The discussion centers on the implications of converting food crops into biofuels, addressing concerns about food shortages, price increases, and the potential for alternative sources of biofuel. Participants explore the ethical, economic, and environmental dimensions of biofuel production, including the use of agricultural waste and specific crops like Jatropha and algae.
Participants generally agree on the ethical concerns surrounding the use of food crops for biofuel but present multiple competing views on the best alternatives and the broader implications of biofuel production. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the efficacy and sustainability of proposed solutions.
Limitations include the lack of consensus on the best practices for biofuel production and the potential environmental impacts of large-scale agricultural practices. There are also unresolved questions about the economic dynamics of food pricing and distribution.
This discussion may be of interest to those involved in agricultural policy, environmental science, biofuel technology, and food security advocacy.
UNITED NATIONS - A U.N. expert on Friday called the growing practice of converting food crops into biofuel "a crime against humanity," saying it is creating food shortages and price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry.
Ziegler, a sociology professor at the University of Geneva and the University of the Sorbonne in Paris, presented a report Thursday to the U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee saying a five-year moratorium on biofuel production would allow time for new technologies for using agricultural byproducts instead of food itself.
Researchers are looking at crop residues such as corn cobs, rice husks and banana leaves, he said. "The cultivation of Jatropha Curcas, a shrub that produces large oil-bearing seeds, appears to offer a good solution as it can be grown in arid lands that are not normally suitable for food crops," he said.
As I understand it, we are already capable of producing enough food to feed the entire world, with plenty of surplus. The problem is political, not agricultural.Astronuc said:In principle, I agree with the idea of not diverty food crops to produce fuel, precisely because many people are not getting food they need, but also because it is increasing the price of food stuffs.
I agree that the distribution of food to world's need is political/economic, but certainly cost plays a role. Governments must choose to support/subsidize the collection, transportation and distribution of food to other countries.Hurkyl said:As I understand it, we are already capable of producing enough food to feed the entire world, with plenty of surplus. The problem is political, not agricultural.
The price issue makes sense, though.
Perhaps the oil companies that have "gone green" like BP?Astronuc said:And it's complicated because from what I remember, the farmers aren't making money and the consumers are paying more - so I wonder what the heck is going on. Who's getting the money?! Cargill? Conagra? ADM?
You're probably referring to something like this.vsingh165 said:Now, I know this is a controversial source, but in Al Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth, he says that they are figuring out how to use the plant stems and corn husks to make ethanol instead of the food itself. Makes sense, the part that we eat is not affected and corn husks that are usually thrown away get converted to cleaner-burning ethanol. Also, he even said that there was a Butterball meat factory that was taking excess animal fat and turning it into biodiesel. Hopefully if I find my copy of it I will quote exactly what he said.
Just my 2 cents.
vsingh165 said:they are figuring out how to use the plant stems and corn husks to make ethanol instead of the food itself. Makes sense, the part that we eat is not affected and corn husks that are usually thrown away get converted to cleaner-burning ethanol.