HodgBlog

World leaders are finally realizing that we’re facing a food crisis: they’re currently having a meeting in Rome to discuss it, and UN chief Ban Ki-moon recently stated that we need to grow 50% more food by 2030 to satisfy needs (I believe this is a conservative estimate). This is not much of a surprise to me — I mentioned the upcoming food crisis in my earlier article on biofuels, and it’s also related to the energy situation I discussed before that . Both the energy and food crises-to-be are largely due to a combination of a world population that is growing quite fast (expected to double by 2050), and a rise in the standard of living in some parts of the world (people with higher standards of living tend to use more energy and consume more food). This growth is not sustainable, as far as I can tell.

It has been suggested that to make our way of life more sustainable, we ought to shop locally (see my previous blog entry for discussion). But yesterday I read an article in Science news, based on a study published in Environmental Science and Technology, that I thought made an interesting point: the type of food we eat has a much greater environmental impact than how far it has traveled to reach us, at least in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The study authors looked carefully at all parts of the process by which we obtain food, and found that the bulk of the greenhouse gases (83%) came from food production, with only 7% from farm-to-store transportation. Therefore, switching to buying only locally-produced food doesn’t really address the bulk of the problem. Instead, we need to think about the production phase: we can get about the same reduction in greenhouse gases by replacing red meat and dairy products with chicken, fish, eggs, grains, or vegetables just one day per week, as we can by buying all of our food locally. This has other benefits as well, in terms of the food crisis: a lot of the grain we grow is fed to animals to produce a much smaller amount of meat and dairy products, so shifting to eating the grains directly can also help alleviate the food crisis. Maybe we’ll all need to become vegetarians soon?

No comments yet: add one »

Lately, I have been hearing a lot of politicians promoting biofuels, mainly biodiesel and bioethanol. They seem to believe that biofuels are going to play a major role in solving our upcoming energy crisis, but logic and science do not support that idea. I gave a few reasons in my earlier article on the coming energy crisis, and an article I just read in Science News adds even more. Here are some thoughts:

• We need to generate more energy. The world’s population is growing, and per capita energy use is increasing as the developing world raises its average standard of living. Experts estimate we will need to approximately double the world’s energy production by 2050.
• Biofuels are really a means of transferring energy, not generating energy. Scientists who carefully calculate the energy used in planting, fertilizing, harvesting, transporting, and refining biofuels find that it takes nearly as much (or in some cases more) energy to create the biofuels as the biofuels contain. So, we can use biofuels as a means of transferring energy from one form to another, but we cannot really use them as a means of generating energy.
• We need to grow more food. As the world’s population grows, we will clearly need to produce more food in order to feed the population (unless we all convert to vegetarianism, which would allow us to eat food currently being used to feed farm animals).
• Biofuel crops are grown on agricultural land. If we want to produce biofuels, we will need to either convert food-crop land to fuel-crop land, or convert non-agricultural land to fuel-crop land.
• Biofuels use a large amount of land. For instance, if we converted an entire year’s U.S. corn production to bioethanol, we could only replace only 6% of the year’s U.S. gasoline consumption.
• 35% of the earth’s ice-free land is already used for agriculture. Converting more land to agriculture means cutting down forests. This is already happening in Brazil, which is converting Amazon rain forest to sugar cane production for bioethanol.

Given the above, I cannot see any reason to devote resources to developing biofuels. We cannot afford to use land for growing biofuel crops, and biofuels are not a significant net generator of energy anyway. How can we bring this to the attention of the public and our politicians?

10 Comments »