U.S. biofuels may stress Latin American food security
Photo by Patrick T. Power
The United States hopes to become energy independent with the help of biofuels.
But some believe those U.S. dreams will impact Latin America.
Miguel Altieri: A tremendous amount of land that is devoted to agriculture for feeding people is going to be devoted for agriculture to feeding cars in the north. So the impact on food security is going to be huge.
That’s Miguel Altieri at the University of California at Berkeley. He’s an agro–ecologist. That’s a scientific discipline merging agriculture and ecology with anthropology and sociology.
Altieri has looked closely at the ecological, social and economic implications of biofuel production in Latin America. He told Earth & Sky that dependence on biofuels in the U.S. will make it harder for people in Latin America to feed themselves. He said that when corn used for feeding cattle and making tortillas is instead made into ethanol, Latin America will have to import food and the cost of basic nutritional staples will rise.
According to Altieri, industrial farmers in Latin America have already cleared large areas of rainforest to grow crops for biofuels for the U.S. He also said these crops produce high rates of erosion and soil depletion that affect land in Latin America for years to come.
Altieri is one of many scientists who have told Earth & Sky that the U.S. lifestyle isn’t sustainable. He also pointed out the United States is 8% of the world’s population but is using 40% of the world’s resources. He said, “That ecological appetite needs to end, because if we don’t do something, nature is going to take its course.”
Agro–ecologist works toward food security from Earth & Sky.
The ecological and social tragedy of crop–based biofuel production in the Americas, by Miguel Altieri and Elizabeth Bravo
Our thanks to:
Miguel Altieri
Department of Agroecology
University of California, Berkeley
NEW! Find related content with Sphere
Mr. Miguel Altieri should add some basic principles of economics to his agro-ecologist degree. He should also go down to Brazil and other Latin American countries to see firsthand that the situation is quite the opposite: there is plenty of land for biofuel production and it won’t impact food at all. His arguments, together with Mr. Chaves from Venezuela, make me think that he has money invested in the oil industry. It is very simple: anyone from the oil industry would be against biofuel production because it can bring down the price of gas. Biofuels = gas substitute!!! Latin America, specially Brazil, has large areas of usable land to accommodate the production of biofuels (i.e. sugar cane or corn-based). Search yourself for some Brazilian states (such as “goias”, “bahia”, “minas gerais”) on http://maps.google.com/maps) and you will see that that area is completely underutilized and ready to accommodate biofuel production. It will bring new jobs, prosperity and progress to the entire region. Cheers!
“The United States hopes to become energy independent with the help of biofuels. “
If the purpose of biofuels is for the United States to become energy independent then the biofuels will have to be grown in the United States. This will have no impact on Latin America’s farmers or environment.
And if the biofuels are to be imported from Latin America, then what is the difference for the United States energy independence if we import oil or biofuels.
Well I believe that Altieri’s assessment of the situation is right on the money. Some countries, like Mexico for example, are already feeling the effects of the production of biofuels. The cost of tortillas, a basic food for most people, has been rising steadily in the last year. People have been voicing their concerns regarding cost, since their diet relies heavily on the consumption of tortillas and the government has had to impose price limits. Also, it seems to me that we’re shooting ourselves in the foot, on the one hand we want these South American countries to protect the rainforests and on the other hand we giving them the economic incentive to cut them down. We are concened about the pollution they are creating through agricultural burns, and we are creating a scenario where more will take place. And, eventhough we talk about energy independence, the bottom line and realistically speaking, we will probably just outsource the production of biofuels to underdeveloped countries.
Erika is absolutely correct. Furthermore, primary food crops should not be part of the biofuel production. Food supply will only become more fragile in the future. When it comes to biofuels, cellulose based biofuel has to be the primary focus using resources from waste products.
If it’s an issue of food vs. fuel for people anywhere in the world, there’s no contest. Food for people has to be the first priority.
“Energy independence” is a phrase being used by politicians these days. It means ending our dependence on foreign oil in the name of national security, but I agree with Kenneth, there’s not a lot of weight to the phrase “energy independent” if the US is still importing the raw material for its energy from other countries.
Mexico has an arrangement with the U.S. Agriculture Department – a consequence of the NAFTA agreement – that edible corn grown in Mexico is sent to the United States, entirely for export only. Whatever corn is left behind is used to produce animal feed. For human consumption, Mexico already has to import the staple back from the United States, which explains the rising cost in tortillas. If this is true, the United States would never decrease the growth of corn for human consumption, or trade that land for biofuels. In any event, NAFTA agreements is what’s harming Latin America in permanent ways.
http://americas.irc-online.org/reports/2004/0402nafta.html
Another question is arable land in Brazil. It is a big country, but the Rainforest is in emminent danger. International corporations from Europe and the US are all to blame for cutting down the Amazon forest to graze the land for cattle, for lumber, for mining, to add highways and other infrastructure. In my humble opinion, biofuels would be a fraction of the land needed, in comparison to what they have been doing in the last decade.
There is a critical need for Latin Americans to promote their self-sustenance and preserve their resources, rather than maintaining a dependence on exports and importing their own goods back at astronomical prices.
Biofuels are not the answer to energy problems. Farmland and rangeland are finite resources; you can grow food or fuel and the choice to farmers is driven by simple economics. The same economic forces are in place in Latin America as well. Globally we will see food costs go up as more land is planted to biofuel crops. Some biofuel crops deplete soil resources more than others; it is important, in the long term, to make choices that are sustainable.
Sustainable sources of energy are wind and solar. In the future they will become more important, but now it is simply cheaper to burn coal and natural gas for energy. None of this will change until we develop a culture that doesn’t respect and encourage blatant waste.
I just wanted to write to express how incensed I felt after hearing your story on the “effect” of the U.S.‘s drive to utilize biofuels, upon Latin American food security. This country just can’t seem to think beyond its own wants, much less needs. And, it certainly doesn’t seem able to think beyond the short term or beyond its borders. Much of the world much be extremely frustrated with the U.S..
On another note, please stop using the word “impact” and any of its weird derivatives. It is only occasionally appropriate, and that is rare enough that eliminating its use wouldn’t hurt anything. You can look this up. And, it makes its users sound a bit uneducated.
JATROPHA PLANT YIELDS A BIODIESEL FUEL THAT DOES NOT IMPACT THE HUMAN FOOD CHAIN AND LOWERS DIESEL POLLUTION BY 87 PERCENT.