Food Vs. Fuel
Ethar Elkatatney
May 06, 2008
Thirty seven countries are facing food crises right now. 21 are in Africa, 10 are in Asia, 5 are in Latin America, and 1 is in Europe. In Egypt, at least 11 people have died queuing for bread. True, it is not the country hit hardest by the food crises, but for Egyptians, bread may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Many a smaller issue has acted as a catalyst to a population's smoldering discontent.
Global food prices have risen 73% since 2006. Wheat prices have more than tripled in the past year. Rising oil prices, population growth, a series of droughts and floods, changing eating habits in Asia, and poor agricultural policies are all partially to blame for the price surges. But the biggest scapegoat is ultimately the one with which we have the most control over: biofuels. Billions of dollars have been invested into transforming corn, sugar and soy beans into biofuels to help wean the United States and similar economies from their addiction to fossil fuels.
In 2005, the US passed the Energy Policy Act, which seeks to increase the amount of biofuel that has to be mixed with petrol to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. The UK has said that by 2010, 5% all UK fuel should come from biofuels. The EU went a step further, setting a target of 10% by 2020.
But are biofuels really the solution? Or are they, as numerous critics have warned, simply usurping arable lands, driving up food prices, and making global warming worse?
Two days ago, Olivier de Schutter, the United Nations food adviser, called for a halt on biofuel investment, stating in an interview that "the ambitious goals for biofuel production set by the US and the EU are irresponsible." His predecesser Jean Ziegler was even harsher, saying that transforming wheat and maize crops into biofuel was "absolutely catastrophic," and using arable land for that purpose a "crime against humanity." The resulting rise in food prices has been termed a "silent tsunami" by UN officials, with the World Bank warning that the doubling of food prices over the past three years threatens 100 million of the world's poorest people.
It´s true that in Canada—with oil at $120/ barrel—a savings factor of three on heating costs can be possible if a house is heated by burning grain than by using oil-derived fuel. It´s also true that Americans are concerned with the recession, mortgage payments and the availability of student loans, which no doubt are legitimate concerns.
But wheat prices impact the poor so much more than oil prices impact Americans. If you spend 50% of your income on food and prices double, you are in big trouble. If prices double, the aid you get is halved, and you are in even bigger trouble. The World Food Programme is appealing to donors for an extra $755 million just so it can purchase enough food to meet its global commitment.
Egypt is the only country that calls its bread 'aish, which literally translates as life. Egypt's army is now literally making bread, not war to help solve the crisis, but how sustainable is it to have a nation's army working as bakers?
The U.S. ethanol industry says ethanol — made from wheat and sugar cane — and other biofuels account for just 4% of the price surges. But just one week ago, President Bush said that 15% of world food prices were caused by ethanol, and the US Agriculture Department puts the figure at around 20%.
Regardless of the correct figure, there is no denying that biofuels add fuel to the fire of food prices, though they are not the only reason behind them. The question is, are they really worth it?
Biofuels are touted as a remedy for global warming. But clearing forests for ethanol releases 50-70% more greenhouse gases than the production and use of the equivalent amount of gasoline. 3-5 liters of irrigation water are needed to produce a liter of ethanol, which produces up to 13 liters of waste water. The energy equivalent of 113 liters of natural gas is then needed to treat this waste.
At a press conference on April 29, 2008 Bush admitted that "the truth of the matter is it's in our national interests that our farmers grow energy, as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that are unstable or may not like us."
But the United States supplies 70% of world corn exports; do they not have a responsibility towards the countries they export to?
The food required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a whole year. The food needed to fill that same tank every two weeks for a year will feed 26 people. Approximately 100 million tons of grain—enough to feed 450 million people at a subsistence level—was turned into fuel last year. If the same trend continues, 1.2 billion people could be chronically hungry by 2025—600 million more than predicted.
Feeding people and filling stomachs is more important that feeding cars and filling gas tanks. It´s that simple.
Just some food for thought.
Global food prices have risen 73% since 2006. Wheat prices have more than tripled in the past year. Rising oil prices, population growth, a series of droughts and floods, changing eating habits in Asia, and poor agricultural policies are all partially to blame for the price surges. But the biggest scapegoat is ultimately the one with which we have the most control over: biofuels. Billions of dollars have been invested into transforming corn, sugar and soy beans into biofuels to help wean the United States and similar economies from their addiction to fossil fuels.
In 2005, the US passed the Energy Policy Act, which seeks to increase the amount of biofuel that has to be mixed with petrol to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. The UK has said that by 2010, 5% all UK fuel should come from biofuels. The EU went a step further, setting a target of 10% by 2020.
But are biofuels really the solution? Or are they, as numerous critics have warned, simply usurping arable lands, driving up food prices, and making global warming worse?
Two days ago, Olivier de Schutter, the United Nations food adviser, called for a halt on biofuel investment, stating in an interview that "the ambitious goals for biofuel production set by the US and the EU are irresponsible." His predecesser Jean Ziegler was even harsher, saying that transforming wheat and maize crops into biofuel was "absolutely catastrophic," and using arable land for that purpose a "crime against humanity." The resulting rise in food prices has been termed a "silent tsunami" by UN officials, with the World Bank warning that the doubling of food prices over the past three years threatens 100 million of the world's poorest people.
It´s true that in Canada—with oil at $120/ barrel—a savings factor of three on heating costs can be possible if a house is heated by burning grain than by using oil-derived fuel. It´s also true that Americans are concerned with the recession, mortgage payments and the availability of student loans, which no doubt are legitimate concerns.
But wheat prices impact the poor so much more than oil prices impact Americans. If you spend 50% of your income on food and prices double, you are in big trouble. If prices double, the aid you get is halved, and you are in even bigger trouble. The World Food Programme is appealing to donors for an extra $755 million just so it can purchase enough food to meet its global commitment.
Egypt is the only country that calls its bread 'aish, which literally translates as life. Egypt's army is now literally making bread, not war to help solve the crisis, but how sustainable is it to have a nation's army working as bakers?
The U.S. ethanol industry says ethanol — made from wheat and sugar cane — and other biofuels account for just 4% of the price surges. But just one week ago, President Bush said that 15% of world food prices were caused by ethanol, and the US Agriculture Department puts the figure at around 20%.
Regardless of the correct figure, there is no denying that biofuels add fuel to the fire of food prices, though they are not the only reason behind them. The question is, are they really worth it?
Biofuels are touted as a remedy for global warming. But clearing forests for ethanol releases 50-70% more greenhouse gases than the production and use of the equivalent amount of gasoline. 3-5 liters of irrigation water are needed to produce a liter of ethanol, which produces up to 13 liters of waste water. The energy equivalent of 113 liters of natural gas is then needed to treat this waste.
At a press conference on April 29, 2008 Bush admitted that "the truth of the matter is it's in our national interests that our farmers grow energy, as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that are unstable or may not like us."
But the United States supplies 70% of world corn exports; do they not have a responsibility towards the countries they export to?
The food required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a whole year. The food needed to fill that same tank every two weeks for a year will feed 26 people. Approximately 100 million tons of grain—enough to feed 450 million people at a subsistence level—was turned into fuel last year. If the same trend continues, 1.2 billion people could be chronically hungry by 2025—600 million more than predicted.
Feeding people and filling stomachs is more important that feeding cars and filling gas tanks. It´s that simple.
Just some food for thought.