FAO pegs biofuels at 10% of the food problem

World Bank puts it at 30% of the food problem.

And of course a majority of the corn price locally and globally is caused by US biofuels policy.

_

If anything, the real distortion on the WSJ page is this statement.

"cellulosic varieties, which don't draw on food stocks"

Of course they draw on food resources.  It's all the same water, topsoil, nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium.

Cellulosic biomass doesn't get to magically ignore the laws of conservation of matter.
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf

-David Ahlport

Rosegrant is the Division Director of the Environment and Production Technology Division over at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

The IFPRI is perhaps the most authoritative voice on this matter, since it is the only large expert organisation that has done thorough simulations and studies on the price effects of biofuels.

His findings clearly show that the contribution of biofuels to rising food prices has been substantial, but that this is not necessarily a problem in the future, as production expands.

He says this:

Impact of a freeze on biofuel production at 2007 levels

If biofuel production was frozen at 2007 levels for all countries and for all crops used as feedstock, maize prices are projected to decline by 6 percent by 2010 and 14 percent by 2015.

For wheat this would be 2% and 4%.

For sugar 1% and 4%.

For oils 2% and 6%.

For cassava 2% and 5%.

Impact of a moratorium (elimination) on biofuel production after 2007

If biofuel demand from food crops were abolished after 2007 (in other words, if a global moratorium on crop-based biofuel production were imposed), prices of key food crops would drop more significantly--by 20 percent for maize, 14 percent for cassava, 11 percent for sugar, and 8 percent for wheat by 2010.

In short, if oil prices stay this high, biofuels may actually lower the cost of living for very many people in countries with a competitive biofuels sector (such as Brazil, the example of which can be replicated across the Global South).

There is no alternative to liquid fuels, the ultra-high prices of which push the prices of everything else sky high.

--------------

The hysteric attacks over biofuels' role in food prices resemble virtually all criticisms leveled against biofuels so far. These criticisms are either totally unsubstantiated ("fiction" indeed) or have been based on controversial or outright weak science.

Three examples:

1. The general resource base (land, water, etc...): the IEA Bioenergy Task 40/Copernicus Institute show how much land is available in the long-term. It's the only scientific study to have done the math, so far (so much so that the FAO has taken its model as its own to study the biofuels potential). The reserve, they found, calculated on an explicit sustainability basis (no deforestation, no impact on food, fiber, fodder and forest products), is huge (capable of yielding more than 1500 Ej of energy worth by 2050 when populations have grown; 1500 Ej is 6 times as much energy as all oil currently consumed by the entire world).  But still you hear media and bloggers fantasize about land shortages.

2. Fargione et al.'s "study" about the carbon debt of biofuels. It was a totally groundless study which merely speculated that biofuels can be produced on land that used to be forest. The truth is that the vast bulk of biofuels is not produced this way. And the study ignored the idea that biofuel crops can actually become carbon sinks. But the conclusion was that all biofuels have a big carbon debt. A speculative, baseless, unscientific report that has meanwhile been debunked by scientists (over at Argonne Lab, the National Renewable Energy Lab, Oak Ridge National Lab, Pacific Northwest National Lab, etc.).

3. The very recent report about biofuel crops being invasive species. That was yet another study that thrived off of generalizations (or at least, the media generalized and pumped this report up as if it was somehow hugely important). The fact is that virtually all biofuel crops of the future will be non-invasive species (e.g. sugarcane grown in sugarcane land, sorghum grown in sorghum land, miscanthus grown in its natural habitat, eucalyptus in eucalyptus land, etc...). But this study made headlines, because it talked about one or two crops that 'might' be seen as invasive. The media's conclusion was: "biofuels pose a serious risk by pushing invasive species".

And now we're stuck in a debate that is completely irrational.

With Jean Ziegler (who got fired because of it) saying that biofuels are a "crime against humanity", and Lula da Silva replying that "not investing in biofuels is a crime against the planet and its people".

It's sad that there isn't more rational argumentation in this debate.

