Untitled Document
When Matt Hawkinson started growing corn in the rich
farmland of western Illinois, nearly a decade ago, he sold the grain for $2
a bushel, 50 cents less than it cost him to produce it. Recently, buyers
have been paying him $4.35 a bushel. It’s a welcome profit —
even if it increases the cost of the hogs he feeds — and eliminates
his need for government subsidies.
Hawkinson owes this good fortune to refineries, such
as those in the nearby towns of Galva and Pekin, that turn corn into
ethanol for fuel.
Yet the simple decision to make fuel from crops turns
out to be anything but simple, involving a tricky tangle of environmental,
farm, trade, economic, and foreign-policy issues.
Biofuels — energy sources produced from
dedicated crops and agricultural waste — have suddenly won wide
support. The biofuel craze has been fueled by high oil prices, political
turmoil in the Middle East, global-warming fears, concern about low
agricultural prices and high government subsidies, and the prospect of
making money on the next big thing. Biofuels seem to promise a quick fix
for worries about oil prices and supplies without the need for major
technological changes. Is oil for the auto-industrial complex too expensive
or fraught with problems? Just fill ’er up with biofuels.
But skeptics — of diverse political
persuasions, including many environmentalists — argue that
biofuels can’t solve the world’s energy problems.
What’s more, they argue, the biofuel solution threatens both the
environment and the world’s poor. In Mexico, the doubling of
global ethanol production and quadrupling of biodiesel production in the
past five years has led to protests over high prices for corn tortillas.
And in Southeast Asia and Latin America it has raised concerns that
rainforests are being cleared to cultivate crops for fuel.
Both sides in the debate marshal studies predicting
promise or peril. Ultimately the evidence suggests that biofuels
could be one valuable source of renewable energy — but, for biofuels
to deliver on that promise, governments will need to both tightly regulate
agricultural and land-use practices and carefully tailor
trade and economic policies. Most important, the world — especially
the United States — will have to greatly increase how efficiently it
uses energy.
Biofuels seem straightforwardly attractive. Farmers
capture solar energy though their crops, which take up carbon dioxide as
they grow. In theory, this offsets the carbon dioxide released when the
crops are burned, reducing the world’s output of greenhouse gases.
Energy crops can be grown nearly everywhere, potentially providing income
for peasants and farmers around the world. The main biofuels today are
ethanol made from plant carbohydrates and sugars (such as corn and sugar
cane) and, to a lesser extent, biodiesel made from oilseeds (soybeans, palm
nuts, rapeseed). Now in development, and showing great promise, is ethanol
made from woody cellulosic plants (switchgrass or miscanthus, as well as
organic waste).
But cultivating the crops and processing them into
fuel requires energy (or fossil-fuel derivatives, such as fertilizers), and
much of that energy now comes from natural gas and coal. For years,
scientists David Pimentel of Cornell and Tad Patzek of the University of
California, Berkeley, have claimed that the energy output from ethanol made
from biomass is less than the fossil-fuel energy used
to produce the ethanol.
Other experts respond that their calculations of this
energy balance fail to reflect the efficiencies of new facilities,
overcount energy input, and ignore the energy value of byproducts, such as
the distiller’s mash, which animals can eat. In fact most studies
show that ethanol from corn provides more energy than what goes into its
production, according to a 2006 review by Berkeley scientists Alexander E. Farrell, Daniel M. Kammen,
and others.
Yet, in terms of global warming, the carbon balance
— or contribution to reductions in greenhouse gases — is more
important than the energy balance. The Berkeley review concludes that,
overall, ethanol from current sources only modestly reduces greenhouse
gases.
Farming techniques and the choice of crops determine
the extent to which biofuels reduce greenhouse gases. For corn-based
ethanol, the estimates range from a 36 percent reduction to a 29 percent
increase, depending on cultivation practices. The best reduction would come
from using woody plants and grasses, such as miscanthus and switchgrass,
which could reduce greenhouse gases by 90 percent compared with gasoline.
In addition, some cellulosic feedstock plants can thrive in soils that are
marginal or depleted, possibly enriching and saving the topsoil while
sequestering carbon.
That is not what is happening in most of the tropics.
In the near future, tropical biofuels from sugar cane and oil palm have a
price advantage, and big agribusiness operators are slashing rainforests
for plantations that deplete soils, reduce biodiversity, and eliminate
wildlife habitat. In 2006, the Worldwatch Institute reported, “If
biofuels are produced from low-yielding crops, are grown on previously wild
grasslands or forests, and/or are produced with heavy inputs of fossil
energy, they have the potential to generate as much or more greenhouse gas
emissions than petroleum fuels do.” In Indonesia and Malaysia, for
example, the burning of forests and peat bogs to clear land for palm-oil
plantations has unleashed vast quantities of carbon dioxide, overwhelming
any modest greenhouse-gas gains from biodiesel.
