The fight against global warming has taken several complex turns in recent months. Biofuels made from ethanol-based crops like corn emit zero carbon when burned, but compete with food supply already in crisis levels in many areas of the globe. Most recently the Environmental Protection Agency rejected a request to cut the quota for the use of ethanol in cars, boldly declaring that for the time being, the nation's reliance on oil outweighs any effect on food prices.
According to CNET news, EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, said that the mandate was "strengthening our nation's energy security and supporting American farming communities," and that it was not causing "severe harm to the economy or the environment." The EPA may have formed their reasoning after concluding that 'only' 3.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel was used in 2004--mostly from ethanol, and that patterns over the past three years project a goal of 5.4 billion gallons by the end of 2008.
But are the EPA's claims entirely accurate? For right now it's difficult to say, but there is a lot of evidence coming from all sides offering a contrary view. Corn prices have risen steadily in recent years. Many farmers have attributed the rise to growing global demand for grain-fed meat, with many Asian countries like India and China consuming more meat products than ever before in history. Another study recently reported in the Guardian found that claim to be false. The World Bank conducted a confidential, and very damning assertion that studied the rises in global food costs on a month by month basis. Claimed as the first, in-depth study of the situation, it concluded that ethanol based biofuels were responsible for rising food prices up to 75%.
The Guardian wrote, "Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush."
America and several other wealthy European nations have downplayed the negative factors of biofuels, and rarely ever mentioned is the fact that harvesting them may actually create enough carbon emissions to negate their benefits as a clean fuel. The Searchinger study that appeared in the February 7, 2008 issue of Sciencexpress made one such claim. The study calculated it's findings based on an approximation of what would happen if corn ethanol production was six times greater that of today. It states that land converted to farming will release 25% of its soil carbon, an average of 351 metric tones per hectare. Based on this, researchers calculated that it would take 167 years to pay back soil carbon losses. This means that corn-thanol would emit double the greenhouse gases of gasoline over the first 30 years of production.
Even though the Searchinger study bases its findings on a hypothetical reality, it makes sense that ethanol production would increase by six times as it would most likely be necessary for biofuel mass-production.
It seems strange to me that the EPA would be ignorant of such studies. They might be catering to the private interests of the renewable energy industry, or they are gathering data from their own scientists who have yet to publish findings. Either way, the global food crisis is a serious issue, stirring violence in some of the poorest nations of the world and even affecting wealthier countries in subtle but growing ways. There's also the simple fact that technology, while it can create efficiency and wealth, is not detrimental to human survival, or even the quality of life--just ask the Amish, or even those who prefer books to video games. The day our cars become more important than our food will be the darkest day we've ever known.
Read More Articles At WeEarth.com