Fargione et al.'s "study" about the carbon debt of biofuels. It was a totally groundless study which merely speculated that biofuels can be produced on land that used to be forest. The truth is that the vast bulk of biofuels is not produced this way. And the study ignored the idea that biofuel crops can actually become carbon sinks. But the conclusion was that all biofuels have a big carbon debt. A speculative, baseless, unscientific report that has meanwhile been debunked by scientists (over at Argonne Lab, the National Renewable Energy Lab, Oak Ridge National Lab, Pacific Northwest National Lab, etc.).

You clearly are hyping up the same baseless rhetoric I would expect from Michael Wang.

As responded to here:
http://www.bioenergywiki.net/images/3/31/Searchinger_Resp ...

With Jean Ziegler (who got fired because of it) saying that biofuels are a "crime against humanity", and Lula da Silva replying that "not investing in biofuels is a crime against the planet and its people".

As mentioned previously, considering Lula de Silva's country is the one who is going to make the most profit off of food scarcity, it seems rather appalling that he would make that sort of statement.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/05/21/1025/0966/#6

Silva's environment minister recently quit in frustration because their administration seems dead set in plowing up the Amazon, into food and fuel production.
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/13/silva/index.html

-David Ahlport

Let's just start with the two articles in Science. Neither the Fargione et al. nor the Searchinger et al. articles concluded that "all biofuels have a big carbon debt." What they concluded was that the biofuels they examined could have a big carbon debt -- a finding with which I had thought (up until now) you would agree with.

Second,you have clearly missed their point, especially in the article by Searchinger et al., which was that the distinction between direct and indirect land-use effects is largely irrelevant: biofuels have an effect on land conversion through pressure on prices. We have seen that most strongly in the market for vegetable oils. Already, around half of the EU's rapeseed crop is used for the production of biodiesel, and in the U.S., increased planting of corn (largely at the expense of soybeans) in the 2006/07 season, combined with increased use of soybeans for biodiesel in the USA, has helped in the doubling of the price of all vegetable oils over the last two years, and an expansion of soybean area in Latin America and palm oil in south-east Asia -- some on previously forested land.

Finally, yes the Argonne scientists have posted a critique. But according to one of the authors of the Searchinger et al. article (with whom I have been in correspondence), after Searchinger provided Science with a rebuttal of their points, Science decided not to publish the Argonne letter, as they thought it did not meet their standards for publication.

These are only my personal opinions.

Let's just start with the two articles in Science. Neither the Fargione et al. nor the Searchinger et al. articles concluded that "all biofuels have a big carbon debt."

I said the media concluded this. And many blogs. Scientists have tried to respond to the irresponsible conclusions based on these controversial articles.

What they concluded was that the biofuels they examined could have a big carbon debt -- a finding with which I had thought (up until now) you would agree with.

It's not difficult to agree with this because it is stating the obvious. The question is: is it relevant to the debate? The answer is a square no, because the vast bulk of biofuels is produced on low-carbon land, and actually may even act like carbon sinks. Sugarcane would be the example. The crop alone (not the ethanol made from it) as it is currently planted on several million hectares in Brazil, actually stores more carbon in its roots than the ecosystems on which sugarcane "could" be planted.

It's like saying you "could" grow potatos in Greenland to make biofuels. But it would be irrelevant to the debate, because these potatos would obviously not make for very efficient ethanol.

I'm a realist looking for solutions. Not a speculator paralysed by baseless fear or by an agenda that is putting many people at risk.

Another example. We already knew that you "can" destroy peatlands for palm oil and pump GHGs into the atmosphere if you do so. But do we need outspoken anti-biofuels advocates to create an image based on this basic knowledge, so that they can falsely conclude that all palm oil grows on peatland? No, we don't. But that's what's happened.

I can guarantee you that if you ask 100 people in The Netherlands where the vast bulk of palm oil plantations can be found, 99 of them will say: on the peatlands in Borneo. While in fact only a tiny fraction can be found there, in that highly specific ecosystem.

