Is it better to use crops for bio fuel and therefore to help the environment rather than to feed people?

Question

Too many cars?

Too many people?

What do you think?

Answer 1

i think it could be part of the depopulation strategy

but it is not better for those who are starving

But that is not an American concern

Food or Fuel - That Is the Burning Question    

Written by Walter Sotomayor  

Tuesday, 15 April 2008

(IPS) - The difficult balancing act between fighting hunger, producing biofuels and defending the environment is at the centre of the debate at the 30th Regional Conference of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in the Brazilian capital.

Experts from 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries, international agencies and non-governmental organisations began their technical meetings Monday at the Brazilian Foreign Ministry in Brasilia.

The aim of the conference is to assess conditions in the region, especially in the light of concerns caused by rising food prices.

"We must find a balance between fighting hunger, energy security and protecting the environment," said José Antonio Marcondes, spokesman for the Brazilian delegation at the conference, where meetings at ministerial level are to be inaugurated Wednesday by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

"Brazil believes that biofuels have the potential to combat poverty," said the Brazilian representative, who stressed the importance of including family farms in the production chain.

In Brazil, the region’s largest food producer, the government is carrying out a number of programmes to fight poverty.

At the same time, the Brazilian government advocates the use of biodiesel and ethanol as fuels, an idea that is rejected by countries like Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, which fear that ever larger agricultural areas will be devoted to producing biofuels rather than food.

"It is ethically unacceptable to convert areas of food production to energy production," said José Arsenio Quintero, the head of the Cuban delegation.

However, Quintero supported a suggestion from Argentina and Brazil that a voluntary regional code of conduct be adopted to prevent environmental damage or reduction of food production.

The Brasilia meeting debated a report prepared by Guilherme Schuetz, an official at the FAO regional office. Schuetz, a Brazilian expert, pointed out the risks of biofuel production, but suggested that they could be minimised through the use of different technologies and commitments on the environment.

But a message sent to the conference by U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, Monday heated up the debate.

Ziegler called production of biofuels "a crime against humanity," because a large proportion of food grains is now used for this purpose.

Critics agree that staple food prices have risen because of shrinking production and the use of cereals like maize, or oilseeds like soybeans, for making biofuels.

The World Bank warned that violent uprisings might occur in an estimated 33 countries due to increased food prices.

But such criticism was rejected by Carlos Porto, an international adviser to the Brazilian Agriculture Ministry. "It is the United States and the European Union that use foods like maize, wheat and edible oils to make biofuels," he said.

FAO reported that extreme poverty and malnutrition had fallen in most countries of the region, but said that there are still 81 million people living in extreme poverty.

Hunger persists in the region even when there is a 31 percent excess in the supply of calories, which means that there is enough food for all the population, says a FAO study that was distributed to the press.

Helping countries combat hunger is FAO’s principal mission.

This week’s conference will analyse regional progress towards meeting the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), agreed by the international community in 2000. One of them is to halve the proportion of the world’s people who suffer from hunger by 2015, with respect to the 1990 baseline.

Answer 2

I wish the stupid politicians would listen to the majority of the people and stop subsidizing e85!

Answer 3

look at all the countries that have starving and riot problems. they are countries without property rights that are enforced.  therefore the market cant distribute food properly.

Answer 4

good Q.

this is tough because we have to think about the people who are living in 3rd/4th world nations before we think about driving out cars.

Answer 5

in short, no!

Answer 6

No.  The best natural product to generate bio-fuels is algae.

Answer 7

Its better to feed people. We cannot live without food, but we certainly could live without this alternative fuel.

To many gas guzlin vehicles. Americans love their gas guzlin hummers, suvs, trucks, etc.

I hope gas goes even higher!! Americans should pay BIG TIME for their lack of willingness to conserve and be reasonable.

