Did Environmentalists Cause the Food Crisis?

It's official: Biofuels have been D-listed. Food prices are escalating, causing starvation and food riots, and word is getting around (finally) that corn ethanol isn't the great green hope Midwestern farmers thought it was. Ah, the unintended consequences of interest-driven politics.

To encourage backpedaling on such poorly-planned policy, packaged food manufacturers have decided to fight lobbyists with lobbyists. The cost of corn, wheat and cheese is wreaking havoc with their profits. Kraft posted a 13% drop in first-quarter earnings and even companies tangentially related to these markets - like Coca-Cola, which buys corn syrup by thev atful - are getting squeezed. I can't imagine what this must be doing to the profits of nature-snack Pirate's Booty, made from wheat, corn, and cheese. MPs in Britain and the UN's top food advisor Olivier de Schutter are piling on.

Meanwhile, a scolding column in Canada's Times Colonist rebukes environmentalists for the destruction the planet in the pursuit of biofuels. In support, the author cites Amazon clear-cutting for sugar cane and palm oil along with the wasteful nature of corn ethanol. He finishes by saying, "But whose hectoring, lobbying, advertising and scaremongering created the political pressure that has compelled politicians and executives to go 'green?' The environmental movement. That's who's behind the disaster of biofuels."

First, let's step back and realize that among the environmental community, the carbon problems of corn ethanol and the tragedies of slash-and-burn biofuels have been expounded for years. Nobody listened. In part, that's because corn growers and politicians - repeated in variation elsewhere in the world - have created a comfortable cabal for ignoring these issues and whipping up billions for the wrong kind of ethanol.

Second, if you want to talk about global ecological destruction, you might want to start with generations of overzealous and ongoing logging, fishing, building, burning, growing, and consuming. Changes brought about by global warming play an increasing, but less clear, role.

Moreover, it's hardly reasonable to assume that biofuels are singly causing the worldwide meltdown in staple food markets. It's always a safe bet to link China with any major market change nowadays and this crisis is no exception. The country is consuming ever more products like rice and wheat and larger numbers of Chinese families are able to afford to eat meat. Hundred-dollar-a-barrel oil, of course, is doing its part, as well.

I think cellulosic ethanol is on the precipice of real viability. There also seems to be reason to believe that we're finally learning our lesson on first-gen biofuels (aka, meth-anol). There are myriad causes for our food woes; unwise biofueling is simply aggravating a much bigger problem. Biofuels are going to be a critical part of our future energy mix, but we have to realize that this is something we cannot lobby (or editorialize) our way out of. It will take focused, smart, sustainable planning.