Biofuels May Raise GHG Emissions, says Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen

Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study
September 21, 2007 -- By Zoe Corbyn, Chemistry World

Growing and burning many biofuels may actually raise rather than lower greenhouse gas emissions, a new study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen has shown. The findings come in the wake of a recent OECD report, which warned nations not to rush headlong into growing energy crops because they cause food shortages and damage biodiversity.

Crutzen and colleagues have calculated that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) than previously thought - wiping out any benefits from not using fossil fuels and, worse, probably contributing to global warming. The work appears in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and is currently subject to open review.

'The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuel are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto,' Keith Smith, a co-author on the paper from the University of Edinburgh, told Chemistry World. 'What we are saying is that [growing many biofuels] is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse.'

Crutzen, famous for his work on nitrogen oxides and the ozone layer, declined to comment before the paper is officially published. But the paper suggests that microbes convert much more of the nitrogen in fertiliser to N2O than previously thought - 3 to 5 per cent or twice the widely accepted figure of 2 per cent used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

For rapeseed biodiesel, which accounts for about 80 per cent of the biofuel production in Europe, the relative warming due to N2O emissions is estimated at 1 to 1.7 times larger than the quasi-cooling effect due to saved fossil CO2 emissions. For corn bioethanol, dominant in the US, the figure is 0.9 to 1.5. Only cane sugar bioethanol - with a relative warming of 0.5 to 0.9 - looks like a viable alternative to conventional fuels.

Some previous estimates had suggested that biofuels could cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40 per cent.

Global picture

The IPCC's N2O conversion factor is derived using data from plant experiments. But Crutzen takes a different approach, using atmospheric measurements and ice core data to calculate the total amount of N2O in the atmosphere. He then subtracts the level of N2O in pre-industrial times - before fertilizers were available - to take account of N2O from natural processes such as leguminous plants growing in forests, lightning, and burn offs.

Assuming the rest of the N2O is attributable to newly-fixed nitrogen from fertilizer use, and knowing the amount of fertilizer applied globally, he can calculate thecontribution of fertilizers to N2O levels.

The results may well trigger a rethink by the IPCC, says Smith. 'Should we go along the road of adding up the experimental evidence for each of the processes or are we better off using the global numbers?'

Critical reception

But other experts are critical of Crutzen's approach. Simon Donner, a nitrogen researcher based at Princeton University, US, says the method is elegant but there is little evidence to show the N2O yield from fertilized plants is really as high as 3-5 per cent. Crutzen's basic assumption, that pre-industrial N2O emissions are the same as natural N2O emissions, is 'probably wrong', says Donner.

One reason he gives is that farmers plant crops in places that have nitrogen rich soils anyway. 'It is possible we are indirectly increasing the "natural" source of N2O by drawing down the soil nitrogen in the world's agricultural regions,' he explains.

Others dispute the values chosen by Crutzen to calculate his budget. Stefan Rauh, an agricultural scientist at the Instituteof Agricultural Economics and Farm Management in Munich, Germany, says some of the rates for converting crops into biofuel should be higher. 'If you use the other factors you get a little net climate cooling,' he said.

Meanwhile, a report prepared by the OECD for a recent Round Table on Sustainable Development questions the benefits of first generation biofuels and concludes that governments should scrap mandatory targets.

Richard Doornbosch, the report's author, says both the report and Crutzen's work highlights the importance of establishing correct full life-cycle assessments for biofuels. 'Without them, government policies can't distinguish between one biofuel and another - risking making problems worse,' said Doornbosch.

Rabbit-Proof Fence Has Unintended Consequences

At Australia’s Bunny Fence, Variable Cloudiness Prompts Climate Study
August 14, 2007 -- By Sonal Noticewala, The New York Times

A fence built to prevent rabbits from entering the Australian outback has unintentionally allowed scientists to study the effects of land use on regional climates.

The rabbit-proof fence — or bunny fence — in Western Australia was completed in 1907 and stretches about 2,000 miles. It acts as a boundary separating native vegetation from farmland. Within the fence area, scientists have observed a strange phenomenon: above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. But the sky on the farmland side is clear.


Researchers led by Tom Lyons of Murdoch University in Australia and Udaysankar S. Nair of the University of Alabama in Huntsville have come up with three possible explanations for this difference in cloudiness.

One theory is that the dark native vegetation absorbs and releases more heat into the atmosphere than the light-colored crops. These native plants release heat that combines with water vapor from the lower atmosphere, resulting in cloud formation.

Another hypothesis is that the warmer air on the native scrubland rises, creating a vacuum in the lower atmosphere that is then filled by cooler air from cropland across the fence. As a result, clouds form on the scrubland side.

A third idea is that a high concentration of aerosols — particles suspended in the atmosphere — on the agricultural side results in small water droplets and a decrease in the probability of rainfall. On the native landscape, the concentration of aerosols is lower, translating into larger droplets and more rainfall.

Within the last few decades, about 32 million acres of native vegetation have been converted to croplands west of the bunny fence. On the agricultural side of the fence, rainfall has been reduced by 20 percent since the 1970s.

Dr. Nair speculates that increases in the world’s population will prompt the clearing of more land to increase food production. But he wonders whether, in the long run, “we will reach a point of land clearing that will diminish food production,” because rainfall has decreased.

Dr. Lyons said he hoped the research would help scientists “understand the relationships between the land surface and atmosphere and to provide ideas for sustainable agricultural practices.”

The bunny fence, as it turns out, failed to prevent rabbits from entering the farmland, but it has successfully blocked kangaroos and emus.

2007 Farm Bill

After searching for information on the 2007 Farm Bill, I realized that I was still uncertain of all the proposals and debates. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for good articles on this topic.

In addition to the article below, I would recommend these links:
Purdue University (including overviews of Energy and Conservation proposals within the bill)
Reflections on the 2007 Farm Bill Debate (3rd article down) by Brent Sohngen of Ohio State
Panel Discussion on 2007 Farm Bill at UC Berkeley

The Year of the Farm Bill
Summer 2007 -- By Amy Kiser, Terrain (a free publication of ecology center)

The nation's Farm Bill has likely never before made it to the Top Ten—or Top Two Hundred—of your focus factors. An enormous and complex piece of legislation, the bill grinds through Congress every half-decade or so. Allocating a staggering amount of money, its effects are profound—driving land-use decisions, dietary choices, and even immigration. This year the Farm Bill may vault into your consciousness as more people than ever try to shape it to align with pressing national interests.

The Farm Bill's many elements are organized into ten "Titles." One of the most contentious is Title I, which primarily subsidizes corn, soy, wheat, rice, and cotton. The federal government pays farmers to produce as much of these crops as possible. The effects of this free-market-tweaking policy could fill a book, but the most obvious is that farmers are rewarded for growing subsidized crops as monocrops for export, animal feed, and biofuels, rather than growing non-subsidized diverse market crops that could provide food for their surrounding communities and urban centers. According to the Congressional Research Service, the top 10 percent of farm-subsidy recipients (mostly corporations and absentee landowners) take in more than two-thirds of those payments.

This represents a considerable government giveaway to already-profitable farms. Last time the Farm Bill was passed, a coalition of Senators argued to lower the cap on subsidies from a half million to a quarter of a million dollars, claiming that "millionaire farmers" were reaping all the benefits of the legislation, and that it favored the consolidation of farms by pushing the smallest farms out of business and undermining the economic development of small farming communities...

Conservation and the protection of water, air, wildlife habitat, and farmland is the concern of Title II, a category whose funding is chopped away every year by Bush's budget. One of II's provisions is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which rewards livestock and crop producers for making conservation and environmental improvements. Some of these improvements, however, you wouldn't wish on your best friend—and certainly not your next door neighbor's land.

Last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists submitted an excellent brief to the House Committee on Agriculture, analyzing perverse incentives in Title II and recommending remedies. The organization is particularly critical of the EQIP provisions that actually underwrite and promote the expansion of large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are bona-fide disasters from the standpoint of waste treatment, profligate use of antibiotics, and E. coli contamination.

Title III of the Farm Bill contains programs designed to develop and expand commercial outlets for US commodities. Unfortunately, the cheapness of the commodities subsidized by Title I gives our producers an unfair advantage over our so-called "free trade" agreement partners. Mexican corn growers, for example, cannot compete with the subsidized US corn that is dumped into their country, driving Mexican farmers out of business and indirectly creating economic refugees who may immigrate to urban centers in the US and elsewhere.

Title VII funds agricultural research and extension programs, including grants for food biosecurity and developing biotechnology crops for poor countries. In the last Farm Bill, a tiny wedge of funds was earmarked to support research and extension activities for organic agriculture. Needless to say, in Title VII and others, the federal government gives large-scale industrial agriculture and its methods a heavily weighted economic advantage over organic and small-scale family farms.

The behemoth Farm Bill of 2002 was launched with little fanfare. In the immediate wake of 9/11, Congress had little appetite for heated or prolonged debate about domestic issues, and we were about to invade Afghanistan. In the years since, skyrocketing obesity and Type II diabetes rates, E. coli scares, and books and films like Fast Food Nation, SuperSize Me, and the Omnivore's Dilemma have alerted the public that all is not right with our food and farming systems. Finally, scrutiny is turning to the role the federal government plays in this mess.

