Clinton urges caution against increased biofuels production
Former President Bill Clinton drew quick criticism from the ethanol and corn industries following remarks he made regarding biofuels during a speech delivered to attendees of the USDA’s Agricultural Forum on Feb. 23. While his comments concentrated largely on the potential effects of climate change to agricultural production, Clinton added that biofuels production could also affect food production.
“If you produce more biofuels, you produce less food,” he said. “Well, that means food prices will be even higher and we’ll have more food riots. And if you produce less, is there some other way to provide the fuel that will help you and the rest of the world and allow you to produce food in a traditional way and the demand will be so great you’ll still get a good price for it. These are things no one can answer with certitude but everyone should be talking about and not pretending that there’s inherent contradictions and dilemmas here.”
Growth Energy said Clinton’s concerns are “well-intentioned,” but called to his attention recent studies that have concluded biofuel crops can be grown without negatively affecting food crops. Additionally, the group made a connection to an effort close to Clinton’s heart—improving conditions in developing nations—and said ethanol production in the U.S. has helped to consume surplus amounts of domestic grain, preventing increased exports and thus allowing farmers in poor nations to continue to produce their crops. “There are over a billion acres of previously tilled farmland in poor nations that can be brought back into production as ethanol makes farming this land cost-effective,” the group stated. “Ethanol does not create food shortages, but instead gives these nations a way to get their own sovereign farming economies back on their feet so they can feed themselves.”
The National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association both pointed to data showing that U.S. ethanol producers consume about 3 percent of the global grain supply, adding that oil production should be blamed for rising food prices rather than biofuels. “With the continuing unrest in the Middle East and Northern Africa, it is imperative that we continue to support a homegrown fuel industry that helps keep our country safe and creates jobs,” the NCGA said in a statement. “The American farmer is very aware of the world’s rising demand for corn, and we will continue to meet those needs.”
“President Clinton is right that ethanol is a key to American energy security and we would welcome his support in advocating for the continued advancement and evolution of this industry to include a wide variety of feedstocks and technologies,” the RFA stated.
Clinton also touched on the controversial indirect land use change theory when he described the Brazilian sugarcane industry as an international example of the trade-offs he envisions Iowa corn growers must face when selling corn for feed or biofuels production. “They don’t tear down any of the rainforests,” he said. “You can’t grow cane on rainforest land. But because the Brazilians can get 9.5 gallons of biofuels out of cane sugar for every gallon of oil that goes through, there’s this insatiable demand. As a result, they are pushing a lot of the soybean growers and cattlemen off of the land with good topsoil into the marginal land, which is eroding the rainforest.”
Clinton ended his remarks by cautioning parties to think critically about the potential impacts of biofuels demand on food production while remaining focused on increasing domestic energy production. “I think the best thing to do is to say that we have to become energy independent; we don’t want to do it at the expense of food riots,” he said. “We’ll have to sit down year in and year out for the next 20 years and try to make intelligent decisions with a three- to five-year time horizon based on the best evidence we have in order to maximize the availability of good food at affordable prices and maximize our move toward energy independence.”
7 Responses
Super Ethanol Man
2011-03-17
1The bottom line is most of the opposition to ethanol incentives and production by politicians is due to the fact that they have either invested heavily in the oil industry personally or have something additional to gain politically or financially (directly or indirectly) by supporting oil over ethanol. Oil is big business and is at the nucleus of our governments misguided future. It is obvious that ethanol is being utilized as a scapegoat. In addition, how can Obama preach all this self reliant / non dependence / we can we will jargon and not endorse continued support of the ethanol industry. The simple economics support the fact that everyone benefits from ethanol. Job growth, support for cheaper fuel prices, support for cheaper food prices, support for sustained economic growth, cleaner energy source and so on. Just to provide additional perspective...they say that by inflating tires properly and driving the right speed limit, etc. would have the same impact as ethanol reliance. What they didn't point out is that if you use ethanol and do those same things then the environment is twice as better off than it was before. And to summate....Clinton and his wife are both self serving egotistical idiots. I hope oil goes up to $200.00 a barrel and then they may start singing a different tune about ethanol.