So clearly, there's a lot of propaganda going on, that could push millions of people into poverty in  South Eas Asia and Africa. If the Dutch give a blank "no" to palm oil, they are causing a hecatombe.

In short, I agree with speculative conclusions like "you can grow potatos in Greenland". But I simply think they should not dominate the debate, when they are irrelevant to it.

Second,you have clearly missed their point, especially in the article by Searchinger et al., which was that the distinction between direct and indirect land-use effects is largely irrelevant: biofuels have an effect on land conversion through pressure on prices.

Again, nobody denies this. But the point is irrelevant.

The authors represent speculative thinking that cannot be expressed in scientific terms. It has some value as a vague warning, but not as a basis for a science-based debate.

Again, they either stated the obvious (biofuels induce land use change; humans breathe) or they stated the impregnable.

Nobody can empirically pinpoint the extent of the land-use changes induced by the price pressures resulting from changes in biofuel output.

There are so many factors at play, that it is too simplistic to point at biofuels as the leading factor of, e.g., the recent increase in deforestation rates in the Amazon - the context in which their article was clearly placed.

Their point is as weak as saying that the metals used in wind turbines 'may' have caused 5 million deaths in Congo, where these metals are mined and resulted in a resource conflict (even though the metals used in wind turbines are also mined in many other countries).

With the same speculative mindset as that of Searchinger and Fargione, I can prove that biofuels have saved tens of millions of lives of people who would otherwise have succumbed to hunger. (In fact, this counterintuitive idea is even easier to prove than what Searchinger et al did, because Goldman-Sachs recently did so - biofuels in the U.S. have helped combat poverty by pushing down the cost of liquid fuels by up to 15%).

We have seen that most strongly in the market for vegetable oils. Already, around half of the EU's rapeseed crop is used for the production of biodiesel, and in the U.S., increased planting of corn (largely at the expense of soybeans) in the 2006/07 season, combined with increased use of soybeans for biodiesel in the USA, has helped in the doubling of the price of all vegetable oils over the last two years, and an expansion of soybean area in Latin America and palm oil in south-east Asia -- some on previously forested land.

Exactly, and the assessments as to the price effects of these changes in biofuel output range widely.

That's the point. Let's take corn. Some analysts say corn ethanol has contributed only 2% to the increased in world corn prices, others put the number as high as 30%.

The EU says it devotes less than 1.5% of its acreage to biofuels, which is why they can never explain the huge increases in food prices.

Finally, yes the Argonne scientists have posted a critique. But according to one of the authors of the Searchinger et al. article (with whom I have been in correspondence), after Searchinger provided Science with a rebuttal of their points, Science decided not to publish the Argonne letter, as they thought it did not meet their standards for publication.

Well, the four other letters that did debunk Searchinger were published in Science. Enough said.

In conclusion, I have nothing against those who try to caution for potential future risks with biofuels.

But it is time we also start to write about the major benefits (like saving the planet from social collapse as a result of skyhigh oil prices; the fact that they can save the world's last remaining rainforests by combating the climatic changes that could turn these forests into deserts; the fact biofuels can alleviate poverty in the rural third world on an unprecedented scale; the fact that high food prices, partly caused by biofuels, are already making the world's poor, 75% of who are farmers, jubilant; etc...).

I feel the one-sidedness in the debate is not very productive. There is a true "war" on biofuels and I don't really like the weapons used. To paraphrase Fargione and Searchinger: these weapons "could" be killing a lot of innocent people in the future, especially the poor.

You deny saying that the articles in Science concluded that "all biofuels have a big carbon debt."

I said the media concluded this.

No you didn't. You left who was saying it vague, leaving an impression that it was the authors of the articles that reached that conclusion.

Then you write:

The authors represent speculative thinking that cannot be expressed in scientific terms. ... Nobody can empirically pinpoint the extent of the land-use changes induced by the price pressures resulting from changes in biofuel output.