Answer 8

oil came from plants and animals growing over millions of years

the worlds supply of oil has only lasted around 200years

i think we're getting energy for very cheap at the moment we just don't know it yet, we waste so much

Answer 9

Using corn for ethanol is the biggest scam out there right now.

Corn outside of the obvious high cost of everything else like food = cattle and chickens feed on corn and that the food industry uses it in our food.  for example

as a gasoline substitute, ethanol has big problems: Its energy density is one-third less than gasoline, which means you have to burn more of it to get the same amount of power.

Nor is all ethanol created equal. In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar cane has an energy balance of 8-to-1 -- that is, when you add up the fossil fuels used to irrigate, fertilize, grow, transport and refine sugar cane into ethanol, the energy output is eight times higher than the energy inputs. That's a better deal than gasoline, which has an energy balance of 5-to-1. In contrast, the energy balance of corn ethanol is only 1.3-to-1 - making it practically worthless as an energy source.

As much as I hate to say this but we need to start drilling oil  here in the lower 48.  I have no idea why the gop'ers keep trying to drill in ANWR (which I'm against) when it has only a reserve of maybe 11.3 billion barrels of oil.  Where as in N. Dakota, parts of SD and MT there is in excess of 200 billion to 300 billion barrels of oil in what is known as the Bakken Formation . Plus lets not forget that hugh reserve thet=y discovered in the gulf coast a year ago and there is another massive reserve off AK in the Baltic.

Answer 10

I think we should grow crops to feed people, as there is a way of turning plastic waste into good clean fuel. Check out web sites for Cynar plc and in Hawaii they are getting them try Hawaii plastics ot fuel and a company called Ozmotech. This has been going on for years in China and Japan and there is so much plastic waste.

Answer 11

Crops for bio fuel is a bad idea. These companies try "green" options for renewable resources, but with all the machinery they use just to extract this fuel, they are wasting more oil.

Either way, it's a lose-lose situation.

Answer 12

Not at all. It takes 100 gallons of gas to make 40 gal. of ethonal.  The process of making it requires gasoline and is therefore totally unhelpful.  Feeding people is a much better use of corn.  

It's good people are trying to think of new ways to power cars and other things but bio fuel just isnt the answer.

Answer 13

Cars are no where near the problem as are industrial factories. In a recent report that I saw, another issue is methane. Methane is a green house gas that is produced by plants, dead and rotting plants, as well as by animals. A better solution would be to develop a fuel source that produced mainly water as the exhaust.

Answer 14

Too many cars AND too many people.

And far too many car drivers who don't care.

Apart from it being a very wasteful way of producing fuel

I think it is a crime to use perfectly good food for burning, especially since there are already methods to get bio-gas out of human and animal waste, also to ferment by-products of food production. It is only laziness and lack of purpose in both politicians and voters ( as well as car manufacturers and buyers) that holds us back from being far less environmentally damaging than we are.

Answer 15

The sad part is ethanol is not helping the environment and crop land is being misused. Instead of growing corn for people

Answer 16

There is virtually no trade-off between food and bio-fuel.  I never cease to be amazed at how many people have little or no knowledge of agriculture, chemistry and modern corn produced ethanol. Yet they spout off with all these "facts" and argue with those who actually have some involvement in agriculture and actually know how things work.

I am familiar with agriculture, corn ethanol, livestock feeding and oil drilling, production and refining.

First off the greatest majority of the corn that produces ethanol has NEVER been used for human food.  The corn food value is not used up in producing ethanol. I know because Cattle I own are eating the left over meal from ethanol production as part of their feed rations. There were eating this corn before, now they are still eating it after the ethanol is produced from the corn.

I use E-85 in one of my flex-fuel vehicles. I get about 15% less miles per gallon. But seeing as how only 15% of the fuel is gasoline, I figure I am getting over 100 miles per gallon of gas. This sure stretches the use of gasoline in my vehicle. The cost of E-85 is currently about 20% less than unleaded gas where I live, so I am still money ahead as well.

