Biofuels: Possible "Crime Against Humanity"?
by Kimberley D. Mok, Montreal, Canada 
on 10.31.07
Trending up: Many commodity prices have risen sharply in 2007, reflecting increased interest in biofuels, strong demand, weather-related events and geopolitical concerns. Source: IMF
On the heels of an ominous report on rising food prices by the FAO comes another warning from a U.N. expert that the rush towards converting crops to biofuels could potentially have a destabilizing effect on global food security and political stability.
Jean Ziegler, the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, has called for a five-year moratorium on the use of crops for biofuels, calling it a “crime against humanity.” Strong words, but they have a ring of sensibility. He voiced concerns that growing production of biofuels is pushing the price of crops to record levels and could lead to more hunger worldwide.
He said that to divert arable land from producing food to producing biofuels burnt for fuel instead would be disastrous, especially for the world’s poor – something also expressed by both the IMF and FAO last week. According to the FAO, rising energy and food prices could mean increased global instability and riots, especially in nations most vulnerable to such fluctuations.
In the US, where there is an eagerness to employ alternatives to oil, the switch from wheat and soya to biofuel crops such as corn, which can be turned into ethanol, has resulted in a sharp rise in food prices.
Mr. Ziegler proposed that within the time of the five-year biofuel ban, better technologies to convert crop byproducts such as corn cobs and banana leaves could be further developed, negating the need to use crops themselves.
::BBC
See also ::Don't Bet on Biofuels, ::The Dangers of Biofuel, ::Global Warming Could Cause World Crop Collapse, ::Oil Sands Truth, ::IMF Warns Of Water and Food Price Impact of Biofuels
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Are Your Floors Covered in Pesticides?
- 5 Reuses for Altoid Tins
- Green Glossary: Intellectual Property
- Fire Up Your Metabolism and Burn More Calories with Herbs
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- Focus on Focus Earth: Saving the Whales (Video)
Not even a mention of cellulosic ethanol and algae biodiesel! I'm ashamed of you, Treehugger...
I've discussed biofuels with several people who see it as a "good" domination strategy to keep underdeveloped nations from developing and keeping our cost of living low.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is some obscure economic effect that people are unaware of. I think that people in the west just don't care.
In my neck of the woods, people want local farmers to make more money and they want cheap imported goods; if we have to raze and till more wilderness or make the poor suffer... so be it.
Hopefully I'm wrong and the scum I've met don't represent the majority.
I have explored the topic of biofuels extensivly, most notably bio-desiel. And while it is extremly clear that at a global level bio fuels are not sustainable and are extremely un-fesable, there are local contexts in which these fuels can be used. Using spent vegtable oil gathered from local resturants, and home brewing the bio desiel is better than not. The emissions are nearly nill, and the feul actually improves engine components due to its lubricity levels. Yet bio-fuels are in no way a solution.
However, you cannot achieve checkmate in one move. This is only a pawn in the game, one which gets teh preverbrial sustainability ball rolling.
I have explored the topic of biofuels extensively, most notably bio-desiel. And while it is clear that at a global level bio fuels are not sustainable and are extremely unfeasible, there are local contexts in which these fuels can be used. Using spent vegetable oil gathered from local restaurants, and home brewing the bio diesel is better than not. The emissions are nearly nil, and the fuel actually improves engine components due to its lubricity levels. Yet bio-fuels are in no way a solution.
However, you cannot achieve checkmate in one move. This is only a pawn in the game, one which gets the proverbial sustainability ball rolling.
I have explored the topic of biofuels extensively, most notably bio-desiel. And while it is clear that at a global level bio fuels are not sustainable and are extremely unfeasible, there are local contexts in which these fuels can be used. Using spent vegetable oil gathered from local restaurants, and home brewing the bio diesel is better than not. The emissions are nearly nil, and the fuel actually improves engine components due to its lubricity levels. Yet bio-fuels are in no way a solution.
However, you cannot achieve checkmate in one move. This is only a pawn in the game, one which gets the proverbial sustainability ball rolling.
Hi tre4,
I have to agree with the people you spoke with - due to the instinct of self preservation (me&my family).
Please do some research into the food vs population - future trends situation. UN predicts 9bn by 2050 - that's 50% more than now.
I really don't see how we're going to get out of this w/o a Malthusian catastrophe.
