Congressman Golez is pretty poorly informed on the facts of biofuels supposedly affecting our food security, a correct study and policy implementation of biofuel development is simply needed in order to avoid such pitfalls.

First, what has to be done initially is to ask for a survey of land in the Philippines, study which areas are idle and may prove suitable for biofuel planting and consequently also unsuitable for staple crop development. There are biofuel plant sources which may grow properly in certain land areas where food crops would not prosper (ex. Jatropha is one hardy biofuel source which grows in areas where food crops would not prosper in the first place)

Second, once these areas are identified, the areas can be planted with bio-fuel plant sources without danger of supplanting food crop areas; if Golez would observe, there are a lot of idle land which are untilled and undeveloped. Rather than leave these areas unused, it is better to plant these areas with bio-fuel producing trees.

Care would however be given in areas which may be affected by a potential bio-fuel “boom” and may end up destroying the biodiversity of protected areas and sanctuaries (especially by “kaingin” or slash and burn agriculture).

Like in all things, moderation and proper forest and resource management must still be maintained and implemented. Bio-fuel may be good, but it is not a reason to abuse our land.

A proper study, full utilization and development of idle lands and protective policy implementation must all go hand in hand to strike an excellent balance between land utilization, food security and forest protection.

On a side note, it is also observed that much of the agricultural land in the Philippines remain idle due to lack of proper refrigeration facilities and direct market access to cities, which depresses the selling price from farms (discouraging the farmer from planting food crops) while raising food prices in the cities (as caused by middlemen speculators and food/market monopolies).

The entry of a good biofuel market may affect the price of food, primarily NOT because of the conversion to biofuel production plantations but mainly because of existing food/market monopolies and lack of refrigeration and food storage facilities, a current situation largely ignored.

Failure to address this basic problem would create complications in the future. As a suggestion, the role of the National Grain Authority must expand to include storage, refrigeration, marketing and transport of critical food items otherwise food insecurity and mismanagement incurred famine may occur.

I think Congressman Golez has a point; he just had a rather ridiculously insufficient argument by using beer as an example. My opinion is that our lawmakers should be very cautious and rational when it comes to drafting bills regarding the production of biofuels here in our country. In the US for example, the ethanol and biodiesel industries have mercilessly tapped into the corn and soybean supplies, which are limited by land for plantations and seasonal yields, causing a significant increase in the prices of these very important crops which are raw materials for numerous food products found in our grocery stores. A similar scenario in our country would definitely have a devastating effect.

my five cents in re biofuels…
biofuels cultivation requires vast acres of arable lands. its production will rob much needded lands for food supply producton. it seems futile and a brain-dead ideas to get into biofules cultivation/production while majority of staple food supplies of all filipinos are improted(i.e rice, corn.) if we really need alternative renewable green prower supply, the govt.and private sectors should look into solar power,wind farm and geo-thermal energery production on which the country has a large untap resources.
plus biofules cultivation/production will require mechanized farming method, fertilizer, water irrigation and proccessing plants all of which will contibute to enormous drain of energy and power source more than it can produce itself. we don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure this thing up.
and besides fertile and arable land in the phils are being converted into subdivision and golf courses anyway so there is not enough land left out for cultivation of any plants even for the barley and grains that mr. golez beer production needs.
so no matter how we all hype up the biofuels mania, we have to consider all the unforseen consequnces before we all buy into it.
first - phil govt, private industries and its citenzery does not hold a gold standard in policing enviromental pollution prevention and abatement.
secondly - general agri-business practice and methodology are still sub-standard and archaicly practice.
third - cost and effect studies of the biofuels cultivation/production must meet the national/international eviromental impact assessments. “the ends must justify the means”.
fourth - get all the facts out, conducts public hearing- q’s and a’s - the pros and cons must be debated by all interested parties.
the filipinos deserves all the best not just for profit schemes.

salamat po,,,,
chrisgalon
sinzcitylasvegasnv.

tama si kabayan……..

may lobby money na ba kaagad ang mga oil companies to derail the bio-fuel alternative……..

talagang mabilis itong si golez, go go golez………

Alcohol from coconut lambanog is feasible but biodiesel is not as it does not reduce CO2 emission as we will still be burning heavy carbon molecules. Do not be fooled by biodiesel manufacturers.

