Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>]

U.N.: FOOD PRICES COULD OFFSET BIOFUELS BENEFITS
By Associated Press
May 8, 2007

ROME, Italy --- Biofuels like ethanol can help reduce global warming and
create jobs for the rural poor, but the benefits may be offset by serious
environmental problems and increased food prices for the hungry, the United
Nations concluded Tuesday in its first major report on bioenergy.

In an agency-wide assessment, the United Nations raised alarms about the
potential negative impact of biofuels, just days after a climate conference
in Bangkok said the world had both the money and technology to prevent the
sharp rise in global temperatures blamed in part on greenhouse gas
emissions.

Biofuels, which are made from corn, palm oil, sugar cane and other
agricultural products, have been seen by many as a cleaner and cheaper way
to meet the world's soaring energy needs than with greenhouse-gas emitting
fossil fuels.

European leaders have decided that at least ten percent of fuels will come
from biofuels like ethanol by 2020, and the U.S. Congress is working on a
proposal that would increase production of biofuels sevenfold by 2022. With
oil prices at record highs, biofuels have become an attractive alternative
energy source for poor countries, some of which spend six times as much
money importing oil than on health care.

But environmentalists have warned that the biofuel craze can do as much or
more damage to the environment as dirty fossil fuels — a concern
reflected throughout the report, which was being released Tuesday in New
York, by U.N.-Energy, a consortium of 20 U.N. agencies and programs.

While saying bioenergy represents an "extraordinary opportunity" to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, it warned that "rapid growth in liquid biofuel
production will make substantial demands on the world's land and water
resources at a time when demand for both food and forest products is also
rising rapidly."

Changes in the carbon content of soils and carbon stocks in forests and
peat lands might offset some or all of the benefits of the greenhouse gas
reductions, it said.

"Use of large-scale monocropping could lead to significant biodiversity
loss, soil erosion and nutrient leaching," it said, adding that investments
in bioenergy must be managed carefully, at national, regional and local
levels to avoid new environmental and social problems "some of which could
have irreversible consequences."

It noted that soaring palm oil demand has already led to the clearing of
tropical forests in southeast Asia.

In addition, the diversion of food crops for fuel will increase food
prices, putting a strain on the poor, as evidenced by the recent steep rise
in maize and sugar prices, the report said.

"Liquid biofuel production could threaten the availability of adequate food
supplies by diverting land and other productive resources away from food
crops," it said, adding that many of those biofuel crops require the best
land, lots of water and environment-damaging chemical fertilizers.

While bioenergy crops can create jobs in impoverished rural areas where the
bulk of the world's poor and hungry live, creating biofuels favors
large-scale production, meaning small-scale farmers could be pushed off
their land by industrial agriculture.

It suggested that farm co-ops, as well as government subsidies, could help
small-scale farmers compete.

Such concerns have been raised by Greenpeace International and other
environmental groups worried that the biofuel fad is being driven by big
agricultural interests looking for new markets.

"More and more, people are realizing that there are serious environmental
and serious food security issues involved in biofuels," Greenpeace biofuels
expert Jan van Aken said. "There is more to the environment than climate
change," he said. "Climate change is the most pressing issue, but you
cannot fight climate change by large deforestation in Indonesia."

Individual U.N. agencies have previously issued small-scale reports on
biofuels, but they were largely optimistic and did not highlight negative
consequences because they were not yet known, said Gustavo Best, vice chair
of U.N.-Energy and a biofuels expert at the Rome-based U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization.

But with the surge in interest by the private sector, the rise in commodity
prices and an awareness of the strain on water supplies that has resulted
from biofuel production, "we now have to raise the red flags and say 'be
careful, don't go too fast,'" he said in an interview.

"There are winners and losers," he said.

That the report exists is something of a miracle, since there has long been
opposition among U.N. member states — including OPEC, nuclear and other
energy lobbies— to have any kind of international dialogue on energy.
There is for example, no U.N. Millennium Goal for energy, and recent U.N.
working documents on sustainable development continue to be very
fossil-fuel oriented, Best said.

The document is intended for governments to help them craft bioenergy
policies that maximize the potential but minimize the negative impacts —
even as the technology continues to change.

"We can't cross our arms and wait to have better data or better
methodologies," Best said. "We need to contribute to the discussion, but in
a balanced way."