| When the cost of a bag of Thai fragrant rice shoots up by 60 cents or 13 per cent in the space of just a few weeks, every Singaporean is inevitably affected1. A nation of foodies cannot help but notice that our food has become more and more expensive.
A quick look at the news will show that we are not alone. Rice shortages have been reported all over the region, from Indonesia to the Philippines. In some cases, the price hike has led to growing panic; many Filipinos have started to hoard rice, which creates more shortfalls and, ironically, leads to even higher prices.
This has become a serious problem and everyone wants to know why. One reason in particular will be familiar to environmentalists who have been championing the use of cleaner fuels to reduce our carbon emissions, especially from cars.
We are referring to, of course, biofuels.
Two types of biofuels
Biofuels can be defined as liquid fuels produced from biomass for either transport or burning purposes. They can be made from industrial and civilian waste, but more often, they come from agricultural products.
There are two major types of biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel, which together account for more than 90 per cent of global biofuel usage2. Out of these two types, bioethanol is getting the brunt of media attention, because it is more widely produced than biodiesel.
Bioethanol is a distilled liquid produced by fermenting sugars from sugar plants and cereal crops, for example, corn, wheat, sorghum, sugarcane and beet. It can be used in pure form, but is usually mixed with petrol before being used in vehicles equipped with specially adapted engines.
Biodiesel is produced from the reaction of vegetable oil, ethanol or bioethanol and a catalyst. The vegetable oil comes from crops such as rapeseed, sunflower, soya, palm and coconut. It can also be produced from animal fats and waste cooking oil. Like bioethanol, biodiesel is seldom used in its pure form. It is usually mixed with automotive diesel to be used in specially adapted cars.
Food converted to fuel
The obvious criticism against biofuels is that too much farmland has been diverted to produce crops for fuel instead of food. Lester Brown, a well known activist on food politics from the US, described the boom in bioethanol as “a competition between 800 million people in the world who own automobiles and the three billion people who live on less than US$2.00 a day.”3
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the conversion of corn to ethanol is a primary reason for a sharp decline in global cereal stocks. This led to a rise in grain prices in the first half of 2006.
Meanwhile, the rising price of crude oil has increased the demand for alternative sources of fuel. Bioethanol is one such alternative and it has the added advantage of being a renewable source of energy, unlike fossil fuels. As such, bioethanol has suddenly become a very lucrative cash crop. Major cereal producers in the world, like Brazil, India and Thailand, are now rushing to plant as much cereals as they can, not for human consumption, but for bioethanol production instead.
Brazil’s bioethanol
So the critics do appear to have a very strong case. In our enthusiasm for biofuels, we seem to have forgotten our moral obligation in ensuring people have enough food to eat.
The problem becomes less clear however, when we look a little closer. It is not altogether evident that diverting farmland to bioethanol production completely explains the recent hike in global cereal prices.
Take Brazil for example. It is the world’s leading producer of bioethanol from sugarcane. It produced 15 billion litres of bioethanol in 2004, equivalent to 38 per cent of worldwide production. Moreover, the South American country has been producing bioethanol since the 1970s, during the height of the “green revolution”, when global food production had finally outstripped population growth. As such, Brazil could hardly be accused of profiteering from the recent popularity of bioethanol.
Furthermore, while Brazil is a major cereal producer, its total production only accounted for 2.81 per cent of total global cereal production in 20044. In other words, even if Brazil were to completely abandon bioethanol production and switch back to growing cereals for food, it will not make an appreciable dent on rising global prices.
Complacent governments
Clearly, the real reason for the sudden spike in cereal prices lies elsewhere. It is a result of a complex set of ecological and socio-economic reasons. But food experts generally agree that the main culprits are the governments of cereal-producing countries.
Put simply, these governments have been complacent. World agricultural growth for all food products has been slowing down since the 1960s, from three per cent per annum in the 1960s to two per cent in the mid-1990s5. The FAO has predicted the inevitable shortfall in food vis-à-vis world population growth since the late 1990s, but the relevant governments failed to take heed of these warnings.
As recently as last year, padi rice production rose by only one per cent, making it the second consecutive year that production growth lagged behind population growth. Given this trend, it was only a matter of time before demand outstripped the available supply of rice and other foodstuffs, resulting in the higher prices6.
Corn is not carbon-efficient
So, yes, while biofuel production does contribute to the global shortage of cereal crop for human consumption, we should be careful not to be carried away by the media hype. It is not the only factor. Moreover, the solutions to food shortage lie in more government investments in agricultural research and infrastructure development, and not necessarily in the abandoning of biofuel production.
However, more can be done to reduce the ecological and economic impact of switching to fuel crops. For a start, we need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve with biofuels. Theoretically, biofuels provide a possible avenue to reduce our total carbon emissions, particularly from cars and machinery.
Cars are a major source of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas that causes global warming. But since plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, crops grown for biofuels should suck up as much carbon dioxide as cars produce7.
Unfortunately, food and environmental experts do not agree on whether this is actually the case, particularly in the US, where almost 20 per cent of all available farmland has been switched to corn for bioethanol production8. Some studies show that corn is a very inefficient feedstock for producing bioethanol. One such study calculates that even if the US diverted its entire current corn harvest to biofuels, it would meet only 11 per cent of its current gasoline demand9.
On top of that, corn cultivation requires heavy use of farm machinery and artificial fertilisers. The machines add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, while fertilisers add to pollution concerns.
Grass and potatoes
Thus, it looks like corn is a bad choice for biofuel production. Fortunately, carbon-efficient alternatives are available.
Take the humble potato, which FAO is keen on promoting in Asia. The potato is already the world’s leading non-cereal food commodity and potato consumption is expanding rapidly in developing countries. China is, in fact, the world’s biggest potato producer, because the crop is very suited to the soil and climate10.
Research also shows that sweet potatoes, as a source of ethanol-producing starch, produce twice the energy traditionally generated by maize. In other words, potatoes are more efficient feedstock for bioethanol production than corn-related crops.
Emerging research also suggests that, rather than growing cereal crops for bioethanol production, it is better to grow wild grass instead11. A piece of farmland needs to be left fallow after a few crop rotations in order to “rest” the soil. During this fallow period, wild grass should be allowed to grow.
The grass could help to soak up carbon dioxide with very little human intervention. Also, scientists have discovered that wild grass produce 50 per cent more energy per hectare than corn. The net effect is a “carbon negative” process — precisely the effect that environmentalists hope to achieve via biofuel production.
More importantly, wild grass does not compete with food crops. It is used as part of the fallowing process to restore the fertility of the farmland in preparation for the next rotation of food cultivation.
So, it is possible to achieve a balance between biofuel production and food cultivation. It needs not be an either-or decision. Of course, more research still needs to be done, but at least a happy compromise can be achieved.
References:
1 Ample supplies of rice available in the shops, The Straits Times, 4 Apr 08
2 Biofuels production, trade and sustainable development, IIED, Sep 06
3 Fuels gold: Big risks of the biofuel revolution, NewScientist, 25 Sep 06
4 Production of cereals and share of world, Food and Agriculture Organisation
5 FAO symposium on agriculture, trade and food security, Sep 1999
6 Governments to blame for high rice prices, The Straits Times, 4 Apr 08
7 Biofuel facts and information, National Geographic
8 Bush to back bioethanol but benefits are in the balance, NewScientist, 6 Mar 07
9 Fuels gold: Big risks of the biofuel revolution, NewScientist, 25 Sep 06
10 International Year of the Potato (http://www.potato2008.org/en/)
11 Humble grasses may be the best source of biofuel, NewScientist, 8 Dec 06 |
