|
THE use
of biofuels is popularly touted as a green alternative
to fossil fuels to curb climate change.
But this
is being challenged. The latest statement against it was
aired in the current United Nations conference on
climate change in Bali, where nongovernment environment
groups have said that it is not a solution for clean
energy, and that it would instead bring disastrous
social and environmental impacts.
Among
the common biofuel feedstocks are palm, soy beans, sugar
cane, maize, jatropha, cassava and sweet sorghum.
Antibiofuels groups said biofuels have disastrous
effects not only on food production—the crops displacing
food crops—but also on forests and the communities of
indigenous people since biofuel plantations are mostly
in forest lands.
We join
the environment groups and the experts in the call for
caution on biofuel crops. Issues such as food security
should be the primordial concern. We have read stories
of Brazilians who are suffering from the high price of
their tortilla because its main ingredient, corn, is
finding its way to biofuel-manufacturing plants instead.
Indeed,
sustainability should be observed in this case.
At the
same time, science should prevail in the search for the
right feedstock under certain conditions. It should not
be dictated upon blindly by a business interest that
recognizes only the glitter that its money’s return
would bring, and nothing about the potential of the crop
that could later turn out to be a flop not only for
itself but especially for the farmers who have no other
alternative income.
In other
words, warning against the stampede to biofuels, which
seems to be happening now in these parts, is not
tantamount to blindly striking down the option. This is
why, as experts have been stressing recently, there are
such things as “smart crops” in the burgeoning biofuel
industry.
Dr.
William Dar, former secretary of agriculture who now
heads the International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-arid Tropics (Icrisat), advocates the use of “smart
crops” which, he said, would not compromise food
security, as his agency has found out in its research.
He cited
as example the sweet sorghum that can be considered a
“smart crop” because it meets food security through the
use if its grains, and energy security through biofuels
from its stalks. At the same time, sweet sorghum can be
planted in dry areas and can also withstand strong winds
during rainy season.
In the
country’s search for biofuels, as the government
implements the Biofuels Act, the eyes of concerned
officials and businessmen are trained on the prospects
of jatropha for biodiesel, among other biofuel crops.
But Dar
said we should be careful in promoting biodiesel trees
that are not “smart” because of food-security
considerations. Jatropha, if planted in good areas,
would potentially increase food prices because they
would take away the land which should be planted instead
with food crops. Icrisat studies showed that jatropha
can be planted in low-rainfall regions on wasteland and
poor soils.
At the
same time, estimates of jatropha yield showed huge
variation from 1.5 tons of seeds per hectare in
wasteland plantations to 10 tons per hectare. Another
issue is the large variations in its oil content from 20
percent to 40 percent.
The crop
shows its potentials, but these should be defined by
scientific studies so that its benefits could be
maximized.
So, to
our officials who are in charge of approving permits in
setting up biofuel plantations, we hope they would
observe caution. We hope that the interest of the
general public will be on their minds, and not only of
business and other vested interests, in considering such
permits—in the name of providing solutions to climate
change. |
