Existing cropland could feed four billion more
by Staff WritersMinneapolis MN (SPX) Aug 08, 2013
 Demand for crops is expected to double by 2050 as population grows and increasing affluence boosts meat consumption. |
The world's croplands could feed 4 billion more people than they do now just by shifting from producing animal feed and biofuels to producing exclusively food for human consumption, according to new research from the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota.
Even a smaller, partial shift from crop-intensive livestock such as feedlot beef to food animals such as chicken or pork could increase agricultural efficiency and provide food for millions, the study says.
"We essentially have uncovered an astoundingly abundant supply of food for a hungry world, hidden in plain sight in the farmlands we already
cultivate," says graduate research assistant Emily Cassidy, lead author of the paper published in Environmental Research Letters. "Depending on the extent to which farmers and consumers are willing to change current practices, existing croplands could feed millions or even billions more people."
Demand for crops is expected to double by 2050 as population grows and increasing affluence boosts meat consumption. Meat takes a particularly big toll on food security because it takes up to 30 crop calories to produce a single calorie of meat.
In addition, crops are increasingly being used for biofuels [which don't even reduce emissions] rather than food production. This study sought to quantify the benefit to food security that would accrue if some or all of the lands used to produce animal feed and fuel were reallocated to directly produce food for people.
To get at that question, Cassidy and colleagues first mapped the extent and productivity of 41 major crops between 1997 and 2003, adjusting numbers for imports and exports and calculating conversion efficiencies of animal feed using U.S. Department of Agriculture data.
The researchers assumed humans need an average of 2,700 calories per day, and grazing lands and animals were not included in the study. Among the team's findings:
+ Only 12 percent of crop calories used for animal feed end up as calories consumed by humans.
+ Only 55 percent of crop calories worldwide directly nourish people.
+ Growing food exclusively for direct human consumption could boost available food calories up to 70 percent
+ U.S. agriculture alone could feed an additional 1 billion people by shifting crop calories to direct human consumption.
+ When calculated on the basis of protein rather than calories, results were similar. For instance, of all plant protein produced, 49 percent ends up in human diets.
In addition to the global findings, the research team looked at allocation of crop calories in four key countries: India, China, Brazil and the U.S. They found that while India allocates 90 percent of calories to feeding people, the other three allocate 58 percent, 45 percent, and 27 percent, respectively.
Noting the major cultural and economic dimensions involved, the researchers acknowledged that while a complete shift from animal to plant-based diets may not be feasible, even a partial shift would benefit food security. Quantifying the impact of various strategies, they found that a shift from crop-intensive beef to pork and chicken could feed an additional 357 million people, and a shift to nonmeat diets that include eggs and milk could feed an additional 815 million people.
The researchers emphasized that they are not making diet prescriptions or recommendations, just pointing out opportunities for gains in food production. They noted that humans can completely meet protein needs with plant-based diets, but that crop systems would need to shift (e.g., toward more production of protein-rich legumes) to meet human dietary needs.
"The good news is that we already produce enough calories to feed a few billion more people," Cassidy says. "As our planet gets more crowded or we experience disasters like droughts and pests, we can find ways of using existing croplands more efficiently."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/biofuel-project-funded-by-uk-leaves-africans-without-food-8793617.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.c3headlines.com/2013/09/global-warming-idiocy-begets-eu-ethanol-idiocy-un-says-crime-against-humanity.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21584452-energy-technology-making-large-amounts-fuel-organic-matter-has-proved-be
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323595004579068742133643768.html
ReplyDeleteBiofuels Face Uncertainty in Europe
Move Aims to Ease Fears of Rising Food Prices
By ART PATNAUDE And CASSIE WERBER
BRUSSELS—The European Parliament voted Wednesday to limit the use of biofuels in the European Union, one of a series of potential changes to the bloc's climate-change policies that investors say are creating uncertainty and bottling up energy investments.
Enlarge Image
image
European Pressphoto Agency
Environmental activists dressed as corn cobs demonstrate near the European Parliament in Brussels earlier this month.
The Parliament approved a proposal to limit the share of food-based biofuels in cars and trucks to 6% of total consumption by 2020. This means that to meet its target of having 10% of Europe's transport energy come from renewable sources by then, the EU would have to rely on a much-faster expansion of electric cars and commercially unproven biofuels made from nonfood crops.
