Banner
    Food Or Energy? The Biofuel Food Crisis Debate
    By News Staff | January 28th 2009 12:00 AM | 8 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Taking up valuable land and growing edible crops for biofuels poses a dilemma: Is it ethical to produce inefficient renewable energies at the expense of an already malnourished population? David Pimentel and colleagues from Cornell University highlight the problems linked to converting a variety of crops into biofuels. Not only are these renewable energies inefficient, they are also economically and environmentally costly and nowhere near as productive as projected.

    In the context of global shortages of fossil energy – oil and natural gas in particular – governments worldwide are focusing on biofuels as renewable energy alternatives. In parallel, almost 60 percent of the world's population is malnourished increasing the need for grains and other basic foods. Growing crops, including corn, sugarcane and soybean, for fuel uses water and energy resources vital for the production of food for human consumption.

    Professor Pimentel and his team review the availability and use of land, water and current energy resources globally, and then look at the situation in the US specifically. They also analyze biomass resources and show that there is insufficient US biomass for both ethanol and biodiesel production to make the US oil independent.

    Their paper then looks at the efficiency and costs associated with converting a range of crops into energy and shows that in each case more energy is required for this process than they actually produce as fuel. The research finds a negative energy return of 46 percent for corn ethanol, 50 percent for switchgrass, 63 percent for soybean biodiesel and 58 percent for rapeseed. Even the most promising palm oil production results in a minus 8 percent net energy return. There are also a number of environmental problems linked to converting crops for biofuels, including water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, global warming, soil erosion and air pollution. 

    In the researchers' opinion, there is simply not enough land, water and energy to produce biofuels. They also argue that ironically, the US is becoming more oil-dependent, not less, as was intended through the production of biofuels. In most cases, more fossil energy is required to produce a unit of biofuel compared with the energy that it provides. As a result, the US is importing more oil and natural gas in order to make the biofuels.

    The authors conclude that "Growing crops for biofuels not only ignores the need to reduce natural resource consumption, but exacerbates the problem of malnourishment worldwide by turning food grain into biofuels…Increased use of biofuels further damages the global environment and especially the world food system."

    Article: Pimentel D et al (2009). Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs. 
    Human Ecology DOI 10.1007/s10745-009-9215-8

    Comments

    At least if they're using it to make fuel they can't make HFCS out of it.

    Hank
    It's the whuppin' boy of the moment but there is zero actual evidence that high fructose corn syrup contributes to weight gain any more than sugar.   People eating too much contributes to weight gain.

    There was some recent hype about mercury and HFCS in Environmental Health - about 150 years too late - but all that did was make the authors of the study look like they had an agenda, since HFCS meets the FDA standard for 'natural' food and has for a long time.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Read your labels, if it doesn't have HFCS in it, it often has some other form of sugar (often also made from corn.) I'm tired of it, canned tomatoes and 99 other things don't need sweetening. It's hard to find products that don't have added sugars, sometimes all the brands on the shelf do.

    rholley
    Hank,

    The Fructose family had better form a circle with their waggons.  Now the Indians (as in next to Pakistan and Bangladesh) are closin' in!

    Search for: Eating high levels of fructose may impair memory which is a second section to this article: Edible coating makes fish nutritious
    Robert H. Olley Quondam Physics Department University of Reading England
    Hank
    I saw that yesterday but we didn't put it up here yet - "Now!  Enjoy 3 day old fish!" is more of a weekend article for us. 

    On rats and fructose, the guns are blazing in that segment of diet 'science'.   As long as my spatial geometry holds up okay, I'll be satisified with less memory.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Expaning on your starting premise that taking food to make bio-fuel poses an ethical dilemma: In the UAE there is a golf course in a desert. In fact all around the world, even in countries with high malnutrition and poverty, we have beautifully kept, irrigate sporting complexes where food can be grown. All over the world we have agricultural land used for other purposes instead of growing food. 20% of all grain is already fed to livestock, which in turn produce only 6& of the world's food. What your arguement really implies is that bio-fuels should be classified differently than all other actibities that undermine food production. People who want to make money, or just survive, from selling their crop for biofuel instead as food are unethical. To put it bluntly: it is a bullsh#t arguement. The prolem is total food production and affordability: the fuel price, whether fossil or renewable affects everything in the supply chain, no farmer will grow food at a loss which affects the suppply, and there are too many poor people, which affects the deman. If production costs are at a level that it affects profitability, production drops. Even if you up the price, the market will buy less, or buy only basic grains. Furthermore: ever third world country dependent on a World Bank or IMF loan were forced to drop all agricultural protection policies, whereas the more powerful countries like China, US, and also the EU still have protection tariffs effectively killing food production in poorer countries due to cheaper subsidised imports. Idiots in power, like Mugabe, does not help either. The point is; it is not as simple as swopping food foor biofuel. It is also important to remind people how the margarine industry funded "research" and published finding on how dangerous butter was supposed to by. The oil companies have even bigger PR machines behind them.

