« O2Diesel Receives Approvals for Ethanol-Diesel Blend in France | Main | Chinese Researchers Advance Underground Coal Gasification »
Jane’s Warns Pursuit of Biofuels Brings New Global Security Risks
16 July 2007
Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that while biofuels offer many advantages for producing countries, the potential long-term environmental degradation and increased competition for land and water resources means it cannot be viewed as a risk-free alternative to non-renewable fuels.
Anna Gilmour, an independent analyst for Jane’s Intelligence Review, says greater use of land for biofuel production will inevitably mean a reduction in land for food crops at a time when the rising global population is putting increased demand on food and water supplies.
While there is clearly a growing demand for the conversion to biofuel production it could also expose governments to rising social unrest, as food prices rise and poorer members of society reap few benefits from the new ‘wondercrop’.
Apart from the social unrest and job losses, the expansion of this industry has the potential to increase internal conflict between governments and non-state armed groups in countries such as Colombia, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines.
—Anna Gilmour
Efforts to clear new land for biofuel production will be strongly opposed by non-state armed groups who may view it as a challenge for territorial control, resulting in action and subsequently more unrest.
Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that Columbia is an example where the potential security risks are more complicated, as large tracts of supposedly unused land are actually used for illegal cultivation of coca plants, from which cocaine is extracted. With most of Colombia’s non-state armed groups heavily dependent on the lucrative cocaine trade, efforts to repurpose this land towards biofuel production would be strongly opposed on several fronts.
Jane’s Intelligence Review says that while environmental concerns pose long-term risk in the form of climate change, the most pressing risk will come in the form of heightened competition for land, food and water resources.
Jane’s Information Group is a leading open source information provider and conference organizer on defence, international risk and national security to governments, militaries, industries and academia around the globe.
Resources:
July 16, 2007 in Biodiesel, Biomass, Ethanol, Fuels, Sustainability | Permalink | Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/20083576
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jane’s Warns Pursuit of Biofuels Brings New Global Security Risks:
Comments
What a dumb thing to say, I mean it brings new global security risks, but they're balanced out by getting rid of the old ones(ie. wars over oil) so in the end there's no more risk than there was in the beginning.
Posted by: Brad | Jul 16, 2007 2:00:45 PM
Life is a risk -- get over it!
Posted by: JJ | Jul 16, 2007 2:03:53 PM
blah blah blah, EVERYBODY PANIC , blah blah blah
Posted by: Joseph | Jul 16, 2007 2:09:23 PM
Hah! Their example of a country at "increased" risk is Colombia, which has been a war torn disaster for decades. We need a Jeopardy episode: what cash crop causes all those woes for Colombia? Biodiesel and ethanol, of course! Ridiculous.
Posted by: Jim G | Jul 16, 2007 2:35:58 PM
Use...electricity...
If bio-fuels were lucrative enough I sure hope Columbia does start growing bio-fuel plants in cocaine farms.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 16, 2007 2:39:25 PM
Expert so-called. I think land use is always under
consideration; that's why researchers propose crops, like miscanthus, that can be grown on marginal croplands. In other words, they are addressing the fears that this Jane's analyst has in advance of her warnings. If Algae pans out, one doesn't have to impact croplands, either.
Biofuels --- full speed ahead.
Posted by: Swen | Jul 16, 2007 2:51:16 PM
We need Second Generation Biofuels, now. Even without the security risks, there are now major food risks as well. And the price of soybean oil for biodiesel has risen to record levels, so it's affecting the viability of other biofuels.
Posted by: Cervus | Jul 16, 2007 3:12:48 PM
why is everyone so negative...it angers me!
Posted by: 747king | Jul 16, 2007 3:27:50 PM
Please use soybeans for biodiesel all you want...it is unsuitable as a food source (especially if it is one of the main protein sources). Just don't take land away from viable food sources.
I like the skyscraper greenhouse concepts I've seen...expensive to implement but capable of mass producing a large amount of food in a relatively small square of land as the acreage goes up each floor rather than spreading out.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 16, 2007 3:34:14 PM
We will assuredly see more war over clean water in the future than we will see war over land for fuel production. If we use solar in large amounts and wind energy and wave power, will there be wars over light, wind and shoreland?