The Farm Bill can be a powerful vehicle, capable of driving entrepreneurship and research, protecting species and restoring habitat, supporting public health, and strengthening rural communities and regional food systems. With enough public input, this year's bill might just fulfill its promise.

Global Fresh Water Supplies in Peril

Water Tables Falling and Rivers Running Dry
July 24, 2007 -- By Lester R. Brown, Earth Policy Institute

PLAN B 2.0 BOOK BYTE:
As the world’s demand for water has tripled over the last half-century and as the demand for hydroelectric power has grown even faster, dams and diversions of river water have drained many rivers dry. As water tables fall, the springs that feed rivers go dry, reducing river flows.

Scores of countries are overpumping aquifers as they struggle to satisfy their growing water needs, including each of the big three grain producers—China, India, and the United States. More than half the world’s people live in countries where water tables are falling.

There are two types of aquifers: replenishable and nonreplenishable (or fossil) aquifers. Most of the aquifers in India and the shallow aquifer under the North China Plain are replenishable. When these are depleted, the maximum rate of pumping is automatically reduced to the rate of recharge.

For fossil aquifers, such as the vast U.S. Ogallala aquifer, the deep aquifer under the North China Plain, or the Saudi aquifer, depletion brings pumping to an end. Farmers who lose their irrigation water have the option of returning to lower-yield dryland farming if rainfall permits. In more arid regions, however, such as in the southwestern United States or the Middle East, the loss of irrigation water means the end of agriculture.

The U.S. embassy in Beijing reports that Chinese wheat farmers in some areas are now pumping from a depth of 300 meters, or nearly 1,000 feet. Pumping water from this far down raises pumping costs so high that farmers are often forced to abandon irrigation and return to less productive dryland farming. A World Bank study indicates that China is overpumping three river basins in the north—the Hai, which flows through Beijing and Tianjin; the Yellow; and the Huai, the next river south of the Yellow. Since it takes 1,000 tons of water to produce one ton of grain, the shortfall in the Hai basin of nearly 40 billion tons of water per year (1 ton equals 1 cubic meter) means that when the aquifer is depleted, the grain harvest will drop by 40 million tons—enough to feed 120 million Chinese.

In India, water shortages are particularly serious simply because the margin between actual food consumption and survival is so precarious. In a survey of India’s water situation, Fred Pearce reported in New Scientist that the 21 million wells drilled are lowering water tables in most of the country. In North Gujarat, the water table is falling by 6 meters (20 feet) per year. In Tamil Nadu, a state with more than 62 million people in southern India, wells are going dry almost everywhere and falling water tables have dried up 95 percent of the wells owned by small farmers, reducing the irrigated area in the state by half over the last decade.

As water tables fall, well drillers are using modified oil-drilling technology to reach water, going as deep as 1,000 meters in some locations. In communities where underground water sources have dried up entirely, all agriculture is rain-fed and drinking water is trucked in. Tushaar Shah, who heads the International Water Management Institute’s groundwater station in Gujarat, says of India’s water situation, “When the balloon bursts, untold anarchy will be the lot of rural India.”

In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that in parts of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas—three leading grain-producing states—the underground water table has dropped by more than 30 meters (100 feet). As a result, wells have gone dry on thousands of farms in the southern Great Plains. Although this mining of underground water is taking a toll on U.S. grain production, irrigated land accounts for only one fifth of the U.S. grain harvest, compared with close to three fifths of the harvest in India and four fifths in China.

Pakistan, a country with 158 million people that is growing by 3 million per year, is also mining its underground water. In the Pakistani part of the fertile Punjab plain, the drop in water tables appears to be similar to that in India. Observation wells near the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi show a fall in the water table between 1982 and 2000 that ranges from 1 to nearly 2 meters a year.

In the province of Baluchistan, water tables around the capital, Quetta, are falling by 3.5 meters per year. Richard Garstang, a water expert with the World Wildlife Fund and a participant in a study of Pakistan’s water situation, said in 2001 that “within 15 years Quetta will run out of water if the current consumption rate continues.”

Iran, a country of 70 million people, is overpumping its aquifers by an average of 5 billion tons of water per year, the water equivalent of one third of its annual grain harvest. Under the small but agriculturally rich Chenaran Plain in northeastern Iran, the water table was falling by 2.8 meters a year in the late 1990s. New wells being drilled both for irrigation and to supply the nearby city of Mashad are responsible. Villages in eastern Iran are being abandoned as wells go dry, generating a flow of “water refugees.”

Saudi Arabia, a country of 25 million people, is as water-poor as it is oil-rich. Relying heavily on subsidies, it developed an extensive irrigated agriculture based largely on its deep fossil aquifer. After several years of using oil money to support wheat prices at five times the world market level, the government was forced to face fiscal reality and cut the subsidies. Its wheat harvest dropped from a high of 4 million tons in 1992 to some 2 million tons in 2005. Some Saudi farmers are now pumping water from wells that are 1,200 meters deep (nearly four fifths of a mile).

In neighboring Yemen, a nation of 21 million, the water table under most of the country is falling by roughly 2 meters a year as water use outstrips the sustainable yield of aquifers. In western Yemen’s Sana’a Basin, the estimated annual water extraction of 224 million tons exceeds the annual recharge of 42 million tons by a factor of five, dropping the water table 6 meters per year. World Bank projections indicate the Sana’a Basin—site of the national capital, Sana’a, and home to 2 million people—will be pumped dry by 2010.

In the search for water, the Yemeni government has drilled test wells in the basin that are 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) deep—depths normally associated with the oil industry—but they have failed to find water. Yemen must soon decide whether to bring water to Sana’a, possibly by pipeline from coastal desalting plants, if it can afford it, or to relocate the capital. Either alternative will be costly and potentially traumatic.

Israel, even though it is a pioneer in raising irrigation water productivity, is depleting both of its principal aquifers—the coastal aquifer and the mountain aquifer that it shares with Palestinians. Israel’s population, whose growth is fueled by both natural increase and immigration, is outgrowing its water supply. Conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians over the allocation of water in the latter area are ongoing. Because of severe water shortages, Israel has banned the irrigation of wheat.

In Mexico—home to a population of 107 million that is projected to reach 140 million by 2050—the demand for water is outstripping supply. Mexico City’s water problems are well known. Rural areas are also suffering. For example, in the agricultural state of Guanajuato, the water table is falling by 2 meters or more a year. At the national level, 51 percent of all the water extracted from underground is from aquifers that are being overpumped.

Since the overpumping of aquifers is occurring in many countries more or less simultaneously, the depletion of aquifers and the resulting harvest cutbacks could come at roughly the same time. And the accelerating depletion of aquifers means this day may come soon, creating potentially unmanageable food scarcity.

While falling water tables are largely hidden, rivers that are drained dry before they reach the sea are highly visible. Two rivers where this phenomenon can be seen are the Colorado, the major river in the southwestern United States, and the Yellow, the largest river in northern China. Other large rivers that either run dry or are reduced to a mere trickle during the dry season are the Nile, the lifeline of Egypt; the Indus, which supplies most of Pakistan’s irrigation water; and the Ganges in India’s densely populated Gangetic basin. Many smaller rivers have disappeared entirely.

Since 1950, the number of large dams, those over 15 meters high, has increased from 5,000 to 45,000. Each dam deprives a river of some of its flow. Engineers like to say that dams built to generate electricity do not take water from the river, only its energy, but this is not entirely true since reservoirs increase evaporation. The annual loss of water from a reservoir in arid or semiarid regions, where evaporation rates are high, is typically equal to 10 percent of its storage capacity.

The Colorado River now rarely makes it to the sea. With the states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and, most important, California depending heavily on the Colorado’s water, the river is simply drained dry before it reaches the Gulf of California. This excessive demand for water is destroying the river’s ecosystem, including its fisheries.

A similar situation exists in Central Asia. The Amu Darya—which, along with the Syr Darya, feeds the Aral Sea—is diverted to irrigate the cotton fields of Central Asia. In the late 1980s, water levels dropped so low that the sea split in two. While recent efforts to revitalize the North Aral Sea have raised the water level somewhat, the South Aral Sea will likely never recover.

China’s Yellow River, which flows some 4,000 kilometers through five provinces before it reaches the Yellow Sea, has been under mounting pressure for several decades. It first ran dry in 1972. Since 1985 it has often failed to reach the sea, although better management and greater reservoir capacity have facilitated year-round flow in recent years.

The Nile, site of another ancient civilization, now barely makes it to the sea. Water analyst Sandra Postel, in Pillar of Sand, notes that before the Aswan Dam was built, some 32 billion cubic meters of water reached the Mediterranean each year. After the dam was completed, however, increasing irrigation, evaporation, and other demands reduced its discharge to less than 2 billion cubic meters.

