The fuel that makes food more expensive

Matthew Lynn

Matthew Lynn says the push for biofuels makes governments look greener – but the environmental benefit is uncertain and the impact on food prices has been disastrous

In late July, some of the largest agri-business companies in the world joined forces to create a new lobbying organisation dedicated to promoting the use of biofuels. Grouping Monsanto, DuPont and the farm equipment manufacturer John Deere, the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy promised to put all the lobbying and PR muscle of some of the world’s most sophisticated corporations into making the case that instead of filling up our cars with oil from the Arabian desert we should be using fuel made from the plentiful crops of the midwestern United States instead.

‘I think the only path forward is one that meets both food and energy security demands,’ declared Monsanto’s chief technology officer Robert Fraley. ‘I think we can add a component of science and technological perspective to the discussion.’

Well, maybe. The trouble is the mere presence of companies such as Monsanto and DuPont, along with their small armies of BlackBerry-wielding corporate spin doctors, will only confirm the worst fears of the environmental movement: that biofuels derived from crops such as corn, sugar and oilseed are a cover for big business to hijack the green agenda – and the huge subsidies available from governments courting green votes – to bolster their profits.

But as oil prices soared, and as climate change moved up the political agenda, biofuels seemed to be a potent answer to both problems. Clean, cheap fuel that doesn’t punch holes in the ozone layer or make you dependent on Saudi sheikhs? What could possibly be wrong with that?

Plenty, as it turns out. Critics argue that new fuels do nothing to slow climate change. Worse, by switching agricultural resources away from food, they are driving up prices of staples such as corn, wheat and rice. Food inflation is rampant, and, in developing countries, people are going hungry. ‘Biofuels are actually making the problem worse,’ says the British environmental campaigner Mark Lynas. ‘All the studies show that the impact of using biofuels is even worse than using fossil fuels.’

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next page

More articles from: Matthew Lynn | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (1)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

S.McDonald

September 12th, 2008 1:43pm Report this comment

Just to pedantic, because I notice he writes for Bloomberg, though Spectator is published in Britain.

What the Americans call "corn" is what we call "maize", though we eat it as sweet corn.

In Britain we refer to "cereals" - not grains - i.e. wheat for milling and barley for malting. (How many Londoners know that one of our main two cereal crops is used to make beer?).

If you are writing on technical topics you should get your definitions correct...

Good article though!

Post comment