In 2007, Fidel Castro virulently attacked U.S. (and other states’) policy on biofuels, stating that competition between energetic and food crops would lead to global famine. “Yeah, sure! The old Communist…” was the standard response in mass media. Actually, he was right.
Biofuels are good because they do not cause carbon dioxide pollution. The dioxide emitted by burning them is the same the plant fixed by photosynthesis, so there’s no greenhouse gas input into the atmosphere, unlike the case of fossil fuels. The big problem is that currently we can use only a small part of the plant’s tissue to make fuels. Ethanol is made by sugar fermentation – for example, of the sugarcane marrow, while biodiesel is made using fats – for example various seed oils. But sunflower, or canola oils are found only in their seeds, and not all of the seed’s mass is made up of fats. So, a big mass of plants gives us only a small amount of fuel. This means growing larger and larger areas with energetic crops. Eventually, they would come in direct competition with food crops for the available surface. And when states subsidize biofuel cultures, what do you think farmers would prefer to grow?… The solution to this problem is using microbial biotechnologies to break up lignocellulosic matter (i.e. most of the plant’s structure) to produce simple sugars, and, in turn, ethanol. Similar strategies are being conceived for biodiesel – using other fats than those in concentrated oils. This field of study is just beginning to rise, and some years of research are still needed before we would be able to use such techniques in mass production.
But there are more sinister menaces to global agriculture. We all know (or should know) that there are already serious food shortages throughout the world. We witnessed food riots in countires like Egypt, Mozambique etc. during the last years. Current agriculture is reaching its output limits, while world population is still growing (what should be done… well, this is another discussion and i’ll leave it for another post). But what are governments of developed countries in these circumstances? They subsidize “eco” agriculture! And if they don’t, there are increasing wealthier elites that are willing to spend money on “eco” products (convinced by mass media propaganda).
Now, let’s get things straight. There is the concept of sustainable agriculture – it uses environment-friendly means for fertilizing crops, carefully planned polycultures, integrated pest control; to make it short, it has a highly scientific basis and it wields remarcable outputs, similar to those of intensive agriculture, at lower costs (and products are surely healthier for the consumers and for the environment). On this I agree. But there is also traditional agriculture, using manure for fertilization, and virtually no pest control, but more resistant (and less productive) strains. For buyers (and for the states subsidizing the production) there’s no difference. And farmers, for example in European countries, tend to shift towards traditional production, because there is demand… The trick is that this type of agriculture is much less productive than intensive one (after all, there’s a reason why people invented fertilizers and pesticides). Favouring ineffective means of production in the wake of a global food crisis is not just a bad business, it’s murderous stupidity. Governments should first consider output when they decide to subsidize agriculture.
And there’s worse. EU countries, and, if the pressure by “Green” politicians and NGOs continues, more and more governments will join the “club”, are virulently rejecting genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). These organisms (mostly plants) are genetically enhanced in order to yield higher productions, to grow on hostile soils or to resist to various pests, without needing pesticides. So, why shunning them? Well, that’s a good example of eco-stupidity. Some groups are, probably, on the payroll of chemical industry companies (no GMOs means lots of fertilizers and pesticides used). It’s also about protectionism: developed countries have mostly temperate climates, suitable to traditional or intensive agriculture, while tropical countries are those needing GMOs, to withstand the ongoing desertification. So, if you don’t want to import food from Africa and wish to protect European farmers, what can you do (plain protectionism is not an option, since you might want to export, let’s say, electronics to Africa)? You say you can’t buy it because Africans use GMOs, which are not healthy (as a paranthesis, this reminds me of EU refusing to import kava – a traditional drink form Vanuatu, stating that it might damage the consumer’s liver; no kidding, and EU-produced alcoholic drinks, or tobacco, they don’t affect people’s health? what about marijuana, legal in some EU countries – that is surely pure health!). And there’s, of course, paranoia. After all, Green activists and nutritionist need to justify their activity somehow. GM soybeans have 0.00x% possibility of causing, I don’t know, toe cancer? Yeap, so does breathing.
What I mean is that world’s governments should be more responsible and face the truth, we are heading to an agricultural crisis, and irrational policies, based on any other arguments than productivity will certainly worsen this crisis