The biggest culprit in rising food costs is guess what - the cost of oil, which makes production and transportation costs more expensive all the way through the system.

See this article:  

Ethanol is reducing food costs by lowering gas prices, some experts say.

According to one analyst from Merrill Lynch, ethanol lowers gas and oil prices by 15%. Another study by Iowa State University found that ethanol reduces gas prices by at least 29 to 40 cents per gallon. Rising energy costs play the dominant role in the price of food because raw ingredients like corn comprise only 20% of the price of food. The other 80% is shipping, packaging, processing and advertising costs.

In the past year, food prices have increased only 4.6% while energy prices have increased 26.4%, according to the Consumer Price Index Report. The president of OPEC, Chakib Khelil, has stated oil could easily reach $200 per barrel within two years.

A driver who buys E10 can save at least ten cents a gallon—and that can add up to hundreds of savings in one year. But eliminating ethanol from the U.S. fuel supply would instantly cause gasoline prices to soar an additional $1.10 per gallon over the current price, according to economist John Urbanchuck.

“When the average animal travels over a thousand miles from producer to plate, it’s clear that oil and gas prices are pushing up the cost of everything. Oil companies are scrambling for a scapegoat while they rake in billions every month,” said Todd Sneller, administrator of the Nebraska Ethanol Board.  

“Consumers who choose ethanol fuels at the pump will save money compared to those who opt for conventional gasoline.  We expect Nebraska motorists to save nearly $70 million by using ethanol,” said Sneller.



Even with increased demand for corn for food and fuel, the net output of feed corn and distillers grains has increased 26 percent in the last five years. There is enough corn grown in the U.S. to meet ethanol demand, increase exports and still stockpile a 10% surplus. “ Nebraska farmers and ethanol producers are providing food, feed and fuel for Nebraska and the nation,” said Jim Jenkins , Nebraska Ethanol Board chairman.

Many people have complained about the amount of farm subsidies to farmers. Now these same people are complaining about incentives for ethanol production. Two things here - first have you seen the tax breaks and incentives for oil production? It puts ethanol's tax breaks to shame. Secondly, does anyone realize how much the farm subsidies have been reduced from the higher corn prices because of ethanol production.

One other thing that many people do not realize is that they are using ethanol. Most states allow up to 6% ethanol as an "additive" that does not need to be listed on the pump. This is why many people do not realize that California is the largest state for useage of ethanol even though many Californians would tell you they have never used ethanol. Most people do not realize how much less gasoline is being used thanks to ethanol and how it is helping keep down oil useage.

Answer 17

This is an interesting and topical question, but there is not a simple answer.

There are undoubtedly too many cars in the world (many of them are unnecessarily inefficient), making too many unnecessary journeys.  Some transportation is necessary, but oil reserves are finite and demand is starting to outstrip supply thanks to the emerging markets (India and China).  But because the world lives in a market economy, price is the only way to control demand and supply.

Currently, OPEC controls the price of a barrel of oil, and individual national governments add their own controls by adding tax at the point of sale.  But this has to be measured against the necessity of moving goods (food) around.  Added to this is the backdrop of climate change, against which, biofuel is a better alternative.  However, although rainforests are being cleared to grow palm oil, this is not for the production of biofuel in the Northern Hemisphere as palm oil is unsuitable for use as a biofuel in colder northern climates.  The primary use for palm oil is for food preservatives and soap products (a major ingredient of Dove soap, for instance, is palm oil).  In Europe, biofuel is commonly derived from rapeseed oil and in North America, corn oil.

Some central economic planning may be necessary to bring control.  As a poster has already stated, the most efficient way of producing biofuel is by using certain types of pond algae, but the market is not sufficiently developed to allow production on a large scale; maybe government should encourage this.  Some high powered sports cars, 4x4’s (SUV’s) and people carriers (minivans) are too inefficient and should be strictly limited; not a popular expedient for any government to introduce.

