Citation from

Biofuels: Promises and Constraints
Laney, Kara. IPC Publications, IPC Discussion Paper, December 2006

“Concerns about energy supply, national security, climate change, and economic development crowd the public policy agendas of most countries around the world and dominate international dialogues. Political instability in many oil exporting countries threatens the steady supply of fossil fuel to importing countries, while diminishing oil reserves cause more environmentally damaging techniques to be employed in order to extract oil from less accessible sources. Both these factors, along with the rising demand for energy from the developed world, combine to raise oil prices, thus creating a significant drain on foreign exchange in developed and developing countries alike. Concurrently, the expanding uses of energy increases greenhouse gas emissions, adding to the destructive effects of climate change.

Into the fray of these diverse and cross-cutting issues steps biofuels. In this ordinary product, different countries and constituencies find potential answers for their utmost concerns. In the United States, national security advocates think biofuels will facilitate energy independence from unstable, unreliable sources. Signers of the Kyoto Protocol, such as the European Union and Japan, view biofuels as a tool towards meeting their emission reduction goals; environmentalists also are supportive for this reason. For farmers, biofuels represent a new market and a way to diversify risk. Developing countries hope these products will be new export commodities, and both developing and developed countries see them as an opportunity to keep expenditures on energy within the domestic economy.

Of course, an energy source that could single-handedly address energy supply constraints, climate change, national security, and economic development issues would be too good to be true, and indeed, the beneficial aspects of biofuels’ ability to address these diverse demands are countered by their own issues related to food security and economic and environmental sustainability. The promises of biofuels must be weighed against their costs.

Biofuels Primer: Biofuels are liquid or gaseous fuels derived from biomass, which can be identified generally as organic matter; for the purposes of fuel, organic matter is plant material or animal waste. While biofuels include compounds and elements such as methanol, methane, and hydrogen, the two fuels primarily in commercial production are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is a liquid fuel generated from converting the carbohydrate portion of biomass into sugar and then fermenting the sugar, while biodiesel is produced through the transesterfication of organically-derived oils or fats. (1) Ethanol can be used as a fuel oxygenate and, in compatible engines, as a substitute for gasoline. Biodiesel can replace petroleum diesel, but it is typically mixed for commercial use in 2/98, 5/95, or 20/80 biodiesel/petroleum diesel blends.

Brazil and the United States are the leading producers of ethanol. Brazil uses sugarcane as its feedstock, while corn is the crop of choice in the United States. By converting rapeseed oil into fuel, Germany produced over half of the world’s biodiesel in 2005. (2) Production in the US is rising, where soybeans are the primary feedstock. Malaysia and Indonesia, with an eye to export to Europe, are increasing their production of biodiesel from palm oil.” (Laney)

Following Information - Compiled from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2006 Report

Food Security Primer: Food security is when people do not live in hunger or fear of starvation. Food insecurity exists when people are undernourished as a result of the physical unavailability of food, their lack of social or economic access to adequate food, and/or inadequate food utilization. World-wide around 852 million people are without enough food to eat on a regular basis and another 2 billion face intermittent food insecurity. There are 22 countries, 16 of which are in Africa, in which the undernourishment prevalence rate is over 35%.

There are strong, direct relationships between agricultural productivity, hunger, and poverty. Families with the financial resources to escape extreme poverty rarely suffer from chronic hunger; while poor families not only suffer the most from chronic hunger, but are also the segment of the population most at risk during food shortages and famines. Three-quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas and make their living from agriculture. Hunger and child malnutrition are greater in these areas than in urban areas. Moreover, the higher the proportion of the rural population that obtains its income solely from subsistence farming (without the benefit of pro-poor technologies and access to markets), the higher the incidence of malnutrition. Therefore, improvements in agricultural productivity aimed at small-scale farmers will benefit the rural poor first.

Increased agricultural productivity enables farmers to grow more food, which translates into better diets and, under market conditions that offer a level playing field, into higher farm incomes. With more money, farmers are more likely to diversify production and grow higher-value crops, benefiting not only themselves but the economy as a whole.