| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Brazil says biofuel production not to blame for food crisis |
| 2008-06-02 |
| SAO PAULO (AFP) - With its prodigious farm exports and its major industry making ethanol from sugarcane, Brazil is seeking to show that in the food versus biofuel debate at least in its case the two can co-exist. Maybe in Brazil, if it is a net food exporter. Is it still producing and consuming the same today as it was a few years ago? If not, it may be masking the true effect of the new ethanol markets on prices. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has challenged critics who claim biofuel production is contributing to high food prices and demand, arguing the problem lies instead in poor agricultural and distribution models. "It is not ethanol that is causing food prices to rise, because Brazil, which produces more biofuel also produces more food," he has said. That view has support among government analysts. Whatever happened to the idea of selling your crops to the highest bidder, thereby forcing customers to match that bid? Elsewhere in the world that's a big factor for sure. Must be part of my poor agricultural and distribution model that I've got going on in my head. The food crisis "is a problem of wealth distribution, a political problem," said Giselle Ferreira de Araujo, who works for the state National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. Renato Maluf, the head of the government's food safety agency, said the demand driving up food prices is largely coming from China, India and other emerging economies. But the high price of gas, which has raised transportation costs, as well as poor harvests in some parts of the world, and "speculation on food products" were also to blame, he said. The United States had helped trigger the fears of biofuel production affecting food output by "confusing public opinion to suggest there is no difference between ethanol from sugarcane and from corn," argued Rubens Ricupero, a former head of the UN Conference on Trade and Development. Brazil's use of sugarcane for biofuel does not replace food crops, its supporters argue, whereas the US use of corn to make its ethanol does. Biofuel has also won backing from some environmental groups, including the WWF, which sees the carburant as a renewable energy source that can address growing worldwide demand for power. The WWF estimates that demand for ethanol will reach 100 billion liters by 2012, and that the United States, the biggest producer, will provide 42 percent of that. Gasoline consumption, by way of comparison, was 1.24 trillion liters in 2005. Currently, the United States produces 28 billion liters of ethanol, followed by Brazil with 22 billion liters. The WWF did note, however, that sugarcane fields tended to occupy areas once given over to cattle-raising, and even though it rated that factor as insignificant, it did warn that some ancillary effect of displaced ranchers moving into the Amazon, contributing to deforestation, could occur. Eduardo Leao, the executive director of the Unica federation covering the sugarcane industry, said ethanol production uses just 1.0 percent of Brazil's total arable land. Meanwhile, the country's food production had doubled in the past decade. The country has 355 million hectares of farmable land, of which sugarcane used to make ethanol fills 3.4 million hectares. Another 105.8 million hectares remained available, which "allows us to increase ethanol production without affecting the environment or food," said Unica president Marcos Jank. Investment in Brazilian sugarcane processing factories is expected to top 23 billion dollars over the next four years. There are already 22 plants controlled by foreign capital, out of a total 412, and their number is expected to rise to 31 within five years. The ethanol boom has had repercussions for land prices. A hectare of arable land is now fetching an average 4,135 reals, 16 percent more than a year ago. Amnesty International has also criticized the sugarcane industry for using "forced labor," though Unica has dismissed that as "wrong and out of context." |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #4 Australia should get a hint and protect their strategic sugar cane growers by rationing the amount of cheap sugar allowed into the country. Saves on tooth decay too. A nice side effect will be the Australian sugar lobby protecting all and sundry consumers against low prices. |
| Posted by: George Smiley 2008-06-02 23:25 |
| #3 Here in Australia the sugar cane farmers are going broke. The price they are receiving for sugar is less than the production costs (which are escalating rapidly - especially fertilizer and labour). |
| Posted by: Gladys 2008-06-02 17:11 |
| #2 Brazil's use of sugarcane for biofuel does not replace food crops, its supporters argue, whereas the US use of corn to make its ethanol does. So they're basically growing sugarcane on land that's useless for growing food crops? Given how much water sugarcane uses, does this make sense to anyone else? |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-06-02 16:18 |
| #1 The food crisis "is a problem of wealth distribution, a political problem" Oh, then I take it a wealth redistribution program, perhaps administered by the UN, is the solution? Take from whitey in del Norte and bank with us so we can take our share before paying the reparations due to all the peons of the ages? |
| Posted by: Thealing Borgia6122 2008-06-02 11:29 |