Food vs. fuel
[7] Environmental groups have raised concerns about these potential harms for some years,[8][9][10][11] but the issues drew widespread attention worldwide due to the 2007–2008 world food price crisis.
[19][20] A World Bank policy research working paper released in July 2008[21] concluded that "large increases in biofuel production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices" and also stated that "Brazil's sugar-based ethanol did not push food prices appreciably higher.".
[21][22][23] An economic assessment report published by the OECD in July 2008[25] found that "the impact of current biofuel policies on world crop prices, largely through increased demand for cereals and vegetable oils, is significant but should not be overestimated.
[42] These conclusions were supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists in their September 2008 newsletter,[43] in which they remarked that the World Bank analysis "contradicts U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schaffer's assertion that biofuels account for only a small percentage of rising food prices".
[citation needed] The demand for ethanol fuel produced from field corn was spurred in the U.S. by the discovery that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was contaminating groundwater.
[44][45] MTBE use as an oxygenate additive was widespread due to the mandates of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1992 to reduce carbon monoxide emissions.
[22][23] An economic assessment published by the OECD in July 2008[25] agrees with the World Bank report recommendations regarding the negative effects of subsidies and import tariffs but finds that the estimated impact of biofuels on food prices is much smaller.
"It's time for Congress to realize what farmers in America's heartland have known all along: that we have the capacity and ingenuity to decrease our dependence on foreign oil by growing our own fuel", said U.S.
Petroleum trade groups petitioned the EPA in August 2013 to take into consideration a reduction of renewable biofuel content in transportation fuels.
[84] This surplus alone could produce sufficient bioethanol to replace around 2.5% of the UK's petroleum consumption, without requiring any increase in wheat cultivation or reduction in food supply or exports.
To this point in history, there are some methods commonly used to coax "recalcitrant" cellulose to separate or hydrolyse into its lignin and sugar parts, treatment with; steam explosion, supercritical water, enzymes, acids and alkalines.
Still currently only in pilot stage, this promising technology offers the possibility that any agricultural economy might be able to get rid of its requirement to refine oil for transportation fuels.
Cultivation of Methylococcus capsulatus bacteria culture by consuming natural gas produces high protein rich feed with tiny land and water foot print.
Collocation disposal elimination may be one of the few cost-effective, environmentally sound, biofuel strategies, but its scalability is limited by availability of appropriate waste generation sources.
[102] On 18 January 2008 the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee raised similar concerns, and called for a moratorium on biofuel targets.
[104] To avoid overproduction and to prop up farmgate prices for agricultural commodities, the EU has for a long time have had farm subsidy programs to encourage farmers not to produce and leave productive acres fallow.
[109] Second-generation biofuels are now being produced from the cellulose in dedicated energy crops (such as perennial grasses), forestry materials, the co-products from food production, and domestic vegetable waste.
[112] Far from creating food shortages, responsible production and distribution of biofuels represents the best opportunity for sustainable economic prospects in Africa, Latin America and impoverished Asia.
[57] An additional policy option is to continue the current trends of government incentive for these types of crops to further evaluate the effects on food prices over a longer period of time due to the relatively recent onset of the biofuel production industry.
[26] Interviews with local farmers in southern Ecuador[119] provide strong anecdotal evidence that the high price of corn is encouraging the burning of tropical forests in order to grow more.
"[129] Chavez' complaints were quickly followed by then Cuban President Fidel Castro, who wrote that "you will see how many people among the hungry masses of our planet will no longer consume corn."
"Or even worse", he continued, "by offering financing to poor countries to produce ethanol from corn or any other kind of food, no tree will be left to defend humanity from climate change.
"[130] Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua's President, and one of the preferential recipients of Brazil technical aid, said that "we reject the gibberish of those who applaud Bush's totally absurd proposal, which attacks the food security rights of Latin Americans and Africans, who are major corn consumers", however, he voiced support for sugar cane based ethanol during Lula's visit to Nicaragua.
"[137][138][139] Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva gave a strong rebuttal, calling both claims "fallacies resulting from commercial interests", and putting the blame instead on U.S. and European agricultural subsidies, and a problem restricted to U.S. ethanol produced from maize.
[141] German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the rise in food prices is due to poor agricultural policies and changing eating habits in developing nations, not biofuels as some critics claim.
Regarding the effect of agricultural subsidies on rising food prices, Bush said that "Congress is considering a massive, bloated farm bill that would do little to solve the problem.
[145] Just a week before this new wave of international controversy began, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had commented that several U.N. agencies were conducting a comprehensive review of the policy on biofuels, as the world food price crisis might trigger global instability.
The report discusses some existing problems and potential risks, and asks the Brazilian government for caution to avoid jeopardizing its environmental and social sustainability.
The report also says that: "Rich countries spent up to $15 billion last year supporting biofuels while blocking cheaper Brazilian ethanol, which is far less damaging for global food security.
[149] An economic assessment by the OECD also published in July 2008[25] agrees with the World Bank report regarding the negative effects of subsidies and trade restrictions, but found that the impact of biofuels on food prices are much smaller.