Pakistan, like Egypt, is essentially a river-based civilization, heavily dependent on the Indus. This river, originating in the Himalayas and flowing westward to the Indian Ocean, not only provides surface water, it also recharges aquifers that supply the irrigation wells dotting the Pakistani countryside. In the face of growing water demand, it too is starting to run dry in its lower reaches. Pakistan, with a population projected to reach 305 million by 2050, is in trouble.

In Southeast Asia, the flow of the Mekong is being reduced by the dams being built on its upper reaches by the Chinese. The downstream countries, including Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Viet Nam—countries with 168 million people—complain about the reduced flow of the Mekong, but this has done little to curb China’s efforts to exploit the power and the water in the river.

The same problem exists with the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, which originate in Turkey and flow through Syria and Iraq en route to the Persian Gulf. This river system, the site of Sumer and other early civilizations, is being overused. Large dams erected in Turkey and Iraq have reduced water flow to the once “fertile crescent,” helping to destroy more than 90 percent of the formerly vast wetlands that enriched the delta region.

In the river systems just mentioned, virtually all the water in the basin is being used. Inevitably, if people upstream use more water, those downstream will get less. As demands continue to grow, balancing water demand and supply is imperative. Failure to do so means that water tables will continue to fall, more rivers will run dry, and more lakes and wetlands will disappear.

Carbon Footprint Labels Are Expensive

Not on the label
May 17, 2007 -- The Economist (Subscription)

Why adding “carbon footprint” labels to foods and other products is tricky

Would you like a footprint on your food? Labels already show fat, salt and sugar content, among other things. But now several British food companies and retailers plan to add “carbon footprint” labels showing the quantity (in grams) of carbon-dioxide emissions associated with making and transporting foods and other goods. The first such labels appeared on packets of Walkers crisps in April. Boots, a British pharmacy chain, will add carbon labels to some of its own-brand shampoos in July. These labels were produced in conjunction with the Carbon Trust, an environmental consultancy funded by the British government, as part of a trial scheme. Tesco, Britain's biggest retailer, has also announced plans to apply carbon labels across its product range and many other firms plan to do the same.

If the idea can be made to work, carbon labels will allow shoppers to choose the products with the smallest carbon footprints and make it possible for them to compare locally produced and imported foods, as well as conventionally farmed and organic products. Claims that some kinds of food are more energy-efficient than others and worries about “food miles” would give way to “a much more rounded, inclusive picture,” says Euan Murray of the Carbon Trust.

But calculating the carbon footprint of a product is far from easy. Unlike the fat or sugar content, it cannot be measured directly. For a start, how far back up the supply chain do you go? Academic “life-cycle analyses” go into painstaking detail, factoring in the emissions associated with building factories in which food is produced, for example. But doing this for thousands of products would be a mammoth undertaking. The trick, says Mr Murray, is to find the right trade-off between rigour and a methodology that works across thousands of items. The Carbon Trust's approach is to include carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing but not, say, that from employees commuting to work.

How far down the supply chain do you go? The Carbon Trust's labels aim to show the carbon emissions associated with making something, packaging it, getting it to the store and disposing of it. Because bags of crisps delivered to far-flung shops will have travelled farther from the factory, the auditors use an average figure for transport emissions. Similarly, national averages feed into calculations of whether a product or its packaging are recycled, incinerated or put into landfill.

The labels do not count the energy needed for refrigeration, lighting and heating in shops. Nor do they include the emissions that come from using a product. The carbon footprint of boiled potatoes, for example, is dominated by the emissions associated with cooking them. Whether you put a lid on the pan can make more of a difference than how they were farmed, or whether they were produced locally or not. Similarly, the emissions of shampoo depend on how long you spend in the shower, how hot the water is and the quality of your boiler. Such things cannot be captured in a carbon label, so they are not included, says Mr Murray.

A particularly difficult area is agricultural modelling. Some sources of farm emissions, such as the electricity consumption of a milking shed, can be measured directly. Others, such as nitrous-oxide emissions from soils and methane emissions from animals, cannot. For the latter, mathematical models are used instead, says Adrian Williams, an agri-environmental scientist at Cranfield University in England. Such models contain assumptions that not everyone may agree with, however. A recent report funded by DEFRA, Britain's environment agency, found that some organic foods had larger carbon footprints than conventional ones. It was criticised by the Soil Association, Britain's main organic lobby, which took issue with the models used for the calculations.

To complicate matters further, nitrous-oxide and methane emissions from farms far outweigh carbon-dioxide emissions in global-warming potential. Methane and nitrous oxide are taken into account by converting them into “carbon-dioxide equivalent” emissions using conversion factors provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the quantification of nitrous-oxide emissions is still not well understood, says Dr Williams, so it is not clear which model to use.

Getting agreement on how best to calculate carbon footprints depends on debate between scientists, retailers, farmers, lobbyists and others. The Carbon Trust has begun a year-long consultation and this month a meeting took place at the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University, which is looking into carbon labelling for Tesco. Agreement is vital because the labels will be useful only if there is a common standard. Otherwise consumers will not be able to compare apples with apples, as it were.

Crop Prices Pushing Up Cost Of Food Globally

Crop Prices Soar, Pushing Up Cost Of Food Globally (Subscription)
April 9, 2007 -- By Patrick Barta, The Wall Street Journal

Soaring prices for farm goods, driven in part by demand for crop-based fuels, are pushing up the price of food world-wide and unleashing a new source of inflationary pressure.

The rise in food prices is already causing distress among consumers in some parts of the world -- especially relatively poor nations like India and China. If the trend gathers momentum, it could contribute to slower global growth by forcing consumers to spend less on other items or spurring central banks to fight inflation by raising interest rates.

Politicians in markets where food costs are a particularly sensitive matter are moving to counter rising prices before they take a bigger economic toll or fuel unrest. But it remains unclear whether those policies will be enough to contain the current pressures, or whether a longer-term bout of food-price inflation -- similar in ways to the recent climb in prices for oil and other commodities -- is in the offing.

One of the chief causes of food-price inflation is new demand for ethanol and biodiesel, which can be made from corn, palm oil, sugar and other crops. That demand has driven up the price of those commodities, leading to higher costs for producers of everything from beef to eggs to soft drinks. In some cases, producers are passing the costs along to consumers. Several years of global economic growth -- led by China and India -- is also raising food consumption, further fanning the inflationary pressures.

Food-price inflation has been climbing -- in some cases sharply -- in India, China, Europe, and even smaller economies like Turkey, South Africa and Poland. In Hungary, it is running at more than 13% a year, compared with less than 3% in 2005. In China, food prices are climbing at a 6% pace, more than three times the speed of a year ago. Prices are also up in Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. They may even be picking up in Japan, the world's second-largest national economy, though the signs are tentative since overall prices there are only just starting to rise after a prolonged economic downturn.

The U.S., too, is seeing some stirrings, with food costs rising 3.1% in February from the year before -- a rate one percentage point higher than in mid-2005. Economists say U.S. food prices are expected to rise faster than the general rate of inflation this year. Wholesale prices of meat, poultry and eggs have already increased.

If the trend continues, U.S. consumers are likely to see higher prices at the supermarket for everything from milk to cereal to soda pop, since corn is used to feed livestock and make high-fructose corn syrup, a key ingredient in many soft drinks. A spokesman for the National Chicken Council, a poultry-industry group, recently testified to a congressional subcommittee that Americans should expect higher chicken prices because of what the group described as "the ethanol crisis."

Doomsday predictions of a major food shortage in China and elsewhere have circulated for years but haven't materialized. And some economists believe the recent increase in crop demand probably can be met without severely straining the global economy. They think prices could come back down over time, especially if some countries that have more land that could be put under cultivation -- particularly Brazil -- can greatly increase production. Technological advances, such as better seed varieties, could also help boost production to keep up with demand.

In the meantime, higher farm prices aren't bad for everyone. They could help boost incomes for the rural poor in developing nations, who have been bypassed by gains in the manufacturing and service sectors. In some cases, the rising demand for food also reflects the growing wealth of once-destitute populations around the globe.

So far, higher prices haven't sparked a major rise in overall global inflation, which remains relatively low and stable by historical standards. Moreover, food prices are notoriously volatile, and some of the increases are due to short-term or local factors that could reverse in time.

But many economists believe the forces causing the current bout of food inflation will persist, or recur in years ahead. Many countries are facing shortages of land and water that didn't exist during past food-price spikes, so they can't easily plant more to ease the strain.

Researchers at Swiss bank UBS AG note that average food prices in China have grown faster in the past five years than in the previous five, as more agricultural land is taken up for factories or high-rise condominiums. Changes in diets are also exacerbating the problem, as rising incomes allow the Chinese and consumers in many other places to eat more.

Some economists contend that China and India appear to be reaching a point at which nothing short of a bumper crop of key commodities will be enough to meet local needs and prevent further surges in food prices. In fact, China and India have achieved historically high production of some crops in recent years, only to see prices continue to climb.

Global grain stocks are at their lowest level in 30 years, after several years of strong global economic growth, and could become even tighter if farmers divert more crops to make ethanol or other fuels. By some estimates, about 30% of the U.S. grain harvest is likely to be devoted to ethanol production by 2008, up from 16% in 2006.

