Biofuels that cause hunger

Not to long ago we thought that biofuels would be a good way to reduce global warming by cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In reality, biofuels could actually increase GHG emissions if we consider their effects over their entire life cycle. In a study by the University of Edinburgh, their impact has even been quantified: biofuels could increase GHGs by 50 to 70%. So before going any further with biofuels, we must carefully evaluate all of their environmental effects.

Not only it’s causing more GHGs but it’s also causing food shortages in many parts of the world. Global food stocks are officially at their lowest in nearly 25 years.

There have already been riots in over 30 countries, including Haiti. And this food crisis could worsen in the short term.

Via: Greenpeace

The push for biofuels

Biofuels use plants (corn, canola, palm oil, etc.) to produce a source of liquid energy that is then mixed with gasoline for cars. Many governments in Europe, the United States, Canada, Québec and elsewhere quickly adopted policies to encourage the production of biofuels, for example, by setting targets ranging from 5 to 10% biofuel content in gasoline, or by subsidizing the creation of ethanol or biodiesel plants. Sadly, what are missing are criteria in government policies to ensure that biofuels respond to the need for truly environmentally sustainable agriculture and to the primary goal of agriculture, namely, to feed human populations.

The problem with biofuels

• One of the pitfalls of biofuels is the anticipated impact that biofuel crops will have on food production. For example, for Europe to attain 10% biofuel content by 2020, it will have to use 95% of its available agricultural land while continuing to import biofuels (30% of the total) from around the world. For the United States, attaining 20% biofuel content will require it to use 100% of its current corn production to power cars rather than feed people.
• The biofuel policies of Northern countries are among the factors that have amplified this wave of speculation in food prices.
• In Canada, the federal government’s target of 5% ethanol content in gasoline by 2010 will only reduce GHG emissions by 0.2%. This is a far cry from Canada’s goal of 35% reduction under the Kyoto Protocol. Without a rigorous plan for increasing energy efficiency and a strategy for absolute reductions in GHG emissions, Canada will not meet its Kyoto targets. In short, the situation is so serious that many governments and organizations (except the Canadian government) are in the process of re-evaluating policies and, let’s hope, revisiting other options.

Organizations concerned about biofuels

• OECD experts are concerned about the impact of biofuel subsidies
• The FAO is organizing a summit of heads of state next June to solve the food crisis caused by biofuels
• The UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, has called for a 5-year moratorium on the production of biofuels using food-producing plants
• The European Environment Agency recently recommended the suspension of the 10% biofuel target in gasoline by 2020
• The Canadian bank CIBC issued a harsh criticism of the dubious track record of corn ethanol in fighting climate change as well as a warning on the risks of inflation
• Oxfam has called for a 5-year moratorium on biofuels
• Scientists with the Royal Society of Britain have reported that biofuels alone are not a cure-all for climate change, and have called for improved design for vehicles and engines, greater use of public transportation, and better urban planning
• Scientists with the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) are concerned that the expansion of biofuels could facilitate the spread of invasive species, which would run counter to the objectives of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity
• According to a study by the IUCN and the World Bank, 1000 decision-makers on climate change from 105 countries have ranked biofuels as the last option (out of 18) for solving climate change.

Biofuels fuel subsidies for Monsanto and GE crops

In light of growing concerns by many organizations about the effects of biofuels, it is difficult to understand why the American and Canadian governments continue to encourage and prioritize corn ethanol rather than other forms of biofuel (such as biomass). Here are some of the answers to that question:

• Given the urgency of the situation and the delayed response to climate change, governments are all too often and easily seduced by technological solutions proposed by well-organized industry lobbyists. In North America, the choice of corn ethanol and canola biodiesel was no accident. In the face of consumer opposition to GE foods, Monsanto, the US multinational that markets 90% of GE crops around the world, saw in biofuel and ethanol production new opportunities for expansion, particularly for its GE corn.
• Monsanto sells GE seeds so that it can also sell the herbicides that accompany them (Roundup). Biofuel production will increase monoculture. This will make crops more vulnerable to predators and weeds. The problems related to expanding monoculture will allow Monsanto to sell more GE seeds and more chemical products. Biofuels are just one of Monsanto’s marketing strategies to make farmers even more dependent on this multinational’s products.
• For some governments, particularly the one led by Stephen Harper, that are not truly committed to implementing the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gases by adopting more efficient measures, biofuels are seen as a way to “green” government policy. In reality, however, they constitute subsidies to Monsanto, on the backs of farmers.
• Government subsidies and the regulatory requirement to achieve 5% ethanol content in gasoline by 2010 (such as Canada’s Bill C-33) are two of the main reasons for the biofuel craze.

In this context, it is not surprising that Monsanto’s sales in the first quarter of 2008 sales increased 36% generating a threefold jump in profit to $256 million. Cropland devoted to corn production in the United States increased nearly 20% in 2007, due mainly to ethanol. There are already 153 ethanol plants in the United States with another 60 or so under construction.

What governments can do

1. Establish more rigorous policies to implement the Kyoto Protocol, such as energy efficiency.
2. Encourage biomass projects on farms and in rural communities for the environmentally sustainable production of heat and electricity using agricultural or forestry waste.
3. Promote research on cellulosic biofuels that respect sustainable environmental development and the precautionary principle.
4. Adopt criteria for environmentally and socially sustainable agriculture (see the Greenpeace brief submitted to the Quebec Commission on the Future of Agriculture – in French).
5. Choose biofuels that do not threaten global food security, while contributing to a minimum 60% net decrease of CO2 emissions compared to the fossil fuels they are replacing.
6. Suspend, even temporarily, the 5% target for ethanol content in gasoline in order to take the time needed to evaluate the full impact of biofuels. An important first step would be to defeat Bill C-33.

What YOU can do

1. Identify your federal MP through your postal code;
2. Find the contact information for your MP in your riding;
3. Call your MP’s riding office or send an e-mail demanding that he or she vote AGAINST Bill C-33.
4. Participate in a public forum on biofuels on May 1, 2008.