Biofuel/ Ethanol
Broadly defined, bio-fuel is the solid, liquid or gas fuel that is derived from plants or plants by products. However, in the context of this paper, bio-fuel can narrowly be defined as a petroleum substitute derived from plants such as corn or sugar cane. The West and indeed the world seem to be leaning towards bio-fuel as a substitute to reduce dependency on fossil fuel. The shift can be attributed to several factors. Among them is the fact that fossil fuels as sources of central energy are hardly renewable since they take millions of years to form. Consequently, the increasing energy requirements are exerting increased pressure on the limited resources. Environmental concerns are also catalyzing the shift. The question that the human race is involved with currently is as to whether biofuels are an ultimate replacement of fossil fuels.
Thesis
This paper asserts that whether to adopt or not to adopt bio-fuels is a multifaceted matter that requires a holistic approach. There are abounding pros and cons that need to be carefully considered if more trouble is to be avoided.
The reality
Developed countries are in the forefront to promote biofuels as a solution to the oil crisis and to a broader sense, the food crisis. However, this has been met with much opposition from some sections of the global community. The main argument is that biofuel policies as propounded by rich countries are neither a solution to the climate nor oil crisis and instead they are compounding a third crisis, the food crisis.
As much as biofuels may offer some genuine development opportunities, the potential economic, social and environmental costs may be severe. The push to grow crops for energy is responsible for 75 percent of the rise in global food prices. Increased demand for agricultural land will lead to expansion of farming into forests, wetlands and grasslands. This will pose a serious environmental problem since it will spark the release of carbon from soil and vegetation that will take decades for biofuel production to repay. (Mfugale2008)
At the moment, biofuel crops will still have to be grown because there is a link between biofuel production and food production. A sustainable mixed farm can produce its own fuel with a considerable portion left for food production. Biofuel does not necessarily require huge land tracks because much of it can be produced from crop by-products and waste products and with very low input levels. This shifts the balance onto how much land is needed for the production of biofuel. According to a report by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, city farms produced more than 15% of the worlds food supply in 1993. This is a large percentage compared to the current world population. What is more is that it was produced without the use of any farmland.
On the issue of rising food prices, Oxfam International observes that biofuel support measures in rich countries are forcing up food prices because they divert more and more food crops and agricultural land into fuel production.
As a result, the organization estimates that the livelihoods of at least 290 million people are threatened by the food crisis while the World Bank estimates that 100 million people have already been made poor as a result. In the meantime, the Bank estimates that the price of food has increased by 83 percent in the last three years. This view is also supported by a new report from the British government which says that the link between the demand for biofuels and rising food prices needs to be examined more closely. (qtd. in Mfugale)The basic argument is that energy-crop programs compete with food crops in a number of ways and thus cause food shortages and price increments.
Many people hold the position that the biofuel controversy is in most cases is exaggerated. The subject could be more complex than has generally been presented and there is need to analyze it against the background of a country’s food situation.
It has always been stated that biofuels impact to a greater extent on climate change. An analysis published in the Science journal calculates that the emissions from global land-use change due to the United States corn-ethanol program will take 167 years to pay back. The case against biofuels also as put forth by Princeton University and Nature conservancy indicate that biofuel may not be the safest way to go. Their findings points towards the fact that all biofuel used today cause more green house gas than conventional fuels if full environmental cost is factored in. According to Steve Connor, previous conclusions that biofuels reduce greenhouse gases were based on incomplete analysis.
They did not include the effect that biofuels have on the conversion of natural ecosystems to crops. He adds that most people don’t realize that globally there is almost three times as much carbon in the plants and soils as there is in the air.
There are various ways that the demand for biofuels will destroy the environment. For instance, there has been a shift in the method of farming among the American farmers. Initially, they rotated soybeans and corn crops but the demand for biofuel and its subsequent benefits has led them to abandon soybean farming. Due to this, there is a massive clearing of Brazilian forests to create farms so as to grow soybeans to meet the shortfalls in production. Evidence has also pointed to the fact that contrary to the usual belief that biofuel is environment friendly, it could propel global warming they add to the man made emissions of carbon dioxide. They actually do not curb these emissions.
Other studies also show that the range of crops that are being grown to produce a better alternatives to the fossil fuels actually release more carbon dioxide into the air than can be absorbed by the growing plants. These studies tend to point to the fact that biofuel may even pose a greater environmental threat than is anticipated.
With regard to the already stated facts, it is important therefore that rich countries withhold support and incentives for biofuels in order to avoid pushing people into severe poverty and accelerating climate change. The only way that the fuel dilemma can be solved is if the wastage of the already fuel sources is greatly minimized.
However, the replacement of fossil fuels with biofuels isn’t the answer. Replacing fossil fuels isn’t even an option. Current energy use, especially in the industrialized countries, is not sustainable whatever the energy source. A sustainable energy future requires great reductions in energy use, great improvements in energy efficiency, and decentralization of energy supply to the local-economy level, along with the use of all ready-to-use renewable energy technologies in combination as local circumstances require.”(Kyoto2005)
Coming off fossil-fuels doesn’t have to be cataclysmic. More likely the real disasters will come from global warming rather than oil deprivation. The quaint idea that “life without oil” will inevitably mean a massive human “die-off” and for the survivors a return to the allegedly brutal and short lives of the Middle Ages just because of oil deprivation as most people claim does not make much sense. There’s no more substance to it than the idea that there’s not enough land to grow “enough” biofuels. The planet Earth has so much in it and man cannot claim to have exhausted all its energy sources. In the contrary, our perceived problems only exposes the inability of those who consider themselves as world thinkers and great men to think beyond wealth accumulation.
Cited Works
Addison Keith. Biofuel. Web.
Connor, Steve. 2008. Biofuels make Climate Change Worse, Scientific Study concludes. Web.
Kyoto. 2005. Biofuel.
Mfugale, Deo. 2008. Biofuels, Climatic Change and the Food Crisis. Sunday Observer Rajvanshi Anil K., Current Science, Vol. 82, No. 6.