All of this puts the world's central banks in a bind. Although they have confronted spurts in energy prices, many of them haven't had to cope with prolonged increases in food prices since the 1970s. Since then, food-price inflation has remained relatively benign, even as incomes world-wide have climbed, allowing consumers to beef up their diets.

In more recent years, central banks have tried to ignore surges in food prices as long as they didn't get too out of hand, mostly because they tended to be short-lived. A change in weather, for example, could quickly turn a food shortage into a glut, sending prices tumbling.

But a more sustained bout of food-price inflation, if it emerges, could force banks to keep interest rates higher than they would otherwise be. India, for one, has increased interest rates several times over the past year in part to combat food-price inflation.

"In 1972, the last time grain stocks were this low, the story didn't end well in terms of inflation," says Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics in Valhalla, N.Y. In those days, inflation soared not just because of higher oil costs but also because of a global jump in food costs, all of which helped trigger a major U.S. recession and a global slowdown. "Food prices were an important part of what started [inflation] rolling" in the 1970s, Mr. Weinberg says.

But since the 1970s, the Federal Reserve and some other central banks have come to believe that they can avoid raising interest rates in the face of transitory increases in food and energy prices if they have established enough credibility as inflation fighters to keep such price increases from spilling over to the rest of the economy.

Today, the inflation risks may be greatest in developing economies. In the Philippines, food accounts for 50% of the basket of goods included in the consumer-price index, an inflation benchmark. In Thailand, it's about 35%, according to data from Macquarie Bank Ltd. In the U.S., food makes up only about 15% of the CPI.

In one bustling open-air market in downtown Shanghai, shoppers say they are paying as much as two times the price they paid last year for green vegetables, and the cost of meat and vegetable oils have also soared.

Such blows to the pocketbook "give us more pressure for daily life," says Xu Wen, a 53-year-old retiree who was purchasing some rolled noodles in a small shop last week. Already, she says, she and her husband are spending almost half their monthly income on food -- a percentage that continues to increase over time. "We ordinary people have no way out," she says. "This is something the government needs to be concerned about."

Government officials are taking pains to show they are addressing the problem. In December, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao toured a Beijing supermarket to check up on prices, and China has begun limiting the construction of corn-based ethanol plants to ensure there is enough corn for humans and livestock. Chinese officials have even banned new golf courses on farm land and have been unwinding subsidies they once paid to grain distributors to sell excess corn overseas.

Still, analysts estimate Chinese stockpiles of surplus corn now stand at only about 30 million metric tons, down from more than 100 million tons at the end of the past decade, as demand picks up. (The Chinese government doesn't provide official estimates of its stockpiles).

That would imply that China only has two to three months of surplus supply based on current consumption trends, making the country highly vulnerable if it has a bad crop. Although China remains a net exporter of corn now, analysts believe it will become a net importer sometime in the next few years.

Some economists say China will have to take more aggressive steps to prevent future food problems. These changes could include allowing the proliferation of large -- but more efficient -- corporate farms similar to the ones that drove many small growers out of business in the U.S. in recent decades. Such a push would be extremely difficult for China because it needs to preserve jobs for the tens of millions of people who live in rural areas.

Pressures are also building in India. Monika Katyal, a 32-year-old homemaker, complains that she has had to cut back on purchases of many luxuries, such as cosmetics, as her family's monthly bill for groceries has climbed as much as 50% in recent months.

"I came here to do some shopping for myself, but now it doesn't look like I will be able to do that," she said recently, as she studied the price on a bottle of ketchup in a New Delhi grocery.

In addition to raising interest rates, Indian officials have also lifted import duties on corn and barred exports of wheat, to make sure supplies are available for domestic consumption.

But it isn't clear whether those and other moves will be enough to make a big difference in the long run. The main problem is that yields of some crops aren't growing fast enough to keep up with India's rapidly increasing food demand. India's corn production, for example, has climbed about 4% a year since 2001, says Amit Sachdev, a New Delhi-area agriculture-industry analyst, while demand has been increasing nearly 5.5% a year.

"If I look at the trend line, [it] indicates to me that the requirements are going up much faster than what you can produce" in India, he says.

US biofuels: A field in ferment

US biofuels: A field in ferment (Subscription)
December 7, 2006 -- By Katharine Sanderson, Nature

To move US biofuels beyond subsidized corn will be a challenge, reports Katharine Sanderson.

Critics of the US ethanol industry have long derided it as an environmentally questionable subsidy to Mid-western farmers that simply serves a transparently political purpose. Voters in Iowa, the buckle in the US corn belt, get first say in the process of choosing presidential candidates. All such candidates are in favour of turning corn (maize), which the state produces in abundance, into ethanol. This pre-presidential support is good for the Iowan economy, but not necessarily that great for the environment.

Studies that compare the energy that goes into making ethanol — expended during the harvesting, fertilizing and transporting of the corn to refineries, and then refining it — with the energy that is released when it is burned routinely show that the net gain is at best small. The American Coalition for Ethanol says that ethanol contains twice the amount of energy that is used to make it; critics see no net gain whatsoever.

This criticism has had little effect, and since 1980, US ethanol production has risen from an average of 6,500 barrels (1 million litres) a day to 260,000 barrels a day. Federal mandates call for a further doubling by 2012. But it is increasingly clear to many in the industry that the criticisms of corn-based ethanol have merit, and in 2006, the need for an alternative was given the highest profile it could get when President George W. Bush brought it up in his state of the union address. In order to improve US energy security, he said, his government intended to make cellulosic ethanol (ethanol made from the rougher and woodier parts of plants) a competitive biofuel within six years.

Corn stores
The advantage of an ear of corn as a source of ethanol (or for that matter as a bit of food) is that it is mainly starch, which is made up of sugars linked in a regular way with bonds that can be broken easily. Breaking the bonds between sugars and using yeast in the fermentation to produce ethanol is a straightforward task for the biorefineries. The disadvantage is that corn is a crop that needs a lot of inputs — fertilizers, water and pesticides — and that doesn't put as much of the sugar it creates through photosynthesis into its ears as one might wish. A lot of the sugar is instead turned into stalks and 'stover' — structural material rich in cellulose and considerably more difficult to break down.

Plants that store up a significant amount of energy in easily usable forms such as starch or sugar are exceptions, encouraged in their oddities by millennia of selective breeding — and of them all, only sugar cane grown in the tropics puts enough energy into its easily purified products to make bioethanol obviously attractive. Most plants put the bulk of the energy they store up from the sun into cellulose and a related polymer, hemicellulose, and woody plants add another substance, lignin, to the mix. Cellulose makes up the plant's cell walls and, like starch, it is a polymer of sugars containing six carbon atoms linked one to the next. Hemicellulose, on the other hand, is based on a five-carbon sugar, xylose, although it contains many other sugars as well; its various components are thrown together in messy looking chains with many branches. Lignins are huge crosslinked jumbles of organic molecules which reinforce cellulose and hemicellulose to turn them into wood.

The energy that the plants put in to making the bonds in these various substances could, in principle, be extracted by fuel makers. And these molecules — particularly cellulose, which is both the most abundant and the easiest to dismantle — are much more plentiful than starches and sugars. But they are also much harder for microbes to break down; if they weren't, there'd be no trees, just pools of green goo. As yet, there are no cellulosic ethanol refineries operating at full commercial capacity, and assessments of the technology's readiness for market vary a great deal, as do opinions on how to get there from here. Government incentives and tax breaks might be one solution, but big energy companies also have a role to play, as do the smaller companies that have already worked on developing the technology, but have not yet found the best ways of spreading and licensing it.

The most expensive part of making ethanol from cellulose is pretreating the biomass to make it accessible to the enzymes that will then cut the sugars from the polymers so that they can be fermented. Typical pretreatments reduce the feedstock's volume chemically using acids, peroxides and ammonia, often along with some form of mechanical pressing or shredding. Unfortunately, this is not a step that can be skipped to cut costs, says Charles Wyman of the University of California, Riverside, because high sugar yields are essential, and untreated biomass gives very low yields. "The only step more expensive than pretreatment is no pretreatment," he says. Instead, the hunt is on for pre-treatment technologies that involve fewer chemicals, require less energy and don't degrade the sugars that are set free in the process.

After the pre-treatment stage comes the snipping out of the sugars, which is the point at which biotechnologists think they can greatly improve on the current process. Abengoa Bioenergy of St Louis, Missouri, a subsidiary of the Spanish engineering group Abengoa, recently invested $10 million in Dyadic International, a biotechnology company that is concentrating on enzymes for degrading cellulose.

Based in Jupiter, Florida, Dyadic didn't start out as an energy company — in the 1970s it was a leading supplier of pumice for stonewashing jeans. But the enzymatic expertise it developed for distressing denim was then turned to a number of other ends. One of those was breaking down wood, a job that in nature largely falls to fungi. The company's research has centred on a filamentous mess of a fungus discovered by accident in a Russian forest that now, after ten years of processing and genetic engineering, makes up Dyadic's patented C1 fungal cell system. The fungus has been fully sequenced and encouraged to overexpress the genes that then make cellulases and xylanases — the proteins that break up cellulose and hemicellulose to produce fermentable sugars. "We have the world's most prolific filamentous fungus," boasts Dyadic's chief executive Mark Emalfarb.