Posted by: christopher | Jul 16, 2007 3:35:54 PM
When too much food crop land is used to produce feedstocks for biofuels, the price of food will rise above the affordable level for many.
Hungry people can choose to starve and die or to revolt and fight.
One billion people can die of starvation and not to many of us would cry as long as we can ride our gas guzzlers.
Revolts and ongoing fighting will affect the security of many including us.
Posted by: | Jul 16, 2007 3:37:15 PM
Patrick: LOL .. no tofu for you? Seriously, do you have an example of a "high rise farm"? Curious to know how they get enough light on each floor.
Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 16, 2007 4:48:01 PM
To anonymous last poster: I can accept that there is such thing as overdoing it, but think about it this way: how much land that could be used to grow plants for staple food is currently devoted to:
* animal feed or livestock ranges
* trees or bamboo for wood, paper, etc.
* rubber
* cotton
* coffee
* wine grapes
* cocaine, heroin, pot, etc.
etc. etc.
Whenever I read something about how biofuels will create a Soylent Green scenario, I'm reminded of the fact that all this stuff is currently grown on farmland around the world, yet we're still here.
Posted by: Jim Greene | Jul 16, 2007 4:52:22 PM
NeilPackrat:
I believe Patrick is talking about this:
http://nymag.com/news/features/30020/index1.html
I assume they'd have to have glass floors as well as glass walls.
Posted by: | Jul 16, 2007 4:58:47 PM
We need EV's charged by solar, wind and tidal electric power plants.
'Nuf said.
Posted by: chillpill | Jul 16, 2007 7:20:26 PM
re: skyscraper farm: very cool .. I'm all geeked out. (I like the idea of food without pesticides and herbicides)
Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 16, 2007 7:27:43 PM
I'm surprised at the amount of uncritical cheerleading for biofuels that is going on among commenters to this post. When are supposedly educated pro=green folk going to get it that biofuels are not necessarily pro-environment or "green". It's like saying, in another context: "goody! Let's have more agriculture!".
The only "green" biofuels are ones that have been eco-certified...a certification which has not yet been implemented. Why don't you guys turn your enthusiasm for biofuels into pressing for eco-certification for biofuels?
Here is link that describes the beginnings of this process:
http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/13739
Start the movement for this and I'll join it...otherwise electric rules!
Posted by: Michael | Jul 16, 2007 8:38:36 PM
Janes Intelligence Review is from the Janes Fighting Ships people - a defense industry trade publication with a vested interest in... armed conflict. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: gr | Jul 16, 2007 10:15:06 PM
Neil, my friend, you live in the World leading center for production of pesticide/herbicide free greenhouse vegetables. Lower Mainland (Vancouver region) greenhouses acreage is about half the size of whole US greenhouses, with whopping productivity per square metre of: tomatoes 73 kg, 160 cucumbers, peppers 27 kg, and lettuce 200 heads. Total yearly production is: beefsteak tomato – 269 million kg, vine tomato – 299 million kg, bell peppers – 19 million kg, long English cucumbers – 31 million cuces, butter lettuce – 2.5 million heads. 75% of the harvest is sold to US, and some even to Pacific Rim.
From this overview:
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ghvegetable/publications/documents/industry_profile.pdf
“BC’s greenhouse vegetable growers are recognized as world leaders in utilizing advanced technology in biological pest control and computerized climate control systems.”
“The most common form of heating is natural gas fired hot water boilers. Liquid carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide extracted from boiler flue-gas condensers are used to supplement carbon-dioxide levels in the crop. Crops are grown hydroponically in soiless media (mostly in sawdust growing medium) with drip fertigation systems that provide an efficient water/nutrient supply.”