    Hank
    Implying that all cultural and moral ethical issues are fought, much less won, by the group with the largest PR machine is cynical, maybe even paranoid.  Did Barack Obama only win an election because he did something unethical and bypassed public campaign financing and raised and spent twice as much money as John McCain?  His detractors can certainly make that case.  Supporters believe he is a good guy who would have won regardless of  his political machine.

    The EU is never going to give up its agriculture subsidies, it's true.  85% of the subsidized agriculture money for the entire world is in Europe, China and the US are relative drops in the bucket, but European farmers don't care if their crop is used for food or fuel.   

    Current methods for biofuels are incredibly wasteful because they only use part of the plant.  Obviously growing a crop and using the food for food and the waste for waste is a better solution.

    All research is funded by someone.   Thinking that research under the Bush administration or research under the Obama administration will not have political litmus tests is ignoring reality - most scientists are ethical and funding sources have nothing to do with results.   Yes, some groups only fund scientists who have already done research they like - but claiming that all climate scientists who get grant money to study CO2 during the next 8 years are just shills has no factual basis.

    P.S.  Butter is worse for you than margarine.   Smoking is worse for you than not.   Both groups have lobbyists and multi-billions of dollars at risk, which is why they spend money on advertising and research.  This does not make the scientists wrong.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    The validity or not of the claim that converting food to biofuel is wasteful was never the point of my arguement. There are two issues: firstly total food production from current arrable land use an secondly, freedom to apply your capital as you see fit. 1: if you are concerned that people do not have food, then look at the total food supply, in fact, total land use in the world, production, distribution, waste, protection tarriffs, cartels etc that affect the availability of food and the price of food. 2: the right to apply your capital in whichever way you see fit and selling that product or service to the highest bidder is the basis of our economy, the merit of which can be debated, but if you want to be consistent, then restriction on production, i.e. forcing people to produce more food, and controlling what it can be used for, food only, must apply to everyone. Do you now that farmers deliberately leave land fallow if the market price of a particular procuct is too low to be economically viable or that grains are kept in storage, off the market, to push the price up before it is delivered? Back to my original list: golf courses, big gardens, sport fields must then produce food, for instance. Furthermore, farmers produce more expensive crops and products, that feed fewer people at a higher price (meat, diary) because they have to be economically viable. Or do we nationalise food production (like the de facto nationalisation of the the financial industry that has just taken place) so that the state can decide what products you get on the supermarket shelves?

    I agree there are ethical issue with biofuel, but it is not really an issue of biofuels per se. Total food production that allows farmers to be profitable, with enough food for the population at a price they can afford is the issue. Another arguement used against bio-fuels is the deforestation in places like brazil for people to grow other crops for fuel. A valid point, but if you want to tell that brazilian he is not allowed a living because you want to protect the environment then just apply that consitantly: You'll need to shut down every mine in the world.

    And butter is worse for you than margarine? It depends on the type of margarine and the diet of the cows. It is never as simple as one better than the other. The margarine industry would like you to believe that, though. And calling me cynical is an ad hominem arguement; saying that most scientists are ethical is not only relative, it is also subjective. I've never claimed that all scientists who study CO2 during the next 8 years are just shills.I also did not imply implying that all cultural and moral ethical issues are fought or determined by PR machines. People are ill informed; my knowledge is incomplete. But opinion is formed by your posts and the study you quoted. Bio fuels are just the next thing that affects food production, malnutrition and affordability of food. Bio fuels can not be singled out for an ethical judgement when the problem has so much more to do with other issues. That is the point. And your post, the PR machines and the study you quoted fail to point that out. It is not that the academics were pai off by the oil companies, but do you also know that you can pay people to make sure a certain number of articles will be flighted in newspapers and on television that puts your company or industry in a good light? That is not being cynical. That is just a fact.