Stiff breeze for biofuels An experimental ARS sugarcane field near Canal Point, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture [http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/ graphics/photos/dec97/ k7151-3.htm]

In a world of rapidly rising carbon emissions and growing unease about imported oil, the appeal of renewable fuels is growing apace. Biofuels — liquids produced from plant matter that can substitute for gasoline or diesel — have become a hot topic from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley and from the halls of the European Parliament to the forests of Southeast Asia. They are attracting significant public support and private investment. Increasingly, however, governments and investors are under pressure to ensure that their support for biofuels does not generate negative consequences. For those concerned about climate change, biofuels look timely. Transport fuels account for about 20 percent of CO2 emissions today, but the proportion is much higher in some wealthy countries, and the share is rising globally. Not only are transport fuels a fast-growing source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but their use is also closely linked with

such issues as mobility, lifestyle choices, land-use patterns, and international trade. As populations and incomes grow, all of these issues exert pressure toward greater fuel use. To consider only fuels in designing sustainable transport solutions is therefore inadequate.

In fact, biofuels are not a complete, nor even the primary, solution to our mobility needs. Biofuels have the potential to play some role in fulfilling future transport demand, but significant carbon displacement may not be feasible. Given the land-use changes that can result from expanded production of biofuels, negative impacts such as significant destruction of the world’s forests and rising food prices may undermine the potential benefits that biofuels could bring. Biofuels will not rescue policy makers from the uncomfortable but necessary task of using fuel prices, taxation, and mandated efficiencies to restrain transport fuel demand and decarbonize mobility.

Agriculture is in limbo these days. The biofuels issue makes it onto the front page of many newspapers and magazines. The latest issue of TIME magazine selected the title "The Clean Energy Myth" and decried the problem of politicians and big business pushing for biofuels while ignoring the fact that biofuels are driving up food prices, contributing to the destruction of tropical rain forests, and making global warming worse. Food riots are breaking out in many parts of the world. In Haiti the president had to hide in his palace, protected by his presidential guards and United Nations Peace Keeping Forces. The Malaysian government was overthrown by food rioters. In Egypt the army was commanded to produce bread, Bangladesh is in turmoil, and even China is getting worried despite its policy of 95 percent food self-sufficiency and substantial food reserves piled up for 2008.

The United States of America is the biggest producer of crops using genetic engineering (also called genetically modified or “GM” crops), with more than 50 percent of the global GM-production area located in North America. As agricultural trade is of key importance for America’s economy, it’s conceivable that the US also has ambitions to export products derived from genetically modified organisms.

In May 2003, the US, Canada, and Argentina submitted a petition to the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding the authorization procedure and the import bans on certain genetically modified organisms in the European Union (EU). In September 2006, the court of arbitration ruled in favour of the claimants in this dispute (click here for further information on the WTO Biotech Dispute). Nevertheless, there has been little support for or progress toward placing GM-products in European farmers’ fields or consumers’ shopping carts. This is based on the reaction of European consumers, who are very sceptical about this new technology.

The production of high-quality, healthy food has always been one of the main concerns of Austrian agriculture. Austrian agriculture is known not only for its landscape-related efforts, but also provides crucial ecological services by promoting environmentally sound and sustainable agriculture such as organic farming. Austrian agriculture does not believe that genetic engineering can provide any benefits, and so rejects it. Organic farmers, as well as conventional Austrian farmers, have made use of their freedom of choice by preferring to abstain from genetic engineering. This orientation correlates closely with the demand of consumers, as the majority of Austrian consumers oppose genetically modified food products.

(c) Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Mr. Pontinha, a 55-year-old man originally from a small Portuguese village named Cinfães had to leave the local school after only four years of elementary schooling to help his parents in farming. He and his family lived in Montemuro, a poor region in the north of Portugal where life is hard and prosperity modest. Dissatisfied with his situation, Mr. Pontinha took several continuing education courses such as informatics, foreign languages, and auditing. With 15 years of continuous learning and further training, new professional possibilities opened up to Mr. Pontinha: now, he has evolved from the agriculture worker he was 20 years ago to become the director of production and human resources in a medium-sized enterprise with 90 employees.