The decision—which must still be approved by EU governments before it can take effect—would represent a turn away from 4-year-old rules meant to encourage the use of biofuels, a general term for gasoline and diesel substitutes derived from plant matter.
Such fuels are increasingly seen by experts, including at the European Commission, as diverting farm production away from food crops, thus potentially driving up food prices.
The debate over biofuels comes at a time when Europe's economic weakness has trumped global warming as a top concern for policy makers, leading to an uncertainty that investors say has made them hesitant to invest in longer-term projects.
"We need a clear and stable energy-policy framework or else power-sector investment will dry up," said Craig Mackenzie, investment director and head of sustainability at the U.K. life-insurance and pension firm Scottish Widows Investment Partners.
The EU's flagship climate-change program, the Emissions Trading System, a market in which European companies trade rights to produce carbon dioxide, has seen prices collapse in recent years, thus offering little incentive for polluters to embark on expensive efforts to reduce emissions.
Later this year, the European Commission—the EU's executive—is expected to propose that the bloc significantly scale back its ambitions in the area of climate change.
Current policy for 2020 includes pledges to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to 20% below 1990 levels. Targets established for 2050 aim for CO2 emissions at least 80% below 1990 levels, as well as nearly eliminate emissions from the electricity sector.
The commission will lay out plans for how Europe should reach these targets, laying out goals for 2030 for reducing greenhouse gases, boosting renewable energy, and cutting total energy consumption.
ReplyDeleteThose proposals could have great influence over how Europe generates its power during the next decade. But one major question will be whether to make the 2030 targets mandatory or merely recommendations.
Günther Oettinger, the EU energy commissioner, has said there is no longer the same political consensus on combatting climate change as there was in the relative boom year of 2007, when the 2020 legislation was passed.
The EU's energy policies officially shifted in May to take more account of economic considerations. EU leaders approved proposals aimed at keeping EU businesses competitive by addressing high energy prices, which some companies have said could force them to move operations abroad.
The International Energy Agency, based in Paris, in June declared uncertainty related to renewable energy policies in Europe to be "public enemy No. 1" for investors.
A new proposal is also expected to emerge this fall to try to fix the carbon-trading market, which started in 2005. An oversupply of permits has limited the market's utility and seen prices for emitting a ton of carbon drop to around €5 ($6.65) from more than €30 in 2008.
The biofuels debate was "very difficult," said Corinne Lepage, the lawmaker who had been driving the legislation, adding that because the vote was so close, industry still would not have "certainty regarding its investments."
The European Biodiesel Board, representing producers, said industry should not be punished based on "inconclusive science."
The ultimate place for biofuels in EU policy remains uncertain. The decision could spur development of so-called second-generation biofuels, which move away from food crops.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development advocated in March the use of fuels made from agricultural waste such as straw and manure. Growing nonfood plants such as grasses, and harvesting algae from water, are also possible.
Negotiations with European governments over the biofuels ceiling will now ensue. If a common position isn't agreed on, the issue will go back to the Parliament.
The EU climate-change proposals are officially the responsibility of the commission's departments of energy and climate change, which themselves don't always see eye to eye.
But the weak economy has increased the influence wielded by Olli Rehn, the economics commissioner, and Joaquín Almunia, who heads the bloc's antitrust unit. Both have argued that the commission's proposals shouldn't undercut the region's economic competitiveness, according to EU officials.
Some groups, including energy-intensive industries, argue that strict climate targets for 2030 would increase energy costs and become a drag on growth. Environmental groups say that a lack of binding targets will allow fossil fuels to remain the dominant source of energy, making it harder to meet the EU's 2050 targets.
Not all industries oppose climate regulation. Some companies would stand to benefit. For instance, the insulation industry says strict efficiency targets would tackle EU's climate goals, while boosting jobs and economic output.
Barry Lynham, group director of strategy and communication at Knauf Insulation, said that EU laws requiring building upgrades would "fundamentally change our perspective," and could lead his company to build new factories in the region.
"Insulation is very driven by regulatory environments," Mr. Lynham said. Knauf is active in 35 countries and the biggest insulation firm in the U.K.
http://globalwarmingandenergy.blogspot.com/2013/09/eu-report-brussels-biofuels-policy.html
ReplyDelete