Cellulose solutions
Emalfarb believes that the cellulosic ethanol market could eventually be worth $20 billion a year in the United States, and suggests that there is enough raw material available in the United States to produce 2.4 billion barrels of cellulosic ethanol a year. This is a bit more than half of what some estimates claim is needed to completely replace petrol as a fuel — the United States gets through some 3.3 billion barrels a year, but the energy content of ethanol is lower than that of petroleum.

The current leader in the cellulosic ethanol market, Iogen, also uses fungal enzymes. The company makes small commercial quantities of ethanol from straw at its pioneering cellulosic ethanol facility in Ottawa, Canada. As the first of its kind, this is an undoubted achievement. But even when it reaches its full capacity, which it is taking quite some time to do, it will be capable of producing only 2.5 million litres (16,000 barrels) a year, which is not a great deal.

Iogen chief executive Brian Foody is not worried. The critical steps for getting the right enzymes, the right pretreatment systems and the right yeast systems, have all been done, he says. "We just need to go through the nuts and bolts of the process." This means making sure that the demonstration plant works well enough to be replicated elsewhere — the company is looking to build new facilities in Idaho, Saskatchewan and Germany.

Iogen recently secured a $30-million investment from the bankers Goldman Sachs, bringing the total invested in it since the 1970s up to $130 million. But not all potential investors are convinced. "I don't really understand what Iogen is doing," says Matt Drinkwater, market analyst at New Energy Finance in London, UK. And his concerns are not unique to Iogen — many of the companies in the sector, he says, hold details of their processes so close to their chests that they are hard to evaluate, whether they be relatively small outfits such as Iogen or giants such as DuPont, which is also developing cellulosic ethanol technologies. Robert Wilder, who manages the Wilderhill clean energy index — the first such index to be accepted on Wall Street — agrees, but acknowledges the constraints that the chief executives of small cellulosic ethanol companies work under in terms of not tipping their hands to larger competitors.

Smells like green spirit
Perhaps because of these uncertainties over the technology's readiness, most of the money that has been invested recently in ethanol production both within the United States and beyond has been in the more traditional technologies. The sizable investments being made by agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland — the biggest ethanol producer in the United States and, perhaps tellingly, a company run by a chief executive who was recruited from the oil industry — seem mostly to be in traditional corn ethanol. The same applies to high-flying UK entrepreneur Richard Branson's recent investments in Ethanol Grain Processors of Tennessee and a new grain-based Californian ethanol venture, Cilion.

But there is some evidence that enthusiasm for investing in corn ethanol may be waning. Various ethanol companies that were riding high earlier in the year saw their stock slump after the summer when oil prices came down from their $78 a barrel peak.

This might mean the market is aware that, although subsidies may be able to keep it profitable for the time being, there is no way that corn ethanol can make a marked difference to long-term energy use in the United States. To make enough ethanol to start seriously displacing oil imports requires a process that can use cellulosic materials such as switchgrass, a tall prairie grass, or miscanthus, a grass imported from Asia, which provide far more tonnes of biomass per hectare than corn kernels ever can, and can be grown on land not suitable for conventional agriculture. Other sources could be farm waste or trees or newly engineered plants of some sort.. This leads to something of an investing impasse: the companies in the business at the moment make money; the ones that might take it to the next stage do not, in large part because no one has made the heavy capital investments needed for plants that make use of the technologies that have already been piloted.

One way round this is to invest across the board. This is the strategy pursued by Vinod Khosla, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist who is one of the founders of Cilion. Khosla is also involved in cellulosic technologies through two companies based in Cambridge, Massachusetts: Celunol, which has just started to operate its own pilot plant, and Mascoma, which concentrates on process engineering and which last month raised $30 million in second-round venture funding. Farther afield in the biofuels world, Khosla is also a major investor in Kergy, a company that turns biomass into fuel in a completely different 'thermochemical' way, using just heat and catalysts. For some observers, such as Dan Schrag, a geochemist at Harvard University, these approaches are more attractive than fermentation, not least because they need no witches' brews made from fiddly feedstock-specific enzyme. "When the dust clears, cellulosic ethanol is unlikely to be where we end up," he predicts.

To Drinkwater, investors such as Khosla, with their broad-based approach to the problem, are exactly what the industry needs to drive the market forwards and get it over the final bump it needs to clear before commercial success. Unfortunately, there are few such people. In their absence, many in the industry, not without self-interest, see the responsibility resting with governments to provide attractive tax incentives. "All forms of energy should face market prices that reflect the cost to society that they impose," says Foody. And to set those market prices, the right tax incentives and government mandates need to be in place.

But government incentives won't make the scientists any smarter, and observers outside the pioneering companies believe there is still basic work to be done before those companies, or their eventual competitors, make the process economically viable. Thus they welcome increasing levels of basic research from the government, such as the US Department of Energy's pledge of $250 million to set up two bioenergy research centres that are largely focused on cellulosic ethanol. The European Union has set aside E100 million (US$132 million) for cellulosic ethanol in its seventh Framework Programme on research.

Ethanol alternative
Companies large enough to afford it are also following the basic research route rather than placing early bets on particular technologies. BP has announced it will invest $500 million over ten years to fund an Energy Biosciences Institute, which will be a dedicated facility based at a university. The University of Cambridge, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have all been mentioned as possible hosts — the final decision is expected in December.

One intriguing possibility for such research to pursue is replacing ethanol with another form of alcohol. The fact that ethanol is easy to ferment can blind people to the fact that it has almost as many inherent problems as a fuel as corn has as a feedstock. Its tendency to pick up water wherever it goes makes it hard to transport, particularly in pipelines. It's corrosive. It's more volatile than one might wish. And its energy density is low compared with regular petrol.

For these reasons, BP and DuPont are working with British Sugar to adapt their ethanol fermentation facility in East Anglia to produce butanol — an alcohol with four carbons in it, as opposed to ethanol's two. This requires training microbes in new tricks, but it is not as hard a problem as breaking down woody plant material. The East Anglia plant will use locally grown sugar beet as the feedstock, but in the long term the aim would be to use a cellulosic feedstock. "We accept that taking stuff out of the food chain is not the right way to go," says Robert Wine, a BP spokesman.

Drinkwater thinks that an industry demand for butanol as an end product could actually increase interest in cellulosic approaches. "Most refiners would be much happier to use butanol than ethanol," he says. If oil companies become confident in biofuel technologies, investors would in turn be more confident of the biofuels industry as a whole, giving the industry that elusive final shove that it seems to need.

Green shoots of growth

Green shoots of growth (Subscription)
December 7, 2006 -- Editorial, Nature

Energy from biomass is an idea whose time has returned.

Until the twentieth century, biomass was humanity's principal source of energy, heating our stoves and feeding our draught animals. Even today, roughly 10% of all our energy comes from biomass — far more than from any other renewable energy source or, for that matter, from nuclear fission.

But this use of biomass for energy supply is accompanied by many challenges. For one thing, it is often not all that renewable — the biomass sources that provide firewood to the world's poor, for example, are not being replanted. For another, it is very inefficient: gathering firewood takes a long time. The history of the past couple of centuries has been in large part one of people moving away from biomass as soon as they can afford to do so.

Three recent developments have spurred renewed interest in biomass, however. One is the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The requirement for other external energy inputs during biomass processing means that it often involves some net carbon emissions — but the amount of carbon dioxide given off by burning biomass is the same as that taken from the atmosphere by photosynthesis in the first place. If biomass projects could sequester carbon, either by enriching the soil beneath plantations or by storing any carbon dioxide produced in combustion, they could even be carbon negative — a unique selling point for this energy source.

The other two developments are the upward movement in the prices of oil and natural gas, and the related revival of concerns about the security of their supply. Most nations are seeking home-based energy sources that do not rely on political stability in the Middle East or Russia.

It seems unlikely that these factors will provide sufficient impetus to propel biomass energy to the very front rank of possible alternatives to fossil fuels. But biomass clearly has a potential role as part of a portfolio of energy sources for the twenty-first century.

If that role is to be fulfilled, two things need to happen. Nations have to build regulatory mechanisms that recognize the carbon benefits of technologies such as biomass — through emissions pricing, a carbon tax or a combination of the two. And intensive research needs to be conducted into both the efficient production of biomass and its conversion into useable energy.

One focal point for such research should be finding ways to grow biomass quickly and in an easily processed form while minimizing external inputs, such as fertilizer and pesticides. Another is the systems engineering of farms and ecosystems, finding ways to fit biomass projects into and around present land use and possible changes in farming practice.

A major attraction of biomass is that it is likely to benefit poorer countries, which tend to be in tropical regions where plants grow quickly. There is plenty of scope for more collaboration between developing countries on biomass research and development, both to meet local needs and for export.