Um, Searchinger et al. used the Iowa State model, other results from which have been treated with respect. And I would call modelling the effects not merely speculative thinking but working through their thinking in scientific terms. True, nobody can exactly quantify the extent of the land-use changes induced by the price pressures resulting from changes in biofuel output, but that caveat should apply equally to the people that you like to quote who produce estimates of enormous untapped land for biofuels. (How many of them factor in water as a limiting factor?)

That the media draws its own conclusions from scientific studies is nothing new. At least it -- and we -- now have those scientific studies to debate. Two years ago, when all reporters had to go on was statements from biofuel advocates, the mainstream media was falling all over itself in adulation, repeating any exaggerated claim the biofuel industry cared to make. So for those of us who have been following this debate for some time, what we see is just the usual and predictable swing of the media's pendulum, not some conspiracy by the oil industry.

But to return to the topic, pointing to indirect effects is NOT the same as saying you "could" grow potatos in Greenland to make biofuels. You then defend this reasoning by claiming that "the vast bulk of biofuels is produced on low-carbon land, and actually may even act like carbon sinks."

Again, you miss Searchinger et al.'s point. It is not just the direct land-use effects that count, but the indirect. One may indeed produce corn or canola on low-carbon land. But if new, high-carbon land is cleared to make up for those displaced crops, that should be a cause for concern.

Also, Searchinger et al. and others are, properly, looking at what is coming down the pipeline, which are much, much larger mandated levels of use and (because of trade barriers) probably production in the north. It is proper to ask what would happen under those scenarios, and not simply point to the land use patterns of 2005.

These are only my personal opinions.

What a laugh. Two years ago there was hardly any debate, and the news coverage was one-sided -- predominantly pro biofuels and, more importantly, pro biofuel subsidies and mandates. Nowadays what we are witnessing is vigorous, multi-sided debate. And none too soon.

These are only my personal opinions.

One the other side, there's the argument that the price increase in crops is almost entirely dependent on the cost increase of oil.

So which is it?

_

(Or is it because the value of turning crops into fuel goes up proportionately to the value of oil.)

-David Ahlport

the vast bulk of biofuels is produced on low-carbon land, and actually may even act like carbon sinks. Sugarcane would be the example. The crop alone (not the ethanol made from it) as it is currently planted on several million hectares in Brazil, actually stores more carbon in its roots than the ecosystems on which sugarcane "could" be planted.

If you guys are trying to say that most biofuels are grown on old, established farm land, that's obvious. It's also irrelevant because output from existing sugarcane cropland has all been earmarked for some use and any increase in demand for sugar, be it for food or fuel will have to come from more cropland, starting the crop and carbon sink displacement domino effect. But you guys know that already.

Another example. We already knew that you "can" destroy peatlands for palm oil and pump GHGs into the atmosphere if you do so. But do we need outspoken anti-biofuels advocates to create an image based on this basic knowledge, so that they can falsely conclude that all palm oil grows on peatland? No, we don't. But that's what's happened.

As usual, you guys build a stawman to knock down. Do we need outspoken biofuels advocates to create an image based on this basic knowledge, so that they can falsely conclude that all palm oil grows on peatland? The answer to the real question is a resounding yes. Find me a quote from anyone saying that all palm oil grows on peatland.

I'm a realist looking for solutions. Not a speculator paralysed by baseless fear or by an agenda that is putting many people at risk.

Realists normally have a better grasp on reality.

I can guarantee you that if you ask 100 people in The Netherlands where the vast bulk of palm oil plantations can be found, 99 of them will say: on the peatlands in Borneo. While in fact only a tiny fraction can be found there, in that highly specific ecosystem.

I'll take that bet.

If the Dutch give a blank "no" to palm oil, they are causing a hecatombe.

...typical, pure, unsubstantiated heresay.

Their point is as weak as saying that the metals used in wind turbines 'may' have caused 5 million deaths in Congo, where these metals are mined and resulted in a resource conflict (even though the metals used in wind turbines are also mined in many other countries).

