Fuel vs. Food

The following is a newsletter editorial I wrote last summer (2007). Since then it has become very obvious that the price of food is becoming an even worse problem, but I think much more is driven by meat consumption in India and China (and everywhere for that matter); price hikes by the processors and marketers; and the petroleum price, and not from ethanol nearly as much as many people say. My editorial is as follows:

"Whether on a state level, in Washington, or in the boardroom, there are two underlying questions that seem to frame almost all of the debates concerning corn ethanol. The night before speaking to a group of 350 farmers and rural development professionals in Ontario, Canada, this past spring, I already knew that the following two questions would be the first ones raised: the discussion of food versus fuel and the energy balance of producing ethanol. The industry's failure to frame the public debate with a big picture perspective of the plant-based economy is the reason we are still discussing these questions.

First, the "food versus fuel" controversy: is it true that the price of meat, tortillas and other products is going up because of the vast amount of corn being used in ethanol facilities? The answer is yes. Is it true that the price has also been rising due to petroleum and energy costs? The answer is also yes. Now, is it true that we are asking the right questions? The answer is no. In reality, the "food crisis" in the United States is not being caused by corn ethanol; rather, the problem has to do with the inability to sustain the numerous parts of the industry. It is not sustainable or efficient to spend 1,000 calories of energy to ship 1 calorie of food over 1,000 miles across the country. Neither is it sustainable that the food being shipped is often in the form of products such as high fructose corn syrup which is certainly not a building block of a healthy diet.

So the real question is: how can we maximize the current ethanol boom to promote local food production and renewable fuels at the same time? We can grow healthy, local food that can be used by local consumers, while also supporting an agricultural commodity-based industrial products vision. These can, and should fit together perfectly. It is not sustainable to import petroleum to ship vegetables across the country. It is sustainable to ship renewable fuels such as ethanol that can then fuel the transportation of local vegetables to local consumers.

The other frequently asked question concerns the energy returns from producing corn ethanol. Why is anyone even arguing that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get from the finished product? Again, I don't think we are asking the right question, and we seem to treat the ethanol issue as a stand-alone subject rather than an initial building block in an emerging bioeconomy. What is true? First, the use of photosynthesis to produce energy using plants that can be converted into many products is fundamentally sound. In fact, it is one of the main economic opportunities of the next hundred years and is a backbone to many emerging technologies. The use of plants and biological processes in manufacturing has proven benefits such as using less water, less energy, and creating less pollution. Furthermore, new solar industries are mimicking plants and using natural processes to develop their designs. Secondly, the development of technology from any successful industry exponentially improves as more markets are created and more investments are made. One only has to look at innovations in microprocessing, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, nanotech, etc., to see tremendous increases in usability and reductions in cost.

So whether corn is the long term answer or not is irrelevant. The point is to invest heavily in the first wave of our future global hope in the conversion of plants into food, fuel, and thousands of other products, and watch them become more and more efficient as the wonders of technology improve."