Charlie Petrs
2011-03-01
2Some folks think corn fuel ethanol stinks
Michel Benedict
2011-03-01
3Thanks to biofuel mandates, softs are now linked to oil prices. That's a fact. When oil price goes up, the incentive for ethanol producers to distill more increases. ME riots were triggered by high food prices (largely wheat in the case of Egypt, which is totally dependent on imports); now ME riots increase the region's volatility and oil prices are up. With oil prices rising ethanol plants' buyers are more aggressive at a time when stock to use ratio is lowest at 5% (USDA latest bulletin) and upcoming season's yields and acreage expansion will not compensate strong demand, acc to USDA. So we are headed for further corn price increases. food for fuel can work, provided 2nd generation is introduced faster, but right now the incenives go counter. Clinton is correct
ABD PhD
2011-02-28
4Agreed. Clinton ignores the heaps of emerging data on biofuels being grown on marginal land, ie land not suitable for conventional farming, as well as other systems that do not interfere with our eligible "food producing" acres.
bioblogger
2011-02-28
5I am a cellulosic biofuels proponent who supports corn ethanol. In my opinion, Clinton has it backwards. Is the price of corn affected by spikes in the price of oil, or is oil affected by the price of corn? Obviously the former. Do we need another oil spill, price spike, economic recession, and war to learn the lesson? Here are five things to consider: First off, ethanol, regardless of how it’s made, is a necessary product in the U.S. because it is used as an oxygenate in gasoline – so if you drive in the U.S., you are probably driving on some blend of ethanol. That’s about a billion gallons / year in California alone. Secondly, food availability is a complicated problem in most parts of the world. It is affected not only by how much food is grown, but where it grown and how it is transported. If the price of oil goes up, ALL food and other commodities go up with it. Not to mention that with no choices at the pump food cultivation goes up with the price of oil. Third, the U.S. is sitting on corn growing capacity and ethanol production capacity. We could grow far more than we do and we export our excess (including corn) to foreign countries. The problem is that our grains are so cheap (even with transoceanic transport) that indigenous markets in poor countries fail to develop – meaning there is no way that farmers there can compete. That is also compounded by the price of oil. Developing technology to make fuel production regional will enable poorer countries to break the crippling link to worldwide oil prices – as Brazil has so ably proven. Fourth, corn ethanol is enabling the U.S. to develop an infrastructure for 2nd generation biofuels – more choices at the pump for fuels that are getting cheaper and cleaner while oil is getting dirtier and much more expensive. We cannot get to 2nd generation biofuels without a strong infrastructure and markets to move and sell it as it becomes available. Fifth, we have more flexible fuel cars on the road now because of the prospect of ethanol. There are too few blender pumps available otherwise more people would choose to buy higher ethanol blends (E15-E85) instead of supporting the obscene oil prices that sends U.S. wealth out of the country. If I have to pay obscene prices, let it be to domestic producers of the alternative fuels so at least I am not compounding the addiction to foreign oil.
