Tuesday 22 April 2008

More Food Shortage Coverage



From US NBC Nightly News program, April 22, 2008.

Monday 21 April 2008

Food crisis threatens security, says UN chief

Picture (above) of Mexican food shortage protesters from Treehugger's October 2007 coverage.

Excerpts from the Guardian article from today...

The UN secretary general issued a gloomy warning yesterday that the deepening global food crisis, in which rapidly rising prices have triggered riots and threatened hunger in dozens of countries, could have grave implications for international security, economic growth and social progress.

The World Bank estimates food prices have risen by an average of 83% in the past three years, and warns that at least 100 million people could be tipped into poverty as a result. A range of factors has been blamed, including poor harvests, partly due to climate change, rising oil prices, steep growth in demand from China and India, and the dash to produce biofuels for motoring at the expense of food crops.

"One thing is certain," [UN Secretary general] Ban [Ki-Moon] said. "The world has consumed more than it has produced" over the last three years.

Food riots have broken out in at least a dozen countries, most notably in Egypt, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Yemen and Mexico. Pakistan has reintroduced rationing, while Russia has frozen the price of milk, bread, eggs and cooking oil. Indonesia has increased public food subsidies, while India has banned the export of rice, except the high-quality basmati variety.

Earlier this month, Haiti's parliament dismissed the prime minister, and cut the price of rice, in an attempt to defuse widespread anger at food price hikes that led to days of protests and looting in the capital, Port-au-Prince.

The UN food agency has warned that it will need to make "heartbreaking" choices about which countries should receive its emergency aid, unless governments donate more money to buy increasingly expensive food.
British PM Gordon Brown is calling for immediate action on the part of the UK and US to support UN food aid programmes, but I can't see how he'll get President Bush to do anything resembling anything. Brown is going to need more than angry people and possible mass starvation to activate this criminally negligent President.


Coverage of the issue by Bloomberg.com today...
``Biofuels is making the world face a lot of difficulty,'' Qatari Energy Minister Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said yesterday in Rome. ``It's created a food shortage. Sometimes I ask myself `what is more important, driving or eating?' I can't stop eating.''

A new World Bank report states that ``almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for biofuels production in the U.S.'' Go back and read that sentence a second time. It is stunning.

Tuesday 15 April 2008

Monbiot on the Biofuels Disaster

Picture (above) borrowed from The Telegraph's article on a surge in Brazilian deforestation in 2007.

George Monbiot, environmental guru and columnist at The Guardian, offers perhaps the most succinct argument against biofuels (in any form) that I have read. I highly recommend that anyone interested in the subject go and read his 12 February article: HERE.

He also has more recently written an excellent piece on the horrifying thought process (or lack thereof) behind the planning of Britain's first coal-fired power plant in 20 years: HERE. If you're too busy/lazy to go and read his article, I will help you out... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL. Any fruit from this tree will fall far to late to be of use in averting the worst effects of global climate change. We need to focus on electrics and renewable power.

Monday 14 April 2008

Leaders Realizing the Biofuels Mess We're In?

UK newspaper The Guardian is reporting (here) that Britain's Chancellor Darling has awoken to the dire consequences of expanding biofuels development...

'This is an urgent problem,' said Darling, who was speaking in Washington at a meeting of G7 leaders. 'People across the world will say, "Why didn't you see this coming?" when it is staring us in the face. We have got to take action.'

He added: 'It would be a profound mistake if we get into a situation where we are growing corn that is essential for feeding people and converting it into fuel. That is not sustainable.'

The move to re-examine links between food shortages and global biofuel policies comes as riots have gripped many of the world's poorest nations. Demonstrators have protested, with increasing violence, about the soaring prices of wheat, rice, soya and other staples.
As the article goes on to point out, the US is currently in a political cycle where biofuels are seen as an important part of the climate change solution, pushed even recently by senators with a strong interest in averting climate change. These include US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Chairman Baraba Boxer and both Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama (policy sheet) and Hillary Clinton (policy sheet).

So US part of the solution to the biofuels problem might also give us a real indication of which candidate is likely to be the most effective on climate change. Namely, which presidential hopeful will wake up and address the environmental disaster that is biofuels first? Or will Barbara Boxer and the senate committee she chairs be the first to come around? Will any American political leader be smart or strong enough to change their position on biofuels?

Who is Chancellor Darling?
The position of Chancellor of the Exchequer (or Chancellor for short) in the UK is equivalent to the US Secretary of the Treasury, overseeing HM Treasury with responsibilities for all economic and financial matters in the UK. Alistair Darling was appointed to the post in June 2007 and has had a rough start, bailing out Northern Rock just three months later, and then dealing with the child benefit data scandal less than one month after that. Suffice it to say, he has not been a hugely popular figure, so his awakening on biofuels may be the first positive thing many have heard from him since he became Chancellor. Hopefully he can follow through.

Saturday 5 April 2008

Cap and Trade in North America

That's right, the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) has announced plans (here, here, and here) to develop cap and trade policies to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While the EU has had a similar system in place since 2005 (see the EU Emission Trading Scheme), conservative administrations in Canada and the US have shown no interest in establishing meaningful environmental legislation.

Where federal governments have failed, state and city leaders have been able to enact the Kyoto Accord in their domains (e.g., US Mayors Climate Protection Initiative), and in February 2007 the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) was launched. Originally a collaboration between the governors of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington states, the Initiative now includes Utah, Montana, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba. Six US states, six Mexican states, and three Canadian provinces are listed with "observer" status. Hopefully the BC program will get up and running before the next (Democratic) president takes office to prove that these systems are not strictly a detriment to economic development (in case the EU's growth over the last three years wasn't enough). However, some of the limitations of the plan (here) suggest this may not be the case.

The Problem with Biofuels

This is not a new topic even for this blog, but this TIME article covering the environmentally devastating effects of the West's lust for biofuels is probably the highest profile nod I've seen to a problem that many have already warned the world about.

My hero Lester Brown was talking about this as early as 2003, so I think most of the finger pointing at "scientists" is bull, but commonplace in the knee-jerk media who often lump scientists together when anyone who has been involved in science knows that every single idea is contested and questioned. The real culprit is the weak pandering of politicians who know their constituencies are much more comfortable piping biofuels into their cars and than actually changing their ways or even facing the truth on climate change and their role in causing it.

My last gripe is with the title of the TIME article. "The Clean Energy Scam" suggests there are known problems with all clean energy technologies when in fact the article only looks at biofuels. So far, there is no reason for anyone to reconsider the benefits of wind and solar power. The article suggests biofuels are not the answer, so what do we do? It seems to me that the obvious solution is to develop renewable energy at a massive scale and use this power to run a new electric transport system (cars, buses, trains). I think politicians would be doing us all a service if they would be honest about the dangers we face and work to get the public behind this kind of revolution. Carrying on with the biofuels rhetoric accomplishes nothing.