But this requires consideration of the local and global ecological impact of biomass expansion. Vast tropical monocultures eating away at primary forests — as exemplified by the production of palm oil in Indonesia — will benefit no one, except those who profit from selling the fuel. In effect, such approaches take green subsidies from richer countries, and use them to despoil the tropics.

Similar problems afflict existing biomass programmes in the United States, where ethanol refineries often burn fossil fuel and are reliant on subsidized corn monoculture. More innovative approaches would include firing the refineries with agricultural waste, and feeding them with plants of many different species. Biomass energy should be developed energetically, but within the context of appropriate environmental policies, and using approaches that are both sustainable and cost-effective.

Corn Can't Solve Our Problem

Corn Can't Solve Our Problem
March 25, 2007 -- By David Tilman and Jason Hill, The Washington Post

The world has come full circle. A century ago our first transportation biofuels -- the hay and oats fed to our horses -- were replaced by gasoline. Today, ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans have begun edging out gasoline and diesel.

This has been hailed as an overwhelmingly positive development that will help us reduce the threat of climate change and ease our dependence on foreign oil. In political circles, ethanol is the flavor of the day, and presidential candidates have been cycling through Iowa extolling its benefits. Lost in the ethanol-induced euphoria, however, is the fact that three of our most fundamental needs -- food, energy, and a livable and sustainable environment -- are now in direct conflict. Moreover, our recent analyses of the full costs and benefits of various biofuels, performed at the University of Minnesota, present a markedly different and more nuanced picture than has been heard on the campaign trail.

Some biofuels, if properly produced, do have the potential to provide climate-friendly energy, but where and how can we grow them? Our most fertile lands are already dedicated to food production. As demand for both food and energy increases, competition for fertile lands could raise food prices enough to drive the poorer third of the globe into malnourishment. The destruction of rainforests and other ecosystems to make new farmland would threaten the continued existence of countless animal and plant species and would increase the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Finding and implementing solutions to the food, fuel and environment conflict is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. But solutions will be neither adopted nor sought until we understand the interlinked problems we face.

Fossil fuel use has pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide higher than at any time during the past half-million years. The global population has increased threefold in the past century and will increase by half again, to 9 billion people, by 2050. Global food and fossil energy consumption are on trajectories to double by 2050.

Biofuels, such as ethanol made from corn, have the potential to provide us with cleaner energy. But because of how corn ethanol currently is made, only about 20 percent of each gallon is "new" energy. That is because it takes a lot of "old" fossil energy to make it: diesel to run tractors, natural gas to make fertilizer and, of course, fuel to run the refineries that convert corn to ethanol.

If every one of the 70 million acres on which corn was grown in 2006 was used for ethanol, the amount produced would displace only 12 percent of the U.S. gasoline market. Moreover, the "new" (non-fossil) energy gained would be very small -- just 2.4 percent of the market. Car tune-ups and proper tire air pressure would save more energy.

There is another problem with relying on a food-based biofuel, such as corn ethanol, as the poor of Mexico can attest. In recent months, soaring corn prices, sparked by demand from ethanol plants, have doubled the price of tortillas, a staple food. Tens of thousands of Mexico City's poor recently protested this "ethanol tax" in the streets.

In the United States, the protests have also begun -- in Congress. Representatives of the dairy, poultry and livestock industries, which rely on corn as a principal animal feed, are seeking an end to subsidies for corn ethanol in the hope of stabilizing corn prices. (It takes about three pounds of corn to produce a pound of chicken, and seven or eight pounds to grow a pound of beef.) Profit margins are being squeezed, and meat prices are rising.

U.S. soybeans, which are used to make biodiesel, may be about to follow corn's trajectory, escalating the food vs. fuel conflict. The National Biodiesel Board recently reported that 77 biodiesel production plants are under construction and that eight established plants are expanding capacity.

In terms of environmental impact, all biofuels are not created equal. Ethanol is the same chemical product no matter what its source. But ethanol made from prairie grasses, from corn grown in Illinois and from sugar cane grown on newly cleared land in Brazil have radically different impacts on greenhouse gases.

Corn, like all plants, is a natural part of the global carbon cycle. The growing crop absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so burning corn ethanol does not directly create any additional carbon. But that is only part of the story. All of the fossil fuels used to grow corn and change it into ethanol release new carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The net effect is that ethanol from corn grown in the Corn Belt does increase atmospheric greenhouse gases, and this increase is only about 15 percent less than the increase caused by an equivalent amount of gasoline. Soybean biodiesel does better, causing a greenhouse gas increase that is about 40 percent less than that from petroleum diesel.

In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar cane produces about twice as much ethanol per acre as corn. Brazilian ethanol refineries get much of their power from burning cane residue, in effect recycling carbon from the atmosphere. The environmental benefit is large. Sugar-cane ethanol grown on established soils releases 80 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline.

But that isn't the case for sugar-cane ethanol or soybean biodiesel from Brazil's newly cleared lands, including tropical forests and savannas. Clearing land releases immense amounts of greenhouse gases into the air, because much of the material in the plants and soil is broken down into carbon dioxide.

Plants and soil contain three times more carbon than the atmosphere. The trees and soil of an acre of rainforest -- which, once cleared, is suitable for growing soybeans -- contain about 120 tons of organic carbon. An acre of tropical woodland or savanna, suitable for sugar cane, contains about half this amount. About a fourth of the carbon in an ecosystem is released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide when trees are clear-cut, brush and branches are burned or rot, and roots decay. Even more is lost during the first 20 to 50 years of farming, as soil carbon decomposes into carbon dioxide and as wood products are burned or decay.

This means that when tropical woodland is cleared to produce sugar cane for ethanol, the greenhouse gas released is about 50 percent greater than what occurs from the production and use of the same amount of gasoline. And that statistic holds for at least two decades.

Simply being "renewable" does not automatically make a fuel better for the atmosphere than the fossil fuel it replaces, nor guarantee that society gains any new energy by its production. The European Union was recently shocked to learn that some of its imported biodiesel, derived from palm trees planted on rain-forest lands, was more than twice as bad for climate warming as petroleum diesel. So much for the "benefits" of that form of biodiesel.

Although current Brazilian ethanol is environmentally friendly, the long-term environmental implications of buying more ethanol and biodiesel from Brazil, a possibility raised recently during President Bush's trip to that country, are cloudy. It could be harmful to both the climate and the preservation of tropical plant and animal species if it involved, directly or indirectly, additional clearing of native ecosystems.

Concerns about the environmental effects of ethanol production are starting to be felt in the United States as well. It appears that American farmers may add 10 million acres of corn this year to meet booming demand for ethanol. Some of this land could come from millions of acres now set aside nationwide for conservation under a government-subsidized program. Those uncultivated acres absorb atmospheric carbon, so farming them and converting the corn into ethanol could release more carbon dioxide into the air than would burning gasoline.

There are biofuel crops that can be grown with much less energy and chemicals than the food crops we currently use for biofuels. And they can be grown on our less fertile land, especially land that has been degraded by farming. This would decrease competition between food and biofuel. The United States has about 60 million acres of such land -- in the Conservation Reserve Program, road edge rights-of-way and abandoned farmlands.

In a 10-year experiment reported in Science magazine in December, we explored how much bioenergy could be produced by 18 different native prairie plant species grown on highly degraded and infertile soil. We planted 172 plots in central Minnesota with various combinations of these species, randomly chosen. We found, on this highly degraded land, that the plots planted with mixtures of many native prairie perennial species yielded 238 percent more bioenergy than those planted with single species. High plant diversity led to high productivity, and little fertilizer or chemical weed or pest killers was required.

The prairie "hay" harvested from these plots can be used to create high-value energy sources. For instance, it can be mixed with coal and burned for electricity generation. It can be "gasified," then chemically combined to make ethanol or synthetic gasoline. Or it can be burned in a turbine engine to make electricity. A technique that is undergoing rapid development involves bioengineering enzymes that digest parts of plants (the cellulose) into sugars that are then fermented into ethanol.

Whether converted into electricity, ethanol or synthetic gasoline, the high-diversity hay from infertile land produced as much or more new usable energy per acre as corn for ethanol on fertile land. And it could be harvested year after year.

Even more surprising were the greenhouse gas benefits. When high-diversity mixtures of native plants are grown on degraded soils, they remove carbon dioxide from the air. Much of this carbon ends up stored in the soil. In essence, mixtures of native plants gradually restore the carbon levels that degraded soils had before being cleared and farmed. This benefit lasts for about a century.

Across the full process of growing high-diversity prairie hay, converting it into an energy source and using that energy, we found a net removal and storage of about a ton and a half of atmospheric carbon dioxide per acre. The net effect is that ethanol or synthetic gasoline produced from this grass on degraded land can provide energy that actually reduces atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

When one of these carbon-negative biofuels is mixed with gasoline, the resulting blend releases less carbon dioxide than traditional gasoline.

