Biofuel growth fuels hunger

As Biofuel Demand Grows, So Do Guatemala’s Hunger Pangs, Elizabeth Rosenthal writes:

Recent laws in the United States and Europe that mandate the increasing use of biofuel in cars have had far-flung ripple effects, economists say, as land once devoted to growing food for humans is now sometimes more profitably used for churning out vehicle fuel.

In a globalized world, the expansion of the biofuels industry has contributed to spikes in food prices and a shortage of land for food-based agriculture in poor corners of Asia, Africa and Latin America because the raw material is grown wherever it is cheapest.

Nowhere, perhaps, is that squeeze more obvious than in Guatemala, which is “getting hit from both sides of the Atlantic,” in its fields and at its markets, said Timothy Wise, a Tufts University development expert who is studying the problem globally with Actionaid, a policy group based in Washington that focuses on poverty.

The USA is using 40% of its corn for biofuel. As a direct consequence of that corn prices in Guatemala which imports nearly half of its corn, have doubled.

Land in Guatemala that was used for growing corn is now producing sugar cane and African palm for bioethanol exports to Europe.

In a country where most families must spend about two thirds of their income on food, “the average Guatemalan is now hungrier because of biofuel development,” said Katja Winkler, a researcher at Idear, a Guatemalan nonprofit organization that studies rural issues. Roughly 50 percent of the nation’s children are chronically malnourished, the fourth-highest rate in the world, according to the United Nations.

The American renewable fuel standard mandates that an increasing volume of biofuel be blended into the nation’s vehicle fuel supply each year to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and to bolster the nation’s energy security. Similarly, by 2020, transportation fuels in Europe will have to contain 10 percent biofuel. . .

But many worry that Guatemala’s poor are already suffering from the diversion of food to fuel. “There are pros and cons to biofuel, but not here,” said Misael Gonzáles of C.U.C., a labor union for Guatemala’s farmers. “These people don’t have enough to eat. They need food. They need land. They can’t eat biofuel, and they don’t drive cars.”

The increase in crops grown for biofuel has helped the sale of New Zealand beef in the USA.

But that benefit for us comes at a high cost for the people in places like Guatemala.

Rural round-up

Rabbit rise may bring 1080 response – Gerald Piddock:

Environment Canterbury’s annual count shows that rabbit numbers are on the rise in the Mackenzie Basin and Omarama.

The regional council monitors rabbit trends every year and the latest draft analysis showed a noticeable increase of rabbits in the Mackenzie Basin, eastern Mackenzie around Haldon Rd and in Omarama.

ECan’s biosecurity team leader, Brent Glentworth, expected there would be some large 1080 operations this summer, particularly on the eastern side of the Mackenzie, as land owners battle to keep rabbit numbers down. . .

UK biofuels influence NZ wheats:

European, notably UK, breeding programmes, growers at PGW’s agronomy group field day last week heard.

 Europe is normally a regular exporter of wheat, but three massive biofuel plants have created an extra 2mt of demand for wheat, preferably high starch soft milling types that maximise ethanol yield, Limagrain’s UK director of sales and New Zealand coordinator, Alastair Moore (pictured), explained.

“We’re seeing quite a drive to the soft wheat end and a lot of the new varieties recommended [in the UK] were in that category.” . .

Insecticide removal would hit crops hard – Gerald Piddock:

Seed and cereal farmers face a major risk to their productivity and profitability from the removal of organophosphate insecticides from the market.

Current control practices used by farmers, particularly during crop establishment rely heavily on organophosphates which are currently the subject of a review and re-regulation by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

Organophosphate insecticides are used by farmers to control grass grub, one of the country’s most destructive plant pests. . .

Van der Heyden works till end:

OUTGOING FONTERRA chairman Henry van der Heyden will be using the next five months as a director to help execute the co-op’s strategy refresh.

Van der Heyden is defending his decision to stay on the board after relinquishing the chairmanship to John Wilson. He says the decision has been taken in the interest of the co-op. Some shareholders have questioned the decision.
Van der Heyden says he has always done what is right for Fonterra. . .

Kirkwood takes vote for council – Gerald Piddock:

Oamaru dairy farmer Greg Kirkwood is the new Fonterra Shareholders councillor for ward 32 in Southern Canterbury.

Mr Kirkwood was elected to the council ahead of Geraldine dairy farmer Ad Hendriks.

He takes over from Desiree Reid, who retired from the position by rotation.

Mr Kirkwood said he put his name forward for the Shareholders Council because he wanted to get involved more in the co-operative.

Raw milk health risks under review:

Since the 1950s, New Zealand’s commercial milk supply has been pasteurised – treated with heat to kill bacteria – and most of us have swallowed the official position, that untreated milk is potentially dangerous to drink.

But there’s a growing trend of consumers wanting their food in a natural state, and that includes milk. They say raw milk is not only safe, it’s better for you, and a major study is underway to see if they’re right.

Most of us buy our milk pasteurised and from a dairy or supermarket fridge. But for mums like Angela Jones that’s changing. She’s one of thousands of townies making a regular trek to a trusted farmer to buy raw milk at the farm gate. . .