And that is not counting-in our marihuana grow-ops…
Posted by: Andrey | Jul 16, 2007 11:00:44 PM
Andrey: I've only ever noticed the hot houses out by Tsawwassen. Considering how little arable land there is left in B.C. it's good to hear. I'm not so thrilled to hear that they rely on NG, since we started exporting it from B.C. supplies don't look quite so reliable.
Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 16, 2007 11:29:39 PM
In case ya didnt notice, since 9/11 weve developed at least one more layer of donut-chomping, CrownVic-drivin "security". Most of which will never catch a "perp". To say nothing of our soldiers.
Does anyone feel safer? Cocaine and now heroin have never been cheaper/more abundant with this hoax "Global War on Terror"/Drugs/Poverty/Sustenance/Agriculture////. Me thinks we can handle the biofuels.
Posted by: fred | Jul 17, 2007 12:05:51 AM
BEV+wind+solar=freedom
Posted by: anti gravity | Jul 17, 2007 4:10:39 AM
Michael: great point and thanks for the link.
Posted by: Jim G | Jul 17, 2007 7:24:58 AM
I do not think they are being negative about biofuels. They are just drawing attention to the potential risk.
Biofuels are coming, the future will be much brighter if we can assess the risk ahead of time.
Jane's doing their job - please don't shoot the messenger.
Posted by: SM | Jul 17, 2007 9:39:51 AM
Scary thing is all the USDA and DOE reports on biofuels specifically DO NOT cover emmisions from soil/fertilizers/deforestation. (Especially N2O emmisions)
I suggest people look up page 8 and 9 on this policy paper. BioFuels can easily be more of a climate threat than all of the oil and coal combined.
http://www.tni.org/detail_pub.phtml?know_id=188
When you have less developed countries like Brazil and Indonesia surpassing the UK and India in emmisions (2004 and 2001 respectively) it's time to pay attention.
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://greyfalcon.net/soy
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Jul 17, 2007 9:48:16 AM
One little note: One must remember that as we transition
to PHEVs and BEVs less biofuel is going to be needed,
therefore less cropland devoted to energy production.
Most of our transportation energy will either be derived
from the grid or from solar panels used for charging our
automobile batteries. That should allay the Janes
analyst's concerns. Just get the affordable PHEVs into
the showrooms now and your worries should abate.
Posted by: swen | Jul 17, 2007 10:11:48 AM
Or we could just do PHEVs and forget about biofuels entirely. And then shift to EVs with quick charging stations. Or to EVs with really long range.
BioFuels aren't just a threat to national security
They are also a threat to the climate when you don't ignore the inconvient facts related to soil, fertilizers, and the push towards growing crops in the tropics.
Even if we grow "sustainable" biofuels in the States, those displaced food crops will most likely end up where they are cheapest, not where they are greenest.
There really is no way we can push forward biofuels without pushing forward the expansion of rainforest deforestation.
Asside from maybe algae, but so far the claims about it are pretty dubious.
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Jul 17, 2007 2:28:24 PM
Biofuels cannot be a substitute for fossil fuels at the rate we consume them. Photosynthesis is an inefficient process so that the net yield per area for an energy crop is very low, much lower than the same area covered by pv panels or wind generators. We in the US consume more fossil fuel and nuclear energy annually than is produced by all plants in our country. And our population is growing at three million persons/year. Our existing agriculture is destructive enough on the land and water without increasing our impact with energy crops.
As the Jane's report suggests, there could be problems in poor countries if large corporations displace local farmers and produce an energy crop for export instead of food for the local population. This has happened with food production in the past as Food First has documented. And there will be more pressure to grow energy crops in tropical SA, Asia and Africa since the yields are so much greater and labor is so cheap.
Although there will be some biofuels, electricity from wind, sun, tides, waves will probably be our major fuel in the future. We could easily electrify our railroads as a start and then local mass transit. BEV's will be the most common mode of personal transportation.
Posted by: glenn | Jul 17, 2007 6:00:43 PM
glenn-
Biofuels can be a substitute for fossils at the rate SOME people consume them in SOME places. To give up on "energy crops" is to say OK Bigoil, more of the same...but harder. No thanx. Surely better/friendlier/cheaper Ag will come.
