www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

Biofuels, derived from everything from corn to French-fry grease, are being
widely touted in corporate advertisements, news stories and recently in the
president's State of the Union address as a silver-bullet solution to global
warming, the savior of depressed rural economies and the key to reducing our
dependence on foreign oil, February 2007 by Eric Holt-Gimenez and Kevin
Fingerman.

The apparent free lunch of crop-based fuel can't satisfy our energy
appetite - and it will not be free, or environmentally sound. Dedicating all
present U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12
percent of our gasoline demand and 6 percent of diesel demand. On average,
corn ethanol - the leading biofuels candidate in the United States -
provides only a 13 percent reduction of greenhouse gases compared to
gasoline. This advantage is lost if, as happens in South America,
carbon-capturing forests are felled to make way for biofuel crops.

Industry spokespeople claim they will increase ethanol production by
improving extraction technology, raising yields and expanding the acreage of
land under production. Intensification comes at a price. Increased
productivity requires more water, fertilizer and pesticides and means more
genetically modified crops. Opening new farmland could bring some 10 million
acres of fragile land protected by the government's Conservation Reserve
Program into production. Otherwise, we may not have enough high-fructose
corn syrup for our Cokes or corn-fed beef for our Whoppers.

The new extractive and genetic technologies for improved biofuels production
are being developed through select partnerships among a cozy handful of
corporate giants in grain, oil and genetic engineering - primarily Cargill,
Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto. The convergence of these powerful
industries has far-reaching impacts that will transform food systems and
rural economies worldwide.

Ethanol on the cob will come from "processor-preferred" corn hybrids
custom-bred for select, centralized ethanol plants. ADM has already gobbled
up farmers' biofuel co-ops in Minnesota. Unless there is support or
government oversight, it is difficult to see how the rest of the Midwest's
farmer-owned co-ops will avoid the same fate.

Biofuels can be produced in ways that spread economic gains and minimize
negative environmental impacts. Simply employing sustainable farming
techniques to grow fuel crops vastly reduces their negative environmental
impact.

All biofuels are not created equal. While some may generate benefits for
people and the environment, others may prove more destructive than the
fossil fuels they replace. The question is not whether biofuels can solve
our energy problems - they can't. The question is: Who pays the price and
who reaps the benefits?

Thanks in large part to government subsidies, capital investments are
pouring into this industry at a breakneck pace, directing it toward
particular technologies and production pathways. The most socially and
environmentally responsible options aren't necessarily the ones being
pursued. The upcoming 2007 U.S. Farm Bill must determine the policies that
shape an economically just and environmentally sound future for biofuels.
Thus far, there is no indication the bill will ensure such objectives. For
all the fanfare, biofuels are still just a partial fix. Kinder, gentler
gasoline will not save us from our gas-guzzling SUVs and continent-crossing
semis. If we hope to direct the development of the biofuels industry with a
broader public interest in mind, we need to do so intentionally, by
legislating for responsible growth, environmentally sound production
techniques and equitable forms of production.

[desmoinesregister.com]