Green Options

Drought is something we think of as being substantial and dramatic – months in which rain doesn’t fall, monsoons that never happen. But the truth about drought is that it is much more insidious – when average rainfall drops, crops fail even though rain happens and can appear plentiful.

The recent fall in grain prices across the developed world may have given the impression that food security isn’t a problem – but it is. There are more people not getting enough to eat than there were a decade ago.

In a new report, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) says the events of recent months clearly indicate that production of corn ethanol is not a major driving factor behind the continued high food prices at the supermarket.

In the report, “Will the Plunge in Grain Prices Mean Lower Food Prices at the Supermarket?,” the RFA points out that, while prices for agricultural staple commodities such as corn, wheat, and soybeans have all plummeted by about 50% in the last half year, food prices at the grocery store have remained highly elevated. At the same time, ethanol production has dramatically increased.

When the above factors are taken together, the link between grocery store food prices and corn ethanol production becomes dubious. Not only that, and also somewhat unintuitively, it seems that the diversion of relatively large portions of the US corn crop to ethanol production has very little effect on even the market price of corn.

This is a guest post by Puspa Sharma, MA Candidate in Global Finance, Trade and Economic Integration at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver.

Exponential increases in food prices in recent times have created enormous challenges to governments, national and international organizations, and aid agencies everywhere in the world. The World Bank has estimated that the rising food prices could push an additional 100 million people into poverty, thereby undermining the current efforts geared towards poverty reduction.

Increasing demand, decreasing supply, and the rising oil prices, which are in turn affected by numerous other factors, have been some reasons for the rise in food prices. Demand for cereal grains has been rising not only as a result of population growth, but also because of the growing middle class population in countries like China and India. Growing incomes have resulted in more demand for cereal grains directly and also more meat and dairy, which in turn has raised the demand for more grains as feed for the livestock. Another more important reason for the rise in demand for food crops is the development of bio-fuels, which have attracted a great deal of attention in recent times.

On the supply front, according to a publication by the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), droughts in Australia and Turkey and bad weather in Ukraine and parts of North America have resulted in less agricultural production which has caused food prices to rise. A more important, but often overlooked reason for the decrease in the supply of farm commodities against rising demand is that the subsidies that the developed countries have been providing to their agriculture sector have dampened world prices of those products and made the products of developing countries uncompetitive. This has had a tremendous impact in agricultural production in developing countries. In the absence of competitiveness and any other gains to be derived from agriculture, the developing countries have had less incentive to invest in agricultural infrastructure, agricultural research and development, and the like. As a result, agriculture production in these countries continually declined disrupting supply.

Then, who should take the blame of rising food prices? If we look at the demand side, we see that the demand has been rising in one part because of rising incomes in few developing countries, and on the other, because of the development of bio-fuels by the developed countries. On the supply side, drought and bad weather conditions are not something which are under human control, but less supply resulting from less production in developing countries owing to the agricultural policies of the developed countries definitely deserves attention.

In what he describes as misplaced behavior, Nikola Davidson, program director for the Northwest Biofuels Association, has raised a good point in a Seattle Weekly article — why is it that biofuels are becoming the ire of green activists while petroleum appears to be getting a free pass?

The issue stems from activist and Green Party candidate for Washington governor Duff Badgley’s attempts to drive customers away from a new biofuel station in northwest Seattle. Allegedly Badgley and his group, One Earth, have been harassing customers by taking pictures of their license plates and passing out leaflets that proclaim biofuels as a “scourge on humankind.”

Biofuels certainly have a hard row to hoe in terms of reaching sustainability, and the activists have some valid concerns, but a “scourge on humanity”? Really? It’s almost laughable.

The Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance (SBA) is a non-profit organization created to promote cradle-to-grave biodiesel practices for verifying that all points in the production and distribution chain are sustainable.

And now they want your input on what those sustainable practices and standards should be — they’ve released the first draft of their “Principles and Baseline Practices for Sustainability” (PDF) to the public under a 45-day comment and review period.

So, if you’ve ever questioned the wisdom of growing our own fuel, or you’ve wondered how biofuels can be considered sustainable at all given other seemingly cleaner options like solar, wind and geothermal, now’s your time to speak up.

For as often as we do eat, it seems as if most of us don’t think too much about what we’re putting into our bodies. With food production so far removed from our every day lives, it’s easy to ignore where our food comes from and what it’s impact may be. But what we put on our plates has a larger footprint than what we drive. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,

“Livestock production is one of the major causes of the world’s most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport.”

The things we choose to eat can obviously have an enormous impact on the planet and everything on it, including ourselves. Naturally then, our diet choices can say a lot about our ethics and beliefs. They can even be a political statement and a form of activism. I think that every choice we make has the potential to change the world, and certainly what I choose to eat has an impact.

The current rate at which biofuels are falling out of favor is largely founded on biased ideologies, which have been shaped by widespread political and corporate agenda-pushing from all sides of the fence.

But first, a digression.

Part 1: When an egg was just an egg

I remember a time when an egg was just an egg. Nobody argued about that. It was a blissful time. Yet, for all its strengths, it was a fragile time held together by unsupported conclusions and limited knowledge.

I’ve not posted much yet on the Iowa floods. I think, perhaps, I was holding my breath, waiting to exhale. The exhale is likely to come out more like a long sigh.

While the floods have peaked, Iowans are now dealing with the aftermath. Many of the 36,000-plus who were evacuated have still not returned home. I imagine, when they get there, the real work will begin.

It’s devastating for the state. And, in the wider picture, devastating for all of us. Even if your home was high, dry, and several states away, you, too, will feel the impacts.

Details after the jump.

On Monday, USDA officials met with reporters to discuss just how closely biofuels (specifically corn-based ethanol) are linked to the increasing price of food. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, who has vehemently defended biofuels before, had this to say:

One theory that has been widely discussed in recent weeks is that the nation’s growing demand for biofuels and the crops needed to produce them is the real culprit behind higher food prices, both at home and abroad. Yet the evidence that we have seen. . .does not support this.

Confession time. I have to admit that I may have been a bit of a grumpy environmental blogger, failing to give due credit where credit is due..

In particular, I have frequently complained about bio-fuels driving up world food prices in absence of a few wider considerations, I’ve been dismissive at the EU’s lack of ability to actually implement anything that makes a real difference to the environment, and most recently I described an environmental tax levied on cows as the most stupid idea ever. So it is maybe time to examine these issues in a more positive light – negativity is, after all, the enemy of progress.