scientific findings” declared that coconut oil was harmful. Only to realized that coconut oil is a “wonder oil”. No side effect.
Who, in the western world would want that the African or the South American or the Asian would suddenly be calling the shot?
After doing a bit of reading, I find that if the entire corn crop of the USA were turned into ethanol (as a biofuel), it would only replace 15% of US oil usage. And if that happened, what would happen to the food industry that uses corn? The Guardian Unlimited offers some statistics concerning in an article on 5-July-2007 ( Biofuel demand to push up food prices.
While I agree that the western world would not take kindly to Africa or South America calling the shots, I also think that biofuels need to be evaluated and utilized carefully. They are not necessarily the “wonder oil” that some would have us believe. All energy comes at a price.
And, as with any resource, if there is more demand, then the price will rise (it already has for corn). The impact of rising food/grain prices on low income people has to be balanced against the need for fuel.
The other consideration, at least in the USA, is how much fuel does it take to grow the biofuel? I don’t know, but I’d like to see that as a part of the equation.
If biofuels are to lead to rural development, care with have to be taken that the production doesn’t get hi-jacked by large corporations who will likely do little or nothing to encourage rural development. Which brings us back to the current fuel situation – only with different names in the game.
I understand why corn was chosen for biofuel instead of wheat for example. Besides that wheat does not give that much oil by product as corn, it is the source of staple food for the west, I guess.
Our government introduces jatropha as source of biofuel rather than corn or rice. Beside that biodiesel could be extracted from palm, soy, rapeseed and coconut.
We get ethanol not only from sugar but also from nipa which is not edible and from corn & cassava which are not our staple food.
I would like to refer you to the article: Cultivating Jatropha from the Phil. Daily Inquirer.
I can’t understand why corn was the first choice used to create biofuel. Was it because there’s the surplus, like when America burnt tons of wheat to maintain it’s market value decades ago. Are they not willing to wait?
I agree with you that if biofuels are to lead to rural development, care must be taken to ensure that no multi-national controls the industry.
According to a British ecologist, “If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels.”
Oil produced from plants sets up competition for food between cars and people. People – and the environment – will lose
George Monbiot
Tuesday March 27, 2007
The Guardian
There is a similar article from South African environmentalists. (Requires a subscription to read)