I know what you're going to say that the western world should waste less and there'll be enough for everyone. Unfortunately based on my current reading (I won't say research since all it is is reading of other people's research) even if that happened tomorrow - which it won't - it would not be enough.
Sadly for human reasons (I dunno - the "gross" factor? the political correctness factor? obviously the religion factor) overpopulation is the elephant in the room. The earth currently cannot support 9bn, lett alone in the future - what with peak oil (fertiliser anyone), climate change, soil erosion, "peak" water (check out Aus) - the food supply will actually go down from here, for ever more. So even if everyone was vegetarian say, not enough for 9bn.
It strikes me that the most urgent issue in all of these types of problems is population. Most counties as encouraging people to breed as much as possible to keep the economies strong, the baby bonus in Australia is tipped to jump up to $10,000 for the third child whereas more should be done to limit families globally to 2 kids maximum. We'll never reach sustainability while population is increasing globally because resources will continue to become more and more scarce, the price of everything will continue to increase. The balance will have to eventually be struck and it looks like energy consumption leading to wider hunger and wars may be the factor that finally constrains global population.
Hello everyone,
I seriously doubt that the changeover from a fossil-based to plant-based fuel will cause a crime-against-humanity. It will, in all likelihood, free humanity over the progression of time from the current power elite.
The goal is complete energy independence from fossil fuels. Burning bio-fuels based on grass is also a viable option and not many humans eat grass on a daily basis.
has anyone considered the fact that Ziegler might be receiving generous "grants" from the petrochemical companies in order to come to these conclusions? he sounds suspicious to me...
Duh, biofuels are not causing starvation.
Overpopulating their unfertile/overextended nations and relying on imported grain is causing their starvation.
This might be a good thing, as it will force people to localize food production or trim their populations to sustainable levels.
Tough love I know.
This is the second post today which has comments focussed on population. I agree that population is a very serious part of the problem. I also think that we do not have the resources to create a sustainable, equitable and fun world for even our current population.
However, population has tripled from two to six billion in just the last 77 years. do you really think we would be doing anything differently if we were still at two billion?
Furthermore, this conversation always carries an undercurrent of racism. "If only 'they' weren't having so many children." Half a billion people on this planet are creating 75% of the damage. I think this shows that population is not the real problem. Who cares how many children some poor farmer in Bangladesh has, those children have almost no environmental impact. Sure, they want to have a western lifestyle, but that is simply not going to happen. The resources no longer exist for them to do so, because the West has used them up.
So, if you want to make comments about population, I think it would best to be clear. The rich world (this means us, Westerners, Northerners, whatever you want to call us) has an impact 10-20 time greater than the poor world. Therefore, the only people we should be trying to control are the rich. We should have negative population growth in the rich world.
Another factor in rising food prices is the rising cost of petroleum. Ironic that trying to offset that supply/demand ratio is doing nothing (for the price of food).
I look at it this way, were everyone to produce thier own fuel and food, everyone would grow food first, and fuel second. (and I'm a bio-diesel fan)
This model also uses current transportaion efficiency, which is an issue that must be addressed before we choose our fuel du jour.
I have also not been in a cave and am aware that we can't support 9bn. (I think that 6 is unsustainable). But I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for population DEcrease in our lifetimes. Yes, improbable changes are needed - but I really don't think we can bomb our way out of this one.
With increase in public education, health care and standard of living, we've already seen that Population growth can become negative. Look at China's rate of improvement in these areas! It's a polution disaster, but if their population starts to drop as a result, it could easily be a net gain!
If you look at the physics of the conversion process biofuels are a very indirect and inefficient way to harvest the energy of sunlight. Plants convert at most 3% of the solar energy into chemical energy, and than you have the additional energy costs and losses of fertilization, harvest, processing etc.
The enthusiasm for biomass can only be explained by a strong agricultural lobby.
For the scoop on biofuels, one should read "Plan B: 3.0."
I believe that either people will go green willingly, or they will be forced to do so by rising costs. Only then will the macho morons who buy extended cab pickup trucks to go to the Mini-Mart for 64 oz. doses of liquid candy finally give up their behemoths, and stop watching NASCAR and monster truck rallies. The handwriting is on the wall, which is why I chose JustSayNoWay.com for my author website.