World class peer reviewed science trumps that extremely weak analogy any time of day.

With the same speculative mindset as that of Searchinger and Fargione, I can prove that biofuels have saved tens of millions of lives of people who would otherwise have succumbed to hunger.

Hold on there while I wipe this coffee off my monitor. Consider submitting  this proof of yours to Scinece.

In conclusion, I have nothing against those who try to caution for potential future risks with biofuels.

Relieved to hear that but these are not potential future risks. Carbon sinks are going under the plow today to sow crops that are in part used for biofuels. The more biofuel you produce, the larger its share of the destruction.

But it is time we also start to write about the major benefits (like saving the planet from social collapse as a result of skyhigh oil prices; the fact that they can save the world's last remaining rainforests by combating the climatic changes that could turn these forests into deserts; the fact biofuels can alleviate poverty in the rural third world on an unprecedented scale; the fact that high food prices, partly caused by biofuels, are already making the world's poor, 75% of who are farmers, jubilant; etc...).

1. The lay media has been "writing about the major benefits" for years. It's time to tell the truth.
   
2. Biofuels will not be cheaper than oil.
   
3. They "are" presently contributing to the destruction of rainforests.
   
4. Biofuels have next to nothing to do with the poverty reduction in progress in China and India. In all liklihood, biofuels are going to continue to destroy indigenous cultures, displace the poor from land, and employ a very small percentage as sunbaked farm hands on giant industrial farms.
   
5. Prove to us that high food prices are making 75% of the world's poorest "jubilant."

I feel the one-sidedness in the debate is not very productive. There is a true "war" on biofuels and I don't really like the weapons used. To paraphrase Fargione and Searchinger: these weapons "could" be killing a lot of innocent people in the future, especially the poor.

There is no "war" on biofuels. That's absurd. These "weapons" you don't like are called debates, and they are very productive. Your repeated allusions to violence and suggestions that biofuel critics are condeming millions to death are inappropriate.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

"Well said, Vinod

The brush that has been used to bash biofuels of late is far too broad. Thanks for articulating the (too often ignored) details."

You also expressed your support for Vinod in this thread, which pointed out that using a land and water constrained resource like biomass for liquid fuels is a huge waste.

Here you use the brush analogy in reference to the Science research demonstrating the effects these fuels have on GHG emissions:

"Bottom line - the analysis may be right for a given set of assumptions, but that doesn't justify a tarring of all biofuels with the same brush."

And here you take a pot shot at other researchers with findings that don't support your business model (cogen in biofuel refineries):

"...been too much pure ethanol bashing on Grist for my taste ...they all get written by the same small handful of academics who get podiums much bigger than the scientific consensus warrants ..."

Khosla has stated that biodiesel is no good because it uses too much land. So I can safely assume that you are defending alcohol, which is made primarily from cane and corn. Although cellulosic doesn't exist in an economically or environmentally viable format, I can see tremendous potential for your company to install cogen systems in cellulosic ethanol plants (as it does in corn ethanol plants) should government support continue indefinitely as it has for corn ethanol.

Which puts your debate supporting these fuels at a distinct disadvantage because:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding." --Upton Sinclair

We all have our subconscious biases. Considering that you have a vested interest in them your defense of ethanol biofuels is both predictable and perfectly normal. This isn't meant as any personal attack on you, and I hope you don't take it that way. Find someone who stands to make millions off of biofuels who is also critical of them and I will shake their hand.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

My point here is that I had two offers of free Madrona at building sites (the best firewood).  One was 25 minutes away and I refused, too far with a loaded truck.  The other was 15 minutes driving time and just close enough to make sense.  

When I think of the distance of transporting cellulosic biomass, the weight, and the efficiency of conversion, I would instinctively decline.  Too much work, too much oil and coal, too little net delivered energy.

Is cogeneration being used to delay the demise of these spectacularly bad energy systems?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

BTW, I wouldn't give up on cellulosic ethanol just yet, it's still in its infancy.

Rich.