Bioenergy from food crops is gaining traction as an eco-friendly alternative, but questions have been raised about its sustainability and effectiveness in reducing environmental pollution, and it could exacerbate food shortages.
If you’re interested in green energy, you’ve probably heard about the idea of making fuel from corn. This type of bioenergy, which is obtained by processing biological resources (biomass) through biochemical and thermochemical methods, has gained a lot of attention around the world. Bioethanol and biodiesel are the most common biofuels, and crops such as corn, sugarcane, soybeans, and wheat are used to produce them. Many countries are already developing technologies and increasing their share of bioenergy. In the United States and Brazil, the two leading bioenergy markets, the supply of bioenergy derived from grains has already reached levels comparable to nuclear energy. South Korea has also been encouraging the use of bioenergy since 2002 by conducting a pilot project to supply diesel fuel blended with biodiesel to diesel vehicles and exempting biodiesel from the special consumption tax.
So why are we working so hard to research and produce bioenergy? First of all, bioenergy is known to be a renewable and low-emission energy source. It’s also more abundant than fossil fuels, so it’s less likely to run out, and it’s ubiquitous, meaning it can be found anywhere on the planet. In short, bioenergy is a good alternative to reduce environmental pollution and prepare for the depletion of fossil fuels.
However, in recent years, there have been a number of phenomena and studies that call this belief into question. At a time when alternative energy development is becoming a hot topic due to the depletion of fossil fuels, is bioenergy a realistic alternative? In my opinion, we should stop using food crops as a feedstock for bioenergy. Not only is bioenergy not as environmentally friendly as it is promised to be, but it also has the problem of driving up the price of feedstock crops, which contributes to food shortages. In this article, we’ll take a closer look at the problems with using food crops as feedstock for biofuels.
First, the hope that bioenergy can solve environmental problems by reducing greenhouse gas emissions may be short-sighted. Large areas of arable land are needed to grow the crops that feed biofuels, and the process of acquiring them can accelerate environmental degradation. Experts warn that clearing rainforests or grasslands to grow sugarcane or corn could increase greenhouse gas emissions even more than they already are. Even if biofuels emit fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, the environmental impact of deforestation due to increased demand for biofuels cannot be ignored. For example, Brazil, a major producer of ethanol, has been clearing the Amazon forest for agricultural land, contributing to global warming. The Amazon forest is responsible for about 20% of the world’s oxygen supply. In light of this fact, it would be imprudent to destroy the Amazon, the “lungs of the planet,” just for the sake of less polluting energy. Indiscriminate deforestation can lead to water pollution and the destruction of wildlife habitat. In addition, removing diverse habitats and planting monocultures of feedstock crops reduces biodiversity, which has a negative impact on ecosystems. The impact of fossil fuels used in the production of bioenergy cannot be ignored either. The international community is beginning to recognize the negative effects of bioenergy and is warning against its indiscriminate production and use. In fact, the EU has banned the import of biofuels produced from land cleared of rainforests. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has also expressed concern about bioenergy, excluding biodiesel from clean energy certification.
Second, it’s hard to be sure that biofuels are environmentally friendly. There is insufficient evidence that they emit less carbon dioxide when burned than fossil fuels. As more in-depth studies of biofuels have been conducted, the results have contradicted the belief that biofuels are environmentally friendly. The Directive on Fuel Quality, passed by the EU in October 2011, lists the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by different energy sources to produce 1 J of energy. According to this data, crude oil, the fossil fuel currently blamed for global warming, emits 87.5 grams of carbon dioxide per J of energy, while liquefied coal emits 172 grams. Interestingly, oil for biofuel production emits 86 grams of carbon dioxide for sunflower oil, 103 grams for soybean oil, and 105 grams for palm oil. This is not a small amount compared to fossil fuels, and soybean oil and palm oil actually emit more carbon dioxide than crude oil, meaning that they are just as polluting as crude oil. Of course, bioenergy has the advantage over fossil fuels that it emits very few pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. However, it is disappointing to see that there is no significant difference in carbon dioxide emissions, which is the biggest contributor to global warming. In conclusion, even if biofuels emit fewer greenhouse gases on average than fossil fuels, they are not superior. It is doubtful that biofuels can successfully replace fossil fuels.
Another problem is that the increased demand for agricultural products used in biofuels is driving up grain prices and causing food shortages. Land that could be used to grow food is being utilized to produce biofuel crops, reducing the amount of grain available for human consumption. According to one recent study, while total corn production has remained largely unchanged, the amount of corn used for biofuel feedstock has increased significantly. This surge in demand is naturally leading to higher international grain prices. In the United States, which uses about 40% of its corn production for biofuels, corn prices increased by a whopping 73% in the second half of the year. And in Mexico, prices for food crops, including corn, are at a 10-year high. Inventories of corn and other food crops have fallen to their lowest levels in 25 years. The same is true for other grains such as soybeans and wheat.
Worryingly, corn and soy, which are feedstocks for bioenergy, are relief crops. According to the latest statistics, about 925 million people, or 13% of the world’s population, are hungry. But the grain that is supposed to feed them is being used to make biofuels. This is a clear waste of grain. In developing countries, people are starving to death because they don’t get enough to eat. On the other hand, there is an ironic situation in the developed world where huge amounts of surplus grain are used to make bioenergy. In fact, bioenergy production requires more feedstock crops than you might think. Lester Brown, director of the U.S. Earth Policy Institute, a world-renowned environmental researcher, argues that “It takes about 200 kilograms of corn to produce enough ethanol to fill one four-wheel-drive SUV, which is enough to feed an adult human for a year.” This fact makes it hard to see how it’s worth using up so much crops to produce energy while leaving starving people behind. As mentioned above, biofuels aren’t much greener than fossil fuels. I don’t think we should have to accept this level of inefficiency to produce energy that is only marginally better than fossil fuels. If the corn used to fuel cars in the United States for a year were used to feed the hungry, we could feed about 330 million people, about one-third of the world’s hungry. If the food used for biofuels were used to stabilize grain prices and increase global food self-sufficiency, the outcome would be even more positive for humanity as a whole.
So there you have it: the problems with bioenergy. While bioenergy is gaining traction as an environmentally friendly alternative, there are still questions about whether it’s as effective as we’d like it to be. Therefore, it’s not always a good idea to increase the share of biofuels, but there are alternatives. Rather than producing bioenergy indiscriminately, we need to develop technologies that allow us to produce more energy from fewer crops. And we need to encourage the use of other alternative energy sources that are less likely to cause environmental or food problems than bioenergy. We will also need to explore ways to produce energy from sources that are not food crops. For example, recent developments have shown that algae can be used to dramatically increase bioenergy production. According to one marine researcher, the annual production potential of biodiesel from microalgae is eight times that of corn and 40 times that of soybeans. This is very encouraging because it reduces the indiscriminate use of food crops that are currently used as feedstock crops for bioenergy and thus does not cause a food crisis. In the future, we will need to continue researching and developing technologies to solve the problems mentioned above and increase the efficiency of bioenergy.
Current bioenergy does not reduce environmental pollution as much as it should, and the quality of the energy obtained is not superior to the social and economic costs of bioenergy production, including food shortages. Therefore, if we truly care about the environment and the well-being of humanity as a whole, we should rethink the current use of food crops for biofuels.
