Food vs fuel proponents argue biofuels replace food crops, therefore causing food shortages For the following reasons this is a short sighted argument. 1. Most crops used for biofuels production in the US aren’t for human consumption, their alternative use is as animal feed2. A co-product of the ethanol production process is a feed ingredient that replaces much of the nutrient value derived from the corn 3. Biofuels reduce the demand (and price) of oil which encourages further world trade
Discussion
Are biofuels the apt alternative to petroleum fuels while they are decreasing the supply and increasing the cost of food?
Having reasonable options for solving problems seems to be a better choice than having none. Biofuels, even 1st generation biofuels, provide a reasonable solution for a part of our petroleum based fuel problem. They are not the complete solution but make sense in the evolutionary process of how to solve our petroleum dependence issue.
In summary, let’s look at the food vs. fuel debate. Later on we’ll focus on what drove our initial leap into biofuels and how things have changed since.
The food vs. fuel debate is focused on the following premise: biofuels replace crops for food, therefore causing a shortage in our food supply. This is a short sighted argument. To help frame this point let’s look at some figures from 2008; namely US demand for crude oil and corn and the prices for these commodities. Read More