Biofuels, if used properly, can help us balance our need for food, energy and a habitable and sustainable environment. To help this happen, though, we need a national biofuels policy that favors our best options. We must determine the carbon impacts of each method of making these fuels, then mandate fuel blending that achieves a prescribed greenhouse gas reduction. We have the knowledge and technology to start solving these problems.

Food to Fuel Increases World Food Prices

Massive Diversion of U.S. Grain To Fuel Cars Is Raising World Food Prices
March 21, 2007 -- By Lester R. Brown, Earth Policy Institute

ECO-ECONOMY UPDATE:
Massive Diversion of U.S. Grain To Fuel Cars Is Raising World Food Prices

If you think you are spending more each week at the supermarket, you may be right. The escalating share of the U.S. grain harvest going to ethanol distilleries is driving up food prices worldwide.

Corn prices have doubled over the last year, wheat futures are trading at their highest level in 10 years, and rice prices are rising too. In addition, soybean futures have risen by half. A Bloomberg analysis notes that the soaring use of corn as the feedstock for fuel ethanol “is creating unintended consequences throughout the global food chain.”

The countries initially hit by rising food prices are those where corn is the staple food. In Mexico, one of more than 20 countries with a corn-based diet, the price of tortillas is up by 60 percent. Angry Mexicans in crowds of up to 75,000 have taken to the streets in protest, forcing the government to institute price controls on tortillas.

Food prices are also rising in China, India, and the United States, countries that contain 40 percent of the world’s people. While relatively little corn is eaten directly in these countries, vast quantities are consumed indirectly in meat, milk, and eggs in both China and the United States.

Rising grain and soybean prices are driving up meat and egg prices in China. January pork prices were up 20 percent above a year earlier, eggs were up 16 percent, while beef, which is less dependent on grain, was up 6 percent.

In India, the overall food price index in January 2007 was 10 percent higher than a year earlier. The price of wheat, the staple food in northern India, has jumped 11 percent, moving above the world market price.

In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that the wholesale price of chicken in 2007 will be 10 percent higher on average than in 2006, the price of a dozen eggs will be up a whopping 21 percent, and milk will be 14 percent higher. And this is only the beginning.

In the past, food price rises have usually been weather related and always temporary. This situation is different. As more and more fuel ethanol distilleries are built, world grain prices are starting to move up toward their oil-equivalent value in what appears to be the beginning of a long-term rise.

The food and energy economies, historically separate, are now merging. In this new economy, if the fuel value of grain exceeds its food value, the market will move it into the energy economy. As the price of oil climbs so will the price of food.

Some 16 percent of the 2006 U.S. grain harvest was used to produce ethanol. With 80 or so ethanol distilleries now under construction, enough to more than double existing ethanol production capacity, nearly a third of the 2008 grain harvest will be going to ethanol.

Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, shipping more than Canada, Australia, and Argentina combined, what happens to the U.S. grain crop affects the entire world. With the massive diversion of grain to produce fuel for cars, exports will drop. The world’s breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank.

The number of hungry people in the world has been declining for several decades, but in the late 1990s the trend reversed and the number began to rise. The United Nations currently lists 34 countries as needing emergency food assistance. Many of these are considered failed and failing states, including Chad, Iraq, Liberia, Haiti, and Zimbabwe. Since food aid programs typically have fixed budgets, if the price of grain doubles, food aid will be reduced by half.

Urban food protests in response to rising food prices in low and middle income countries, such as Mexico, could lead to political instability that would add to the growing list of failed and failing states. At some point, spreading political instability could disrupt global economic progress.

Against this backdrop, Washington is consumed with “ethanol euphoria.” President Bush in his State of the Union address set a production goal for 2017 of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels, including grain-based and cellulosic ethanol, and liquefied coal. Given the current difficulties in producing cellulosic ethanol at a competitive cost and given the mounting public opposition to liquefied coal, which is far more carbon-intensive than gasoline, most of the fuel to meet this goal might well have to come from grain. This could take most of the U.S. grain harvest, leaving little grain to meet U.S. needs, much less those of the hundred or so countries that import grain.

The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world’s 2 billion poorest people. The risk is that millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as higher food prices drop their consumption below the survival level.

In February 2007 the World Food Programme Director James T. Morris reported that 18,000 children are now dying every day from hunger and malnutrition. This daily loss of life is six times the number of U.S. combat fatalities in Iraq over the last four years.

There are alternatives to this grim scenario. A rise in auto fuel efficiency standards of 20 percent, phased in over the next decade would save as much oil as converting the entire U.S. grain harvest into ethanol.

One option that is gaining momentum is a shift to plug-in hybrids. Adding a second storage battery to a gas-electric hybrid car along with a plug-in capacity so that the batteries can be recharged at night allows most short-distance driving—daily commuting and grocery shopping, for example—to be done with electricity. If this shift were accompanied by investment in thousands of wind farms that could feed cheap electricity into the grid, then cars could run largely on electricity for the equivalent cost of $1 per gallon gasoline.

Encouragingly, three auto manufacturers—Toyota, Nissan, and GM—have announced plans to bring plug-in hybrid cars to market. Plug-In Partners, which is spearheading a national campaign to shift to plug-in hybrid cars, already has 508 partners, including electrical utilities, corporations, state and city governments, and farm and environmental groups. Among its fast-growing list of partners are the American Public Power Association, Electric Power Research Institute, American Wind Energy Association, American Corn Growers Association, and the cities of Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, and Boston. Already a number of Partners have collectively pledged to purchase for their own fleets more than 8,000 plug-in hybrids as soon as they reach the market.

Ethanol euphoria is not an acceptable substitute for a carefully thought through policy. For Washington, it is time to decide whether to continue with the current policy of subsidizing more and more grain-based fuel distilleries or to encourage a shift to more fuel-efficient cars and a new automotive fuel economy centered on plug-in hybrid cars and wind energy. The choice is between a future of rising world food prices, spreading hunger, and growing political instability, or one of stable food prices, sharply reduced dependence on oil, and much lower carbon emissions.

Water Prices Rising Worldwide

Water Prices Rising Worldwide
March 7, 2007 -- By Edwin H. Clark, II, Earth Policy Institute

ECO-ECONOMY UPDATE:
Water Prices Rising Worldwide

The price of water is increasing—sometimes dramatically—throughout the world. Over the past five years, municipal water rates have increased by an average of 27 percent in the United States, 32 percent in the United Kingdom, 45 percent in Australia, 50 percent in South Africa, and 58 percent in Canada. In Tunisia, the price of irrigation water increased fourfold over a decade.

A recent survey of 14 countries indicates that average municipal water prices range from 66¢ per cubic meter in the United States up to $2.25 in Denmark and Germany. Yet consumers rarely pay the actual cost of water. In fact, many governments practically (and sometimes literally) give water away for nothing.

The average American household consumes about 480 cubic meters (127,400 gallons) of water during a year. Homeowners in Washington, DC, pay about $350 (72¢ per cubic meter) for that amount. Buying that same amount of water from a vendor in the slums of Guatemala City would cost more than $1,700.

The price people pay for water is largely determined by three factors: the cost of transport from its source to the user, total demand for the water, and price subsidies. Treatment to remove contaminants also can add to the cost.

The cost of transporting water is determined largely by how far it has to be carried and how high it has to be lifted. Growing cities and towns may have to go hundreds of kilometers to find the water needed to satisfy their increasing thirst. California cities have long imported water from hundreds of kilometers away. And China is constructing three canals that are 1,156 kilometers, 1,267 kilometers, and 260 kilometers long to transfer water from the Yangtze River to Beijing and other rapidly growing areas in the northern provinces.

Pumping water out of the ground or over land to higher elevations is energy-intensive. Pumping 480 cubic meters of water a height of 100 meters requires some 200 kilowatt-hours of electricity. At a price of 10¢ per kilowatt-hour, the cost is $20—not including the cost of the pump, the well, and the piping. One hundred meters is not an unusual lift for wells tapping falling supplies of groundwater. In Beijing and other areas in northern China, for instance, lifts of 1,000 meters are sometimes required.

Mexico City, at an elevation of 2,239 meters, has to pump some of its water supply over 1,000 meters up a mountain. The operating costs alone amount to $128.5 million annually. Pumping this water requires more energy than is consumed overall in the nearby city of Puebla, home to 8.3 million people. Amman, Jordan, faces a similar problem related to delivering water to higher elevations.

In most places water is not purchased or exchanged in a market. But formal water markets are developing in the western United States, Australia, and Chile. Where these water markets do exist, they provide examples of how high the scarcity value of the water—that is, the amount that other potential users would be willing to pay for it—can be. Water prices in Australia’s markets peaked at near 75¢ per cubic meter in December 2006, climbing 20-fold in a year in part due to prolonged drought. In the U.S. West, water prices typically range between 3¢ and 10¢ per cubic meter. This is just the cost of the water itself and does not include the expense of treating or transporting it. In some western U.S. cities, water is so scarce that cities are selling sewage effluent for as much as $1 a cubic meter to be used for irrigating gardens.

In India, water scarcity has prompted some farmers to profit by selling their water instead of farming. The water they formerly used to irrigate their crops is instead pumped from their wells and trucked to nearby cities. The farmers are harvesting water rather than food and at the same time promoting a rapid drop in underground water tables.