jatrophaworld
2011-02-27
6Agriculture is the dominant water user, consuming more than 70% of total global water demand.Industrially produced meat is especially waterintensive, requiring up to 20,000 litres of water to produce a kilogram, compared to approximately 1,200 litres to produce a kilogram of grain. Both population growth and increasing meat consumption in emerging economies will therefore have a tremendous impact on resource needs. over the next 10 years, the world population is expected to rise from the current 6.83 billion to approximately 7.7 billion, with most of the growth in emerging economies. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) projects a 50% increase in demand for food by 2030, and the International Food Policy Research Instituted (IFRI) expects a 30% increase in demand for water, with other estimates rising to over 40%. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that the world economy will demand at least 40% more energy by 2030; producing this energy will draw heavily on freshwater resources. For such increased demand for water, food and energy to be realized, significant and perhaps radical changes in water use will be required as well as new sources for food and energy production exploited. For food production, supply-related challenges may limit the ability of farmers to meet growth in demand. Already, major grain-producing areas – in China, India and the United States, for example – depend on unsustainable mining of groundwater. In some regions, such as North Africa and Australia, climate-related changes of precipitation have already critically reduced the levels of freshwater supply. In northeast China, one of the country’s main grain-producing regions, climate change could increase drought losses by over 50% by 2030.10 Climate change is likely to be exacerbated by meeting the growing demand for energy. Over 75% of the global increase in energy use from 2007-2030 is expected to be met through fossil fuels, especially coal, and an estimated 77% of the power stations required to meet demand are yet to be built. In this context most importantly, focusing on the critical Connections between Water-Food-Energy-Climate is required to be considered and decision-makers will have to inspire all to engage collectively in efforts to improve the global system’s overall resilience. The need of hour is to grow food crop for food, Conserve the forest and pasture land and Grow Fuel crops on no arable land We at CJP are engaged in development and research of nonfood Oil crops which grow on wasteland some of them are Castor, Moringa, Pongamia, Simarouba, Jojoba, Jatropha, algae etc. We provide a platform for all stakeholders to collaborate in shaping a more secure, innovative and resilient future. Our next 4th JatrophaWorld 2011 from September 14-18, 2011 is the best place to be educated about Promising and sustainable biodiesel crops and technology for more kindly visit our site http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org
Anonymous
2011-02-26
7It's very obvious that Mr. Clinton needs to be educated in this arena. He does not understand the commodity markets and how they work nor does he understand the food vs. fuel debate. They don’t tear down any of the rainforests,” he said. “You can’t grow cane on rainforest land. But because the Brazilians can get 9.5 gallons of biofuels out of cane sugar for every gallon of oil that goes through, there’s this insatiable demand. As a result, they are pushing a lot of the soybean growers and cattlemen off of the land with good topsoil into the marginal land, which is eroding the rainforest.” What the heck is he talking about in this statement? He makes no sense whatsoever. Oil is not used in the cane to ethanol manufacturing process. Nor is cane sugar. Is he attempting to refer to the "energy balance" for cane based ethanol? Also, cattlemen do not raise cattle on land with good topsoil. They raise cattle on marginal pasture land. And finally, nobody cuts down the rainforest for the purpose of cattle production. The destruction of the rainforest occurs because there is valuable wood to be harvested. It just so happens that the land then becomes useful for cattle grazing. He also states "If you produce more biofuels, you produce less food,” he said. “Well, that means food prices will be even higher and we’ll have more food riots. And if you produce less, is there some other way to provide the fuel that will help you and the rest of the world and allow you to produce food in a traditional way and the demand will be so great you’ll still get a good price for it. These are things no one can answer with certitude but everyone should be talking about and not pretending that there’s inherent contradictions and dilemmas here.” Mr. Clinton needs to understand that the corn that is used to manufacture ethanol is not used for human consumption. Therefore, the end result is not less food for humans. What drives up the price of food is the high cost of diesel. High oil prices are the main culprit for rising food prices. Diesel is used in all aspects of farming from planting to harvest and transportation to a processing facility. Once the crop has been processed into food it is then transported by trucks using diesel to distribution centers and then transported once again to supermarkets by trucks using diesel. The reality is if you produce less biofuels in the U.S. then farmers will produce less corn to make ethanol. He does not understand that the starch component of the corn kernel goes to manufacturing ethanol and the oil and protein (the most valuable components of the corn kernel) are returned to the animal feed markets in the form of DDG's. It is unfortunate that Mr. Clinton, a man with such great credentials and high levels of education, does not do his homework before commenting on an industry that he obviously knows very little about. Education is the key to making the United States energy independent. It is time to inform the public about the need for biofuel production and to eliminate the myths that have been created by certain groups in this great country of ours.
Leave a Reply
Comments are closed