.

.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Land for Biofuels or Crops? The Debate Rumbles on

  • Need a Real Sponsor here
AFP/Getty Images
Palm oil fruit – often seen as a biofuel.

Agriculture ministers for the world’s richest nations are meeting in Paris this week to debate the best ways to tackle unprecedented volatility in food prices.

But while farming officials for the Group of 20 nations may agree that markets need more transparency and predictability, opinion is still split over more controversial topics, including governments’ policies on diverting food crops to create biofuels.

A report commissioned by international agencies including the World Bank and the United Nations’ food body and the International Monetary Fund urged the G20 to “remove . . . policies that subsidize or mandate biofuels production or consumption”.

But opposition from countries such as the U.S. and Brazil, two of the world’s biggest users of first-generation ethanol created from corn and sugar for transport fuel, means such recommendations are not expected to be adopted by European governments.

“I suspect that there will continue to be differences among the G20 agricultural producers about how much they’re willing to commit to on biofuels,” said World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick.

Agriculture ministers are expected to announce plans to launch a global database of production and stocks of staple foodstuffs such as wheat, corn, rice and soya beans, similar to a system which already exists in oil markets. Observers hope this will reduce price volatility and allow governments to plan ahead to stop food shortages.

But for anti-biofuels campaigners, addressing the diversion of already stretched agricultural resources to create fuel is a key aspect of dampening food prices, which rose to record highs this year, according to the UN.

“As more food stocks go into gas tanks, not stomachs, you have higher prices,” said Sarah Best, Oxfam’s policy adviser of low carbon development. “The G20 has got to get a grip on the relationship between biofuels and food price volatility.”

She argues that scrapping mandates on biofuels blends, as are being imposed in the European Union, and blending subsidies, as exist in the U.S., will be key to ensuring food production rises by the 70% the UN projects will be necessary to feed a world population of more than 9 billion by 2050.

Yet the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, said in a report published last week they expect biofuels to absorb 13% of global coarse grain production, 15% of vegetable oil and some 30% of sugar by 2020—an increase in all cases from the previous decade.

Supporters of biofuels argue they can actually help to stimulate food production by boosting agricultural investment and will be key to meeting targets for cutting carbon emissions for the future.

They point to other problems like building up world food stocks and reining in speculation in commodities markets—issues which are also expected to be pushed to the sidelines this week—as more important for improving food security.

“It may be vogue for certain groups to blame biofuels for global hunger issues…but that doesn’t mean eliminating biofuels policies will somehow put more food on the plates in developing nations,” said Geoff Cooper, vice president for research and analysis of the Renewable Fuels Association.

Certainly, a vote by the U.S. senate last week to eliminate a 45-cents-per-gallon tax credit for blended biofuel and regular fuel and a 54-cents-per-gallon import tariff on ethanol, points to changing attitudes towards stimulating biofuels production in one of the world’s largest users.

Still, for campaigners who have been expecting robust targets to come out of this week’s meeting, the dropping of biofuels from the G20 agenda will be another sign of government inertia in the face of the most pressing humanitarian challenge of our time.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

www.djreprints.com

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Germany to close nuclear power plants by 2022

Neckarwestheim nuclear plant in Germany - the country will shut all its nuclear reactors by 2022. Photograph: Michael Probst/AP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/germany-pledges-nuclear-shutdown-2022

So, recently, Germany has decided to phase out nuclear power completely by 2022.

"As expected, the coalition wants to keep the eight oldest of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors permanently shut. Seven were closed temporarily in March, just after the earthquake and tsunami hit Fukushima. One has been off the grid for years.

Another six would be taken offline by 2021, environment minister Norbert Roettgen said early on Monday after late-night talks in the chancellor's office between leaders of the centre-right coalition.

The remaining three reactors, Germany's newest, would stay open until 2022 as a safety buffer to ensure no disruption to power supply, he said."


My thoughts?

While I do understand the fears behind nuclear power-nuclear waste is an issue, and nuclear power plants need to be updated in order to make sure they are safe-I feel that shutting down all nuclear power in Germany-especially if that means cancelling any future plans for other types of nuclear power, is a counterproductive move.

Although the Fukushima incident was large and dangerous, it must be kept in mind that the literal worst case scenario happened-and the facility nearly completely weathered it. The sea wall that was to protect against a tsunami was designed for waves that were 5 meters smaller than the massive 25 meter waves that hit the plants. And it was the tsunami that wreaked much of the havoc on the power plants.

There were many coal and oil plants that were wrecked by the tsunami which leaked poisonous material into the water and land. Yet, the outcry over them has been far more subdued.

Condemning an entire branch of power supply-one that despite its problems, has viable solutions (thorium based power plants, recycling and reuse of nuclear waste, updating all existing plants with modern nuclear security protocols)-is not the way to phase out fossil fuels or phase in renewables. We don't have to necessarily build more nuclear power plants-they're incredibly expensive and take several years to actually come online-but to eliminate existing ones only opens the way up for more fossil fuel usage, as the industries still have quite some power in Germany. Yes, renewables are being touted to fill the gap, but it should have been fossil fuel plants, rather than nuclear power plants, that were being replaced (once again, not instanteously). Rather, nuclear power plants should be made more safe and be more thoroughly scrutinized, but still play their role in power generation (among other things, such as desalination). It is the dirtiest of fossil fuel plants-coal-that needs to be examined first, and needs to be replaced first.

~Adarsha