2008 Woodie Awards
Home > Opinion
Biofuel isn't the only culprit
Letter to the Editor
Due to mounting hysteria over biofuels and the rising cost of food, I decided that it was time to set the record straight. First off, my credentials: As a former employee of Sequential Biofuels, I received this kind of question every day for almost a year. Through hours of discussion, coupled with personal investigation, I have come to the following conclusions:
Biofuels do affect food prices, but are not the main culprit. While a higher demand for corn may affect its price, the rising costs of production, transportation and petroleum-based fertilizers will have a far greater effect.
Biofuels cannot, and were never intended to, replace all existing fossil fuel consumption. According to the Energy Information Administration (eia.doe.gov), the U.S. consumed 20,687,000 barrels of petroleum per day in 2006. It is physically impossible for us to grow enough plant matter to meet this need with biofuels.
Biofuels do, however, have a place in our efforts to live more sustainably - we're just going about it the wrong way. The beauty of ethanol and biodiesel lies in the fact that they allow us to harness the energy of waste products. Wood chips, soda pop, excess plant material - all can be made into a new, usable commodity. We can even produce ethanol from native prairie grasses, which don't require prime farmland to grow.
If you are truly concerned about international food prices, there are far better targets for your ire. According to USDA statistics, 70 percent of U.S. grain production and 40 percent of the world's supply is actually consumed by livestock. It takes roughly seven pounds of the stuff to produce a single pound of beef (coupled with about 2,500 gallons of water). Need I say more?
Willow Baumann
University student
Biofuels do affect food prices, but are not the main culprit. While a higher demand for corn may affect its price, the rising costs of production, transportation and petroleum-based fertilizers will have a far greater effect.
Biofuels cannot, and were never intended to, replace all existing fossil fuel consumption. According to the Energy Information Administration (eia.doe.gov), the U.S. consumed 20,687,000 barrels of petroleum per day in 2006. It is physically impossible for us to grow enough plant matter to meet this need with biofuels.
Biofuels do, however, have a place in our efforts to live more sustainably - we're just going about it the wrong way. The beauty of ethanol and biodiesel lies in the fact that they allow us to harness the energy of waste products. Wood chips, soda pop, excess plant material - all can be made into a new, usable commodity. We can even produce ethanol from native prairie grasses, which don't require prime farmland to grow.
If you are truly concerned about international food prices, there are far better targets for your ire. According to USDA statistics, 70 percent of U.S. grain production and 40 percent of the world's supply is actually consumed by livestock. It takes roughly seven pounds of the stuff to produce a single pound of beef (coupled with about 2,500 gallons of water). Need I say more?
Willow Baumann
University student
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Big Lebowski
posted 4/28/08 @ 10:37 PM PST
I have a better idea: Why not we take vegans and use THEM for fuel? Get a car that runs on soap and water, take a vegan, shove him/her/it into a barrel full of lye, let sit for a few months, and presto. (Continued…)
Mark Fitz
posted 5/04/08 @ 11:50 PM PST
Just to mention it.
Biofuels have little impact on food prices. In fact the market is so huge that its unlikely that biofuels, if doing anything, will eventually lower the price of food. (Continued…)
Post a Comment