Story originally printed in the La Crosse Tribune or online at www.lacrossetribune.com
Published - Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Recognize the falacies about biofuels
STEVENS POINT, Wis. — The official bogeyman of Earth Week 2008 is biofuels.
A top United Nations official has called use of food crops to produce ethanol “a crime against humanity,” environmentalists are blaming ethanol production for destruction of rain forests, and food riots from Haiti to Egypt are being cited as examples of what happens to prices when land is used to grow fuel instead of food.
It’s only a matter of time before the plight of the polar bears is somehow blamed on biofuels, as well.
The food-versus-fuel debate was center stage at last week’s Wisconsin Biofuels Destiny conference at UW-Stevens Point, which attracted 120 people with different stakes in biofuels.
Few participants argued that corn-based ethanol will forever remain the world’s primary biofuel, given the need for greater energy efficiency and rapid changes in technology. However, those same participants were adamant that other factors are far more responsible for rising food prices worldwide than the intensely local production of corn- or sugar-based ethanol. Some examples:
n Commodity prices typically make up about one-fifth the cost of food to consumers; transportation, packaging and labor account for the rest. With oil prices surging Tuesday to $118 per barrel of sweet crude, the ripple effect is finally hitting the food chain.
n Global climate change, which increased use of biofuels could eventually help to mitigate, may be causing major disruptions in food production.
n Demand for food is soaring as the world’s population continues to grow. With rice, which is not used for biofuels production, there has been a growing supply problem. Little of the world’s rice is exported; more than 90 percent is consumed where it is grown. In the last quarter century, however, rice production has not kept pace with consumption.
n Some of the very nations that have rejected genetically modified crops, which are more resistant to climate change, drought and pests, are among those facing food shortages. Resistance to new technologies and processes has contributed to the problem.
“The food-versus-fuel debate is artificial,” said Greg Lynch, a lawyer with the Michael, Best & Friedrich firm who has worked on a number of biofuels projects. “Recent increases in food prices are primarily the result of increased worldwide demand for protein and increases in energy costs, not diversion of food for fuel.”
Lynch and others believe farmer-owned biofuel plants create a natural hedge against fluctuations in commodity prices, provide a fuel that is environmentally friendly compared to fossil fuels and act as a check against dependence on foreign energy sources.
The same environmental movement that once championed biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels has decided to make ethanol Public Enemy No. 1, despite evidence that would suggest it has been a relatively minor contributor to rising food prices. In a world that needs both food and fuel, let’s not allow either irrational exuberance or overblown fears to kill an emerging solution.
Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.
All stories copyright 2000 - 2006 La Crosse Tribune and other attributed sources.