What is the effect of producing biofuels on land used for food or cattle?

Biofuel production has increased in recent years. Some commodities like maize (corn), sugar cane or vegetable oil can be used either as food, feed, or to make biofuels. For example, since 2006, a portion of land that was also formerly used to grow other crops in the United States is now used to grow corn for biofuels, and a larger share of corn is destined to ethanol production, reaching 25% in 2007.

A recent study for the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development shows that market-driven expansion of ethanol in the US increased maize prices by 21 percent in 2009, in comparison with what prices would have been had ethanol production been frozen at 2004 levels.

Second generation biofuels could hence potentially combine farming for food and fuel and moreover, electricity could be generated simultaneously, which could be beneficial for developing countries and rural areas in developed countries. With global demand for biofuels on the increase due to the oil price increases taking place since 2003 and the desire to reduce oil dependency as well as reduce GHG emissions from transportation, there is also fear of the potential destruction of natural habitats by being converted into farmland.

In February 2010 Lapola estimated that planned expansion of Brazilian sugarcane and soybean biofuel plantations through 2020 would replace rangeland, with small direct land-use impact on carbon emissions. However, the expansion of the rangeland frontier into Amazonian forests, driven by cattle ranching would indirectly offset the savings. "Sugarcane ethanol and soybean biodiesel each contribute to nearly half of the projected indirect deforestation of 121,970 km2 by 2020, creating a carbon debt that would take about 250 years to be repaid....

However, a 2010 study also by the World Bank concluded that their previous study may have overestimated the contribution of biofuel production, as "the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called "financialisation of commodities") may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike." A 2008 independent study by OECD also found that the impact of biofuels on food prices are much smaller.

Biofuels are the best way of reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases responsible for global climate change. As with fossil fuels, burning biodiesel or ethanol to drive an engine or generate electricity releases carbon into the atmosphere. Unlike with fossil fuels, however, growing the plants from which biofuels are made takes carbon from the air, so overall the process is carbon neutral. This means policies to increase the use of biofuels could greatly reduce overall levels of carbon emissions, and so be a major part of tackling global climate change. Since the international community has made reducing climate change a priority, with different climate conferences like Copenhagen, seeking energy alternatives should be at the forefront of their efforts. Biofuels can also help improve local air quality as mixing ethanol with fossil fuels helps meet clean air standards, and overall be one of the tools used to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Extra-Material:

http://www.eeg.tuwien.ac.at/eeg.tuwien.ac.at_pages/publications/pdf/AJA_PAP_2010_3.pdf

Biofuels seemed to be the solution to the environment issues. However, now we can see that some studies have stated that they aren't that good, as they may increase food prices and can eventually contaminate as much as petrol. On the other side, they are considered to be the solution as they are supposed to be eco-friendly and can clean the air, as well as they reduce the petrol price. Unfortunately, it is hard to decide which position is correct as there are no official researches about the real effect of biofuels in land and food production. Moreover, it will be very hard to do such investigation as many other factors influence the food price, apart from the land availability.

But now, we also want to make you part of this debate: do you think that the control of the food prices is more important than the preservation of the environment, considering that food is actually enough for the world's population if it's correctly distributed? In other words, is it acceptable that a human creation (Prices) prevent the correct distribution of food, forcing us to contaminate more in order to allow this distribution to be done? Aren't we, as humanity, suffering a self-made and virtual problem?