%0 Journal Article
%T Food versus Fuel: Toward a New Paradigm¡ªThe Need for a Holistic Approach
%A Frank Rosillo-Calle
%J ISRN Renewable Energy
%D 2012
%R 10.5402/2012/954180
%X A key objective of this paper is to provide an assessment of the current and future situation on the ¡°food versus fuel¡± debate and to contribute to possible alternatives to minimise or avoid future conflict. The debate has centred on three main areas: (i) food versus biofuel production, (ii) their positive and negative effects (i.e., GHG, climate change, and the broader environment), and (iii) a socioeconomic impact. The debate has been controversial because it has largely been driven by politics, ethical/moral considerations, and vested interests rather than by science. The paper focuses on food prices, land competition, GHG, energy balance, and energy subsidies and concerns with the rapid expansion of bioenergy for electricity and heat, climatic changes, the role of agriculture as a key factor, the potential of biomass energy resources, and the various alternatives to minimize or avoid conflict between food and fuel production. Biomass for energy is both ¡°part of the problem and part of the solution.¡± It proposes a holistic approach: a new paradigm that takes full account of the diverse and complex nature of biomass energy sources and states that the fundamental underlying causes are social injustice, inequality, waste, and so forth, rather than land competition for food and fuel. 1. Summary A key objective of this paper is to provide an assessment of previous work on ¡°food versus fuel,¡± a candent topic, which is shaping the future of biomass for energy, to provide an analysis of the current and future situation, and to contribute to possible alternatives to minimise or avoid future conflict. In recent years, energy security concerns and growing commitment to address climate change has sparked off significant interest and debate on biomass for energy,1 particularly liquid biofuels. The debate is not new and in fact goes back to the 1970s. The nature of the debate has three major components: (i) liquid biofuels (biofuels), (ii) solid biomass (bioenergy), and (iii) adverse climate-driven impacts (i.e., current drought in the US). The overall debate has global origins and implications but has three main geographical connotations: Brazil, EU, and US, with a disproportional emphasis on the US. Further, the debate has a narrow focus based on a handful of feedstocks, for example, maize, cereals and sugarcane. The biofuels debate in particular has centred around three main areas: (i) food versus biofuel production, (ii) their positive and negative effects (i.e., GHG, climate change, and the broader environment), and (iii) a socioeconomic component. More
%U http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn.renewable.energy/2012/954180/