The final factor affecting how much people pay for water is the amount it is subsidized. Water subsidies can be very large. For instance, water revenues in the city of Delhi are less than 20 percent of what it spends each year to provide water. On average worldwide, nearly 40 percent of municipal suppliers do not charge enough for water to meet their basic operation and maintenance costs.

Subsidies often benefit only higher-income families. Frequently, urban slum residents in developing countries have no access to municipal water supplies and instead purchase water from private purveyors who bring it in by truck. In part because unscrupulous vendors often control this distribution, the prices are very high, typically exceeding $1 per cubic meter. In several Asian cities, for instance, households forced to purchase water from a private vendor pay more than 10 times as much as middle-income families who are connected to the municipality’s distribution system. The poorest households in Uganda spend 22 percent of their income on water, while those in El Salvador and Jamaica use more than 10 percent of their income to satisfy water needs.

Water subsidies are not limited to the developing world. Farmers in California’s Central Valley, for example, use roughly one fifth of the state’s water and pay on average slightly over 1¢ per cubic meter, just 2 percent of what Los Angeles pays for its drinking water and only 10 percent of its replacement value. One analysis of a new U.S. project in central Utah found that the water it will provide will cost close to 40 times more than irrigators pay for it.

Water is currently managed as if it were worthless instead of the life-sustaining, valuable, and increasingly scarce resource that it is. A key step in moving toward more rational water management is to place a price on water that reflects its value and scarcity. This can, of course, result in substantial price increases that particularly hurt low-income families. The best way to avoid this problem is to use a block rate pricing system where a low level of consumption—that required to satisfy basic needs—is very cheap, while prices increase at higher levels of consumption. In Osaka, Japan, for instance, users pay a set monthly fee that includes 10 cubic meters of water; beyond that prices increase in steps from 82¢ per cubic meter up to $3 or more for high-volume users. In addition, ensuring that the poorest households are connected to a secure water supply can protect them from price gouging by private vendors.

Although pricing water at a reasonable cost can generate political problems in the short run, it can lead to substantial efficiencies in the longer run and eliminate a perverse drain on government budgets. Higher prices will lead farmers and industries to use water more efficiently and encourage households to buy more water-efficient appliances and reduce the amount of water they waste. Many efficiency improvements are relatively inexpensive, and most pay for themselves. Any improvement that reduces hot water use, for instance, can pay for itself over time because it saves energy as well as water.

Indeed, there are many links between energy and water. Not only are substantial amounts of energy required to extract, transport, and treat water, but just as the oil price shocks of the 1970s stimulated energy conservation, so too could pricing water to better reflect its real cost stimulate similar conservation efforts by industries, farmers, and households.

Distillery Demand For Grain To Fuel Cars Vastly Understated

Distillery Demand For Grain To Fuel Cars Vastly Understated: World May Be Facing Highest Grain Prices in History
January 4, 2007 -- By Lester R. Brown, Earth Policy Institute

ECO-ECONOMY UPDATE:
World May Be Facing Highest Grain Prices in History

Investment in fuel ethanol distilleries has soared since the late-2005 oil price hikes, but data collection in this fast-changing sector has fallen behind. Because of inadequate data collection on the number of new plants under construction, the quantity of grain that will be needed for fuel ethanol distilleries has been vastly understated. Farmers, feeders, food processors, ethanol investors, and grain-importing countries are basing decisions on incomplete data.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects that distilleries will require only 60 million tons of corn from the 2008 harvest. But here at the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), we estimate that distilleries will need 139 million tons—more than twice as much. If the EPI estimate is at all close to the mark, the emerging competition between cars and people for grain will likely drive world grain prices to levels never seen before. The key questions are: How high will grain prices rise? When will the crunch come? And what will be the worldwide effect of rising food prices?

One reason for the low USDA projection is that it was released in February 2006, well before the effect of surging oil prices on investment in fuel ethanol distilleries was fully apparent. Beyond this, USDA relies heavily on the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), a trade group, for data on ethanol distilleries under construction, but the RFA data have lagged behind movement in the industry.

We drew on four firms that collect and publish data on U.S. ethanol distilleries under construction. RFA is the one most frequently cited. The other three firms are Europe-based F.O. Licht, the publisher of World Ethanol and Biofuels Report; BBI International, which publishes Ethanol Producer Magazine; and the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), publisher of Ethanol Today.

Unfortunately, the lists of plants under construction maintained by RFA, BBI, and ACE are not complete. Each contains some plants that are not on the other lists. Drawing on these three lists and on biweekly reports from F.O. Licht, EPI has compiled a more complete master list. For example, while we show 79 plants under construction, RFA lists 62 plants. (We welcome any information that will improve this list, which can be viewed at www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2007/Update63_data.htm).

According to the EPI compilation, the 116 plants in production on December 31, 2006, were using 53 million tons of grain per year, while the 79 plants under construction—mostly larger facilities—will use 51 million tons of grain when they come online. Expansions of 11 existing plants will use another 8 million tons of grain (1 ton of corn = 39.4 bushels = 110 gallons of ethanol).

In addition, easily 200 ethanol plants were in the planning stage at the end of 2006. If these translate into construction starts between January 1 and June 30, 2007, at the same rate that plants did during the final six months of 2006, then an additional 3 billion gallons of capacity requiring 27 million more tons of grain will likely come online by September 1, 2008, the start of the 2008 harvest year. This raises the corn needed for distilleries to 139 million tons, half the 2008 harvest projected by USDA. This would yield nearly 15 billion gallons of ethanol, satisfying 6 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs. (And this estimate does not include any plants started after June 30, 2007, that would be finished in time to draw on the 2008 harvest).

This unprecedented diversion of the world’s leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere. As the world corn price rises, so too do those of wheat and rice, both because of consumer substitution among grains and because the crops compete for land. Both corn and wheat futures were already trading at 10-year highs in late 2006.

The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying 70 percent of the world’s corn exports, looms large in the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa alone, which edges out Illinois as the leading producer, exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy.

Robert Wisner, Iowa State University economist, reports that Iowa’s demand for corn from processing plants that were on line, expanding, under construction, or being planned as of late 2006 totaled 2.7 billion bushels. Yet even in a good year the state harvests only 2.2 billion bushels. As distilleries compete with feeders for grain, Iowa could become a corn importer.

With corn supplies tightening fast, rising prices will affect not only products made directly from corn, such as breakfast cereals, but also those produced using corn, including milk, eggs, cheese, butter, poultry, pork, beef, yogurt, and ice cream. The risk is that soaring food prices could generate a consumer backlash against the fuel ethanol industry.

Fuel ethanol proponents point out, and rightly so, that the use of corn to produce ethanol is not a total loss to the food economy because 30 percent of the corn is recovered in distillers dried grains that can be fed to beef and dairy cattle, pigs, and chickens, though only in limited amounts. They also argue that the U.S. distillery demand for corn can be met by expanding land in corn, mostly at the expense of soybeans, and by raising yields. While it is true that the corn crop can be expanded, there is no precedent for growth on the scale needed. And this soaring demand for corn comes when world grain production has fallen below consumption in six of the last seven years, dropping grain stocks to their lowest level in 34 years.

From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive demand for fuel is insatiable. The grain it takes to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs.

The competition for grain between the world’s 800 million motorists who want to maintain their mobility and its 2 billion poorest people who are simply trying to survive is emerging as an epic issue. Soaring food prices could lead to urban food riots in scores of lower-income countries that rely on grain imports, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, and Mexico. The resulting political instability could in turn disrupt global economic progress, directly affecting all countries. It is not only food prices that are at stake, but trends in the Nikkei Index and the Dow Jones Industrials as well.

There are alternatives to creating a crop-based automotive fuel economy. The equivalent of the 2 percent of U.S. automotive fuel supplies now coming from ethanol could be achieved several times over, and at a fraction of the cost, by raising auto fuel efficiency standards by 20 percent.

If we shift to gas-electric hybrid plug-in cars over the next decade, we could be doing short-distance driving, such as the daily commute or grocery shopping, with electricity. If we then invested in thousands of wind farms to feed cheap electricity into the grid, U.S. cars could run primarily on wind energy—and at the gasoline equivalent of less than $1 a gallon. The stage is set for a crash program to help Detroit switch to gas-electric hybrid plug-in cars.

It is time for a moratorium on the licensing of new distilleries, a time-out, while we catch our breath and decide how much corn can be used for ethanol without dramatically raising food prices. The policy goal should be to use just enough fuel ethanol to support corn prices and farm incomes but not so much that it disrupts the world food economy. Meanwhile, a much greater effort is needed to produce ethanol from cellulosic sources such as switchgrass, a feedstock that is not used for food.

The world desperately needs a strategy to deal with the emerging food-fuel battle. As the leading grain producer, grain exporter, and ethanol producer, the United States is in the driver’s seat. We need to make sure that in trying to solve one problem—our dependence on imported oil—we do not create a far more serious one: chaos in the world food economy.