| 6/29/2006 9:13:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | Make biofuels profit farmers
Guest Opinion
by Jim Kleinschmidt and Mark Smith
Did he say switchgrass?
The mention of this perennial grass and ethanol during President Bush’s State of the Union address points to some of the opportunities and challenges of the emerging bioeconomy for the countryside.
A momentous transition is underway from over dependence upon fossil fuel to wind, solar and bio-based alternatives. Technology that allows us to make products from grasses, residues and other agricultural and forestry materials offer a chance to revitalize the farming sector.
We can improve the environment and create new, non-polluting economic opportunities for rural and urban areas alike.
But in the rush to launch and feed the bioeconomy, these multiple goals can be lost if not equally considered and supported. If agricultural and forestry practices used to harvest biomass degrade soil and water, rely on high levels of energy, water and other inputs, or reduce wildlife habitat, then the environmental benefits of this shift will not be achieved.
The same will be true if the economic gains of this sector are swallowed by multinational corporations and are not shared by rural communities, family farmers and small landowners. Ensuring the emerging bioeconomy reaches its full potential requires three critical areas to be emphasized: local production, local ownership and sustainable production.
Local production of ethanol is absolutely essential. With the boom in demand, pressure is already growing to import biofuels and raw materials from other countries. However, increased production and export will likely come at the expense of tropical rain forests, cleared to make room for palm and sugar plantations.
Without local production, the rush to increase U.S. biofuel production could worsen environmental problems and contribute to global warming. And a bioeconomy dependent upon imports would bring the same volatility and vulnerability we have from oil.
Policies to ensure domestic production would also help farmers in other countries. A shift away from U.S. exports for many low-value commodities could help reduce or eliminate the dumping of these crops below cost on the international market, which hinders farmers everywhere – particularly in poor countries.
Just as important is local ownership. Large grain and energy corporations are well positioned to use their market leverage to control these industries, just as they have within other farm and energy sectors.
Of the new plants that came on line in 2003, more than 60 percent were farmer owned. In contrast, during the next three years more than 90 percent of the new ethanol capacity will be non-farmer owned.
There must be mechanisms to promote community-owned facilities and processing plants as a way to prevent corporate control of the industry, and keep economic benefits local. If agribusiness and energy giants assume control, family farmers and rural communities will not reap the benefits of this hopeful energy future.
Even with local production and ownership, simply replacing imported petroleum with domestically grown crops won’t necessarily lead to a green and sustainable energy future. But production of these crops and materials needs to be done in a way that doesn’t worsen environmental problems or create new ones.
For example, it’s foolish to replace petroleum-based gasoline with ethanol from crops requiring huge quantities of fossils fuels (in the form of synthetic fertilizer, agricultural chemicals and diesel fuel) to produce. The same is true if farming practices further soil erosion, groundwater pollution and nutrient and chemical runoff into the Mississippi River. And if the feedstock crops – perennial or annual – are grown in huge monocultures without concern for landscape, wildlife, biodiversity or habitat.
For emerging renewable energy industries to achieve their potential and be truly renewable, all three “legs” of sustainability – economic, social, and ecological – must have equal value. If not, the remarkable potential of the bioeconomy will be cut short and rural communities will be left without a leg to stand on.
Jim Kleinschmidt is director for the rural communities program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; www.iatp.org. Mark Smith is campaign director at Farm Aid; www.farmaid.org.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
