Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development, gave a great speech in Brussels earlier this week titled, ‘Biofuels: more valuable as fuel than as a scapegoat’.  Robert McFarlane, President Reagan’s national security adviser, also makes several strong arguments in his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, ‘Don’t Give Up on Energy Independence’.  In National Review, Clifford D. May writes in ‘Food Fight’ about broader issues concerning real development in the developing world.  In The Globe and Mail, Shawn McCarthy explains in ‘Barrelling Ahead’ how much money OPEC is now raking in, and what they are doing with all that petro-wealth.  And in the Chicago Tribune, Dr. Robert Zubrin and Gal Luft describe how ‘Food vs. fuel [is] a global myth’, what the real problem is, and how to solve it.

Rick Tolman, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) in the U.S., has an interesting take on the fuel and food debate, which has received a lot of attention of late – albeit often flawed and sensationalist coverage.  His column, ‘Recipe for a Food and Fuel Smear Campaign’, can be found on the NCGA website.  It is also worth watching the CNN video clip, ‘Oil and your food bill’, after reading his column.  As well, a story in The Associated Press today quotes two senior United Nations officials, who both say that market speculation is driving food costs. 

A new CIBC report says that oil prices could double to over $200 a barrel by 2012, leading to prices at the pump of around $2.25 per litre.  While this will cause several different problems in the economy, the most significant negative affect of high oil prices will be on food prices.  This CNN video report ‘Oil and your food bill’ shows FAO UN data that finds oil and food prices have tracked each other almost perfectly since 1961.  High oil prices lead to high food prices.                

CRFA Chair, and BIOX Corporation CEO and President, Tim Haig, has a column in The Globe and Mail online today as a web-exclusive comment.

With all of the gross misrepresentations in the media recently concerning food prices, it is important to set the record straight.  To get the facts, please see the Fuel Food Reality Check in the ‘media’ section of this site.  Also, there is a post on the Set America Free site, ‘”Food vs Fuel” Argument is False’, which shows that the corn harvest continues to be larger than ever before and exports of corn keep rising, even with ethanol production occuring.  As well, there is an article in the Economist, ‘A ravenous dragon’, showing that imports of soybeans into China are 35 times higher today than in 1999.  Making ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans are not what is causing food prices to rise. 

Diane Francis has an interesting article on the Financial Post site, ‘Obama gets ethanol power’. 

This morning on 580 CFRA radio in Ottawa, Dr. Robert Zubrin, in town to speak about his book ‘Energy Victory’ at the Economic Club of Canada, stopped by and spoke to Steve Madely on his popular news-talk-radio program, Madely In The Morning.  The clip can be heard here. 

Time magazine’s latest cover story on biofuels is based on a Science Magazine article that has been thoroughly discredited. See below: 

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

More Misleading Biofuels Analysis 

Searchinger and Tillman Reports Raise Serious Methodological Questions 

by Brooke Coleman  

On February 8th, several major news outlets covered the emergence of two new studies published in Science magazine about the “upstream” or indirect impacts of biofuel production. There was a clear disconnect between what the studies actually say, and what was actually written. The general thesis of both studies is that using pristine lands to grow biofuel feedstock will have serious climate change impacts. Yet, most of the stories suggested or declared that today’s biofuels are worse than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  

Some of the misinformation is directly traceable to the author’s statements. 

1) It is simply false to paint Searchinger’s study as a critique of today’s biofuels …  The Searchinger study assumes 30 billion gallons per year (bgy) of corn ethanol use. This is almost 4 times the current U.S. ethanol market (8 bgy), and 2 times greater than the 15 bgy of corn ethanol use required by federal law through 2022.  

2) It is misleading for the authors of both the Searchinger study and the Tillman study to claim that today’s biofuels are worse than gasoline with regard to GHG emissions … 

Both studies seek to go beyond the current analysis by incorporating indirect “upstream” land use changes into the GHG profile of biofuels. But they fail to incorporate indirect impacts into the petroleum fuel baseline, resulting in a clear “apples to oranges” comparison. 

3) The Searchinger study is very clearly a “worst case scenario” analysis, but the article has been promoted as an investigation into the way things are done today … 

Among the worst case scenario assumptions are: (a) an inflated ethanol market size; (b) an inelastic supply/demand land use forecast in which one U.S. hectare used for corn results in one hectare planted elsewhere; (3) all new (displaced) hectares are cultivated in pristine ecosystems (prairie, rainforests, etc.) as opposed to some marginal lands. 

4) The Searchinger analysis relies on a long series of highly subjective assumptions …  The string of assumptions: we will get to 30 bgy corn ethanol production; increased corn demand spikes corn, wheat and soybean prices, reducing exports of corn, wheat, soybeans, pork and chicken; 10.8 million hectares would need to be planted to fill the void; new hectares would be planted on pristine lands in four countries: China, India, Brazil and the United States. 

5) It is misleading to refer to land use impacts as an “omission” from previous biofuel studies … 

An upstream/indirect impact is a brand new field of research for any product with incredibly uncertain indicators. These are all “market mediated” effects with dozens of possible socioeconomic, environmental, policy and geopolitical variables. The indirect impacts of oil dependence are countless, and are also omitted. 

It is unfortunate that a “worst case scenario” calculation, without a petroleum fuel baseline analysis, was portrayed as a fair and transparent comparison of a business as usual approach. The ongoing analysis of indirect impacts will be incredibly complicated but remains important. The New Fuels Alliance hopes that future studies will be more balanced and more accurately portrayed by all responsible parties. 

http://newfuelsalliance.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-misleading-biofuels-analysis.html

Robert Zubrin, author of ‘Energy Victory’ and president of aerospace engineering firm Pioneer Astronautics, has a column today in the Myrtle Beach Sun News, pointing out that recent criticism of biofuels is outright false, with media often highlighting the criticism, however flawed it is, without showing the facts as they really are.  Two weeks ago he also had a column in National Review titled ‘Breaking OPEC’s Grip’.  Zubrin outlines several good arguments that show how critical it is that we finally start to grow beyond oil.

‘Virgin Atlantic Becomes World’s First Airline to Fly a Plane on Biofuel’.  That is the title of a news release issued today by Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd.  This is another very exciting and positive step forward as we continue to Grow Beyond Oil!