The answer is:

1.Fewer cars

2.More efficient cars

3.Fewer journeys

4.Fuel from renewable sources (but not at the expense of food)

5.Fuel from recycled sources (e.g. vegetable oil that has already been used for cooking)

These need implementing now, but I doubt if any government has the balls to force the necessary change, so people WILL starve.

Answer 18

All the grain in America wouldn't run our cars for more than a month or two .  Ethanol is not the answer .  Fuel efficient vehicles and electric vehicles are the future .  

feed people

get rid of the suv's

and yes we need birth control

Answer 19

It is possible to do both you know. We are not just using one field.

This could be the opportunity for a poorer country to become the next fuel producing nation, or even better spread the fuel producing so that one bit of the world doesn't dictate the economies for the rest.

That's my 2 pence.

Answer 20

Don't  believe the noise. Corn growers are NOT taking food out of the mouths of the poor.

http://www.hanskaco.com/index.aspx?ascxi...

Dramatically rising international corn price speculation has led to expensive tortillas.

http://www.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did...

But who is profiting from these speculatory price rises? With all the noise the Media is making trying to blame U.S. farmers, maybe we should look at the owners of the media and their financial buddies. As usual, the real cause of financial strain can be traced to our 'overlords' in the financial district. They think they own us. And so long as we do nothing to disabuse them of the notion, they're RIGHT.

Answer 21

Why not feed both? After all, they're both important part of our daily living. Good for the environment = Good for people. After all, crops we can grow but the environment, we can't. It's good to drive thinking that the fuel we're using can help us survive.

Answer 22

When this first became appararent I thought, 'Oh great..(sarcastically) now we're growing food to feed the cars'... I think if this kicks off and becomes affordable the consequences will be unimaginable. But then I suppose a group of suits have sat somewhere and thought all this out in the best financial way possible and someone is creaming somewhere...

I still say solar.

Big ball of energy up there, there must be more to its failed utilization... reason being that noone can fly up there and put a flag on it and say 'RIGHT! this is mine'... noone can reap revenues on the suns energy so they don't see it as worthy of exploitation. Patents can be copied and modified and therefore the whole solar thing would have to be shared and humans don't like that.

There will come a desperate day though, when we will look back and say 'wow', this should have been done centuries ago'... I am not in favour of growing crops for fuel especially when all that solar energy is going on day by day...just left to itself and unharnessed. I know there are some solar stations around and they are sucessful, but they are not publicized and promoted enough... why? Coz noone can get close enough to claim exclusivity on the suns' energy, its there for us all to share....

Answer 23

Yes, too many cars!  

Too many people?  Maybe... but I think the world birth rate versus death rate are pretty even-stevens.

We could always have more people using up the waste cooking oil - that would help.  It's certainly better than everyone using band new veg-oil.

1.2 million people die each year on the world's roadways — more than are killed by major scourges such as malaria or diabetes.

Answer 24

Biofuels raise so many questions.  They sure sound like a great idea but in so many developing countries they are destroying the rainforest and ecologically valuable land in order to grow them.  And perhaps more important than teh issue of saving the planet's biodiversity, they're converting land that was used to grow food into growing crops for biofuel production.  Much better to use public transport and where that's not possible, run fuel efficient cars or cycle!

Answer 25

i think that using crops, such as corn, is a very bad idea.  many people belive it is helping the environment, when really it is just speeding up the global warming process.  and it doesn't help much, either.  the same amount of corn a farmer would feed his cow in a lifetime would make about one tenth of that in fuel. and many rural areas need this corn because it is the main object of ther diet.

Answer 26

Develop an engine that will fun on cadavers.

Answer 27

First crops don't help the enviroment - sorry!!! and even the U.N. has asked countries not to use food as fuel. Have you noticed the prices of food lately?many  farmers are planting corn for fuel  instead of wheat for food