Energy farming also poses tough questions about how
the world uses its land: Is there enough cultivable land to produce
significant quantities of fuel? And won’t fuel crops compete with
food crops, increase food prices, and hurt the world’s poor?
Once again, the scientific estimates vary
widely. According to Worldwatch, studies predict that bioenergy could
sustainably provide more than twice the global energy demand and also
project that “bioenergy could supply only a fraction of current
energy use by 2050, perhaps even less than it does today.”
The competition over the use of land for food or fuel
will be much greater in developing countries than in the United States,
unless farmers grow energy crops on marginal lands or rely heavily on
agricultural wastes. According to a December 2006 study by the
International Food Policy Research Institute, a global think tank,
producing enough ethanol to replace world gasoline demand would require
five times more corn than is planted today and 15 times as much sugar cane,
assuming that those are the two main sources.
But the impact on food prices would depend on how the
biofuel boom develops.
According to another IFPRI study, different mixtures
of crops and technology improvements could increase corn prices by as much
as 41 percent or as little as 23 percent by 2020. Higher grain
prices will have a mixed effect: They would boost the incomes of farmers
throughout the world, and a large fraction of the world’s poorest
people are peasants. With higher grain prices, U.S. and European farmers
could sustain themselves without the current costly subsidies that lead to
the dumping of underpriced grain on the world market, which drives down
prices for peasants everywhere.
Local economies would grow and urban workers would
also benefit but probably not enough — certainly in the short run
— to compensate for higher food prices. Critics worry that biofuel
production will increase world hunger. But low incomes — not lack of
food — are the main reason for world hunger. And the answer to that
problem is to increase urban and rural workers’ incomes, partly by
ensuring that all people have the right to organize industrially and
politically.
But with big landowners and industrialists having the
advantages of wealth and power, it is doubtful that farmers and peasants
will reap the benefits of biofuels. David Morris, vice president of the St.
Paul, Minn.-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance, argues that ethanol
programs in the United States must be designed to favor farmer-owned
cooperatives, which have a significant but declining share of the American
market.
If global trade in biofuels develops more
dramatically, big business will promote biofuel exports over domestic food
production in developing countries, and as a result the
natural environment will be destroyed and peasants and tribal people will
be forced off their lands. Some biofuel strategists, such as John Mathews,
the Australian author of “A Biofuels Manifesto,” argue that
biofuels should be certified to guarantee that they were produced in a
socially and ecologically sustainable manner.
U.S. politicians of varied stripes have played up
biofuels as a strategy for energy independence, but the biofuel market will
continue to be influenced by petroleum prices. Ethanol is now profitable in
the United States because oil prices are over the competitive threshold of
$50 a barrel. But if corn prices go higher, or if oil prices drop, ethanol
will be less competitive. Even now, domestic ethanol competes with
Brazilian imports in large part because of a stiff tariff — and if
tariffs are cut, as advocates of both free trade and cheap biofuels
propose, the resulting increase in biofuel imports would undercut the goal
of independence.
Though full energy independence may be illusory,
increasing domestic biofuels production could significantly reduce the
trade deficit. And poor, developing countries that are strapped for foreign
exchange could benefit greatly from substituting homegrown fuels for
imported oil.
Ultimately, though, the biofuel potential will only
be realized if governments everywhere push for energy efficiency and
thereby reduce the need for massive farming for fuel.
Daniel Kammen, a professor in the Energy and
Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley, writes,
“If the entire U.S. vehicle fleet were replaced overnight with
[plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that combine internal-combustion engines
with electric motors and large batteries for recharging from an outlet],
the nation’s oil consumption would decrease by 70 percent or more,
completely eliminating the need for petroleum imports.”
If the world — but especially the United States
— takes advantage of existing possibilities for energy efficiency and
designs biofuel policies to protect the environment, as well as farmers and
workers in the industry, then the potential for biofuels is rosy.
If, however, we continue to leave the development of
biofuels to big corporations and the free market, the biofuel dream could
warp into a social and environmental nightmare.
David Moberg is a senior editor at Chicago-based
In These Times. He is the author of “The health-care monster
returns,” published in the March 29 edition of Illinois Times.
Illinois Times has provided readers with independent journalism for almost 50 years, from news and politics to arts and culture.
Your support will help cover the costs of editorial content published each week. Without local news organizations, we would be less informed about the issues that affect our community..
Click here to show your support for community journalism.