Spot the link

Could there be a link between this:

Biofuels regain momentum:

Global biofuel production increased by 17 percent in 2010 to reach an all-time high of 105 billion liters.1 (See Figure 1.) The increase exceeded the 10 percent growth experienced in 2009, when production was at 90 billion liters.2 Biofuels provided 2.7 percent of all global fuel for road transportation—an increase from 2 percent in 2009.3

And this:

Price of breakfast soars:

The average cost of feeding a family breakfast is 11.7 per cent higher today   than it was one year ago, with the price of some staple items rising by over   40 per cent. Official figures last week put overall inflation in the UK at   4.4 per cent . . .  

The rising prices of basic commodities such as wheat, sugar, coffee and   vegetable oil – which form the basis of many breakfast foods – have been   blamed for the inflation-busting increases.

Tim Worstall thinks so. He says breakfast is getting more expensive and biofuels are to blame:

You’ll note that three of the four are items that are used to make biofuels. . .

The price of eggs is largely determined by the price of corn which is….yes,
another crop that is used to make biofuels. I think I’m right in saying that
some 40% of the entire American crop is currently turned into ethanol.

This is, quite sadly, simply evidence of the quite lunatic idea that we
should be putting food into cars rather than people. The idea itself is bad
enough but we then have the governmental insistence (on both sides of the
Atlantic, the US and the EU) that such fuels must be used. There is no choice in
the matter, we are not allowed to avoid starving people.

An increase in renewable fuels, particularly if they are cleaner burning, is a worthy aim but feeding people is more important than heating and moving them.

Crops for food should always take precedence over crops for fuel.

Moo pooh for biofuel?

Algae which grows on ponds of human waste water in Christchurch is being turned into bio oil.

If it works for human waste it must work for animal waste too.

Could  moo pooh biofuel be produced from the effluent from dairy sheds?

Biofuels kill rain forests & increase carbon

Generating energy from crops which can be planted year after year sounds as if it would be better than using carbon based fuel from finate sources.

But what if rain forests are being clear felled to plant oil palms for biofuel and what if the palms grown generate more carbon than petroleum?

Because oil palms don’t absorb as much CO₂ as the rainforest or peatlands they replace, palm oil can generate as much as 10 times more carbon than petroleum, according to the advocacy group Food First. Thanks in large part to oil palm plantations, Indonesia is now the world’s third-largest emitter of CO₂, trailing only the US and China.

Yet Indonesia aims to expand these plantations from 16 million acres currently to almost 26 million by 2015. If deforestation, which is due largely to oil palm, continues at the present rate, 98 percent of the country’s forest—one of only a handful of large rainforests remaining in the world—will be degraded or gone by 2022. And although Indonesia has strict environmental regulations and formally recognizes customary land rights, those laws are only as effective as the local bureaucrats enforcing them.

Cropping for bioduels is still in its infancy in New Zealand and no-one is clear felling forests to plant them. But another criticism of biofuel crops is that they are replacing food crops and so contributing to global food shortages.

Companies involved with biofuel here say they won’t be using land previously used for food crops but that doesn’t leave a lot of productive land and if it wasn’t already productive you have to ask why?

Could it be that the soils weren’t very fertile in which case a lot of fertiliser will be needed to produce good yields? What’s the environmental impact of that?

Even if they don’t need extra fertiliser, can we be sure that the energy required to cultivate the land, sow and harvest the crops and produce the fuel from them isn’t greater than the energy that will be produced in the end?

Hat Tip: The NZ Week

Govt forces up price of fuel & food

The bill requiring fuel companies to supply biofuel at a fixed percentage of their total sales passed last night.

They have to start supplying it in October this year at 0.5 percent, rising to 2.5 percent by 2012.

Decisions about which type of biofuel is supplied, how much of it is blended with fossil fuels and where it comes from will be up to the industry.

Should we be grateful for small mercies?

Energy Minister David Parker said during the third reading of the Biofuel Bill that the alternative fuels would have to be sustainable.

“We know all biofuels are not equal and sustainability is under increasing scrutiny,” he said.

“But because some biofuels are not good doesn’t mean all are bad.”

Yes, but how do we know we’re getting the good ones?

Mr Parker said the cost was frequently misrepresented and would depend on the price of oil, the cost of biofuels and the exchange rate.

Estimates ranged between a price increase of 1.3 cents a litre and a saving of 4 cents a litre.

Call me cynical but I don’t have a lot of faith in politicians estimates and think it is much more likely to cost us than to save us money.

National opposed the bill and MP John Carter said the Government was asking Parliament to support “a great big, unsubstantiated experiment” without any facts to back it.

He said the OECD, the G8 conference and many other world bodies had all said there was great doubt about the benefits of introducing biofuels.

“Why does it have to be New Zealand?” he asked.

ACT leader Rodney Hide interjected: “No one else is stupid enough.”

Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said it was a small step but it would bring in investment that would create the infrastructure to produce biofuels that could be used when new technologies became available.

“The arguments against it are based on a mixture of mind-boggling ignorance by some and an absolute determination by others to ignore all the facts, no matter how many times they are put in front of them,” she said.

Ms Fitzsimons said biofuels had been used in Brazil for 40 years and were produced in many other countries.

And in many other countries they have replaced food crops leading to lower supplies and higher costs.

Biofuels have a place, they may have some benefit. But forcing us to use them before it is established that their production is better for the environment and they won’t be replacing food crops is yet another “we must do something” solution based on emotion rather than science.