The current argument against developing biofuels is that the world is facing a food shortage and that biofuels are contributing to that shortage. Although there is ample evidence that the cost of food grains has gone up dramatically in the last few years, there is equally compelling evidence that the increases maybe due less to biofuels than to bio management.
Recent studies undertaken by the Swedish Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)points to the absolutely staggering amounts of food that are wasted every day. In the US alone, it is estimated that 30 percent of our food crops never reach the table. In the United States, where sophisticated transportation, preserving and delivery systems are in place, the waste number is more than $40 billion a year.
Imagine what that number is in the third world countries that are trying to cope with almost criminal costs for petroleum products, a worldwide ban on their only energy supply and massive farm subsidies for competing produce.
So food or fuel? The easy answer is that the price of food is going up in some cases quite dramatically. It is also very clear that other staples have risen just as dramatically, none more so than petroleum products.
In North America dependence on foreign oil has taken on the mantle of a crusade. Billions of dollars are being spent lobbying to open the Alaska National wildlife refuge; even more is poured into subsidies for solar, ethanol and biodiesel. Huge wind farms, connected to the national grid will make electric cars a staple of the future and hydrogen production and fuel cells are being touted as the next major breakthrough.
The rush is on to come up with solutions to a perceived national threat. And every alternate and mainline fuel solution faces an army of detractors, some of them so old that they have become hoary chestnuts from a better past when we still had options that had not yet been destroyed by either grass roots campaigns or big business lobbying. Nuclear power, as long as we know how to get rid of the waste, is an excellent example. And yet, we are seeing renewed interest in nuclear power. A Tennessee senator bans wind power farms being built too near his land, and wind turbines are killing birds and stampeding cattle.
It seems that the more recent the energy source, the more bizarre the attack. But surely none are stranger than the recent campaign to eliminate the widespread distribution of biofuels, whether it is ethanol or biodiesel. The argument is that we will soon have to choose between producing energy and producing food. And in a very strange way, this argument has merit because every acre that is not producing food is obviously not a food-producing acre.
Having said that and many are saying it, let’s see how reasonable the argument really is.
To start with, the basic premise that the world is gasping for food is only true insofar that there are pockets or areas, in the developing nations, that are unable to produce enough food locally to survive. These areas are also too poor to be able to buy food on the open market so they periodically face massive starvation. What is never brought up is that those same areas are energy poor. They lack local natural supplies of the most basic energy sources including wood or coal.
It might also be pointed out that they lack water, arable soil, a local infrastructure that would allow them the bare necessities to survive. No roads, no power and no water to face their overwhelming poverty, the only solution appears to be an annual die off.
On the other hand, changing one element of the equation changes the whole aspect of the solution. The most obvious element has to be the ability to generate energy in one way or another. Solar energy in very small amounts can be generated because the areas are arid and subject to harsh solar conditions. The problem with solar is that to generate energy in the amounts needed to make a difference would entail vast construction projects and the installation of an electrical grid to distribute it. Also there are not enough photovoltaic panels available at a reasonable cost to even begin to address the problem.
So nuclear is out, hydro is a non-starter, wind could be an option but requires the same distribution grid and the list goes on. Often overlooked is the fact that petroleum products have become increasingly expensive, distribution is erratic and supplies controlled by outside sources that may not have anyone’s best interest at heart.
There is little doubt that palm oil is both a victim and a savior in this story. From what I know, in Africa more than 50% of the palm oil plantations are now lying idle for various reasons from local political problems to lack of investors. Once a plantation has gone stagnant for more than three years, they need to be either replanted or carefully brought back into production. The wild palm fruit is harvestable with rudimentary manpower and basic crushing facilities can provide tons of oil and fuel for these areas. Diesel sells for $15 a gallon in some of these countries and a small place like Liberia could be energy independent if they harvested their palm plantations.
Another sound bite, some of the outlying islands suffered from terrible fires a few years ago, not related to slash and burn farming but due to natural causes. Whole areas were turned into moonscapes, according to a friend who went in to assess the damage. They are reforesting with, among other plants, oil palm trees in order to reestablish an ecosystem and generate some cash for the rest of the country- is this inherently evil?
The role of the multinational food corporations is almost as troubling as the role being played out by the large petroleum companies in the middle of the food chain. A really simplistic example would include the farmer in Sierra Leone who raises tomatoes and cannot afford to move his twenty pounds a week of tomatoes to the local market because of the high cost of transportation (Diesel fuel). The multinational food companies that fill the shelves in remote areas of the world can afford those prices because they transport in bulk over vast distances in sophisticated refrigeration units. Their fuel for pound is minimal compared to the local farmer.
So now you are dealing with a complex and very delicate equation that can only be solved by making assumptions on the X, Y and Z axis. X is the high cost of transportation due to the increased fuel prices; this unknown variable shifts on a daily basis for many reasons and is entirely unpredictable except that is trends up. Y is the untold damage we are doing to our planet because of X which actively modifies Y, and is in turn modified by a horde of other factors which some call the SUV syndrome. Then there is the Z factor, the Zany factor that dictates against both reason and logic under the guise of political, ecological and ethical stances that some food staples may not be fuel, and certain forms of energy are “unacceptable” or unethical.