The key is flexibility. All renewables need backup...probably grid or clean diesel. Does anyone make AC/DC HVAC compressors yet?
Railroad electrification is neither cheap or easy. Certainly it makes more sense on heavily traveled urban routes. But diesels will be around for some time yet. DC dynamic brakes?
And theres still so much to be done with exotic batterys cradle to grave.
Posted by: fred | Jul 17, 2007 8:19:09 PM
Without military conflicts, Jane's has got nothing to sell.
Posted by: DS | Jul 18, 2007 9:34:51 PM
Ironically, if you look at things objectively, we'd be better off powering our cars with coal electricity than we would be with hydrogen or biofuels.
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Jul 19, 2007 10:58:41 AM
In January 1994 when NAFTA went into effect, the Zapatistas appeared in Chiapas, Mexico to protest the devastating impact subsidized U.S. corn would have on native corn farmers - a particular irony since the original domestication of corn occurred not far from there. The devastation happened, and that is one reason pressure on U.S. borders increased. Viewing U.S. grain exports as a pure benefit for the poor people of the world is a fallacy. In many cases they are driving native farmers out of business and increasing poverty, representing a security challenge. Chiapas itself has seen massive turmoil over recent months. Now that corn prices are increasing, there's a double whammy effect since Mexico has become more vulnerable to the U.S. market. So clearly an answer is to rebuild the capacity of developing nations to grow their own food. That is a matter of shifting international development priorities.
At the same time, bioenergy offers opportunities for developing nations with their typically greater solar gain to reduce their dependence on costly fossil fuel imports, one of the greatest sources of the debt peonage under which developing nations typically are bound. This is a continuing source of austerity programs and poverty, also critical sources of instability. See this release from UN Food and Agriculture Organization, "Bioenergy, key to the fight against hunger," http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/101397/index.html
Electrified transportation is a needed pathway and not an either-or to biofuels. Plug-in hybrids run primarily on electricity and supplemented by biofuels could gain over 100 mpg. If fast-charge technology works out and lithium-ion batteries become substantially cheaper, battery electric vehicles will gain a greater market, and we can reserve biofuels for heavier ground vehicles, ships and planes. But we will also need substantially cheaper solar energy, as well as extensive wind, wave and tidal development. At least with the latter three there will be signficant land use issues and trade-offs to work out, much as with bioenergy. No free lunch.
Posted by: Patrick Mazza | Jul 19, 2007 11:41:00 AM
This food vs fuel thing really gets my goat. Here in the midwest U.S. farmers grow corn and soybeans that is used for animal feed.
The process of grinding soybeans for animal feed (soymeal) required the removal of excess fat because it was/is hard on the digestive system of the animals consuming it. This excess fat (crude soy oil) was until recently considered a waste product and sold for nearly nothing or simply disposed of. In the last 12 months several startup companies have determined the advantage to refining that waste oil into biodiesel. The soymeal is and always will be used as animal feed just as it was before. This is not removing food from the pipeline but rather making full use of it.
In the case of corn the process is a little different but you are still left with a by product called ddg's that is fed to livestock. Did you ever see those corn kernels going into your fuel tank? They had to go somewhere...guess what they are fermented, used to make ethanol (old term was gasahol) and filtered out to become animal feed. Once again simply making full use of the crop not removing it from the food pipeline.
When people talk about food vs fuel I have to wonder why the USDA pays so many farmers not to grow crops (CRP program). World wide my reading sources tell me there is more food grown per person than ever before. It's economics and politics that keeps that food from getting where it is most needed. By the way, if US cheap corn (which until recently hadn't increased in value since the 1950's) caused an import issue in another country then wouldn't our recent higher corn prices make that import less likely to happen thereby increasing the value of that country's local crop? I am not an economics expert but that's how I thought it worked.
Posted by: Sue | Jul 26, 2007 1:00:31 PM
For latest stories and news on ethanol, biofuels and climate, please visit:
www.ethanol-news.de
Posted by: Marian | Aug 20, 2007 10:07:36 PM