Ethanol has only two atoms of carbon which will converted to carbon dioxide. Six atoms of hydrogen which will turn into water only after combustion

bilib na ako sa mga pinoy. magagaling, matatalino, ngayon naman bio fuel ang dinidiscuss, hindi naman scientists.

filipinos are jack of all trades, master of none. any topic under the sun can be discussed, cite the problem and give solutions.

kayal lang sa salita lang kulang sa gawa. in short, magaling dumakdak.

Indeed, biofuels can help alleviate some of the burden of the rising global oil price. But let us consider this, in order for this plants to grow, it needs vast quantities of water. Yes, WATER. Water is very limited nowadays and it is more valuable than satisfying the needs of gas guzzling cars today.

Although fuel is important, there should be balance in everything. Let us not do something that we would regret.

maculot,

Please properly review the information regarding biodiesel as you might misinform the public,

Please check out this link:

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.pdf

Excerpt:

Biodiesel is the first and only alternative fuel to have a complete
evaluation of emission results and potential health effects
submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under the Clean Air Act Section 211(b). These programs include
the most stringent emissions testing protocols ever required by
EPA for certification of fuels or fuel additives. The data gathered
complete the most thorough inventory of the environmental
and human health effects attributes that current technology will
allow…

The ozone (smog) forming potential of biodiesel hydrocarbons is less than
diesel fuel. The ozone forming potential of the speciated hydrocarbon
emissions is 50 percent less than that measured for diesel fuel.

Sulfur emissions are essentially eliminated with pure biodiesel. The
exhaust emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates (major components of acid
rain) from biodiesel are essentially eliminated compared to diesel.

Criteria pollutants are reduced with biodiesel use. Tests show the use of
biodiesel in diesel engines results in substantial reductions of unburned
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Emissions of
nitrogen oxides stay the same or are slightly increased.

Carbon Monoxide — The exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (a
poisonous gas) from biodiesel are on average 48 percent lower than
carbon monoxide emissions from diesel.

Particulate Matter — Breathing particulate has been shown to be a
human health hazard. The exhaust emissions of particulate matter
from biodiesel are about 47 percent lower than overall particulate
matter emissions from diesel.

Hydrocarbons — The exhaust emissions of total hydrocarbons (a
contributing factor in the localized formation of smog and ozone) are
on average 67 percent lower for biodiesel than diesel fuel.

Nitrogen Oxides — NOx emissions from biodiesel increase or decrease
depending on the engine family and testing procedures. NOx
emissions (a contributing factor in the localized formation of smog and
ozone) from pure (100%) biodiesel increase on average by 10 percent.
However, biodiesel’s lack of sulfur allows the use of NOx control
technologies that cannot be used with conventional diesel.
Additionally, some companies have successfully developed additives
to reduce Nox emissions in biodiesel blends.

Biodiesel reduces the health risks associated with petroleum diesel.
Biodiesel emissions show decreased levels of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) and nitrated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(nPAH), which have been identified as potential cancer causing
compounds. In Health Effects testing, PAH compounds were reduced by
75 to 85 percent, with the exception of benzo(a)anthracene, which was
reduced by roughly 50 percent. Targeted nPAH compounds were also
reduced dramatically with biodiesel, with 2-nitrofluorene and 1-
nitropyrene reduced by 90 percent, and the rest of the nPAH compounds
reduced to only trace levels.

chris galon,

Regarding your comment:

… biofuels cultivation/production will require mechanized farming method, fertilizer, water irrigation and processing plants all of which will contribute to enormous drain of energy and power source more than it can produce itself…

*****

Not necessarily, if you are familiar with “tuba-tuba”, that is what is called jatropha. It is a hardy biofuel producing plant which can grow where food crops grow poorly. I’ve seen farm hedges of this plant that grew without fertilizer and was just naturally watered by rainfall. The trick here so that fertilizer need not be used is to space the planting of this tree properly and not to use intensive farming techniques.

To add, cross planting of shrubs which produce nitrogenous leaves (I forgot the name of the plant but this can be researched) between these biofuel plants would serve as natural fertilizer and at the same time its leaves may be used to feed livestock.

Proper farm management is simply needed. We should be weaned from the traditional commercialized farming practices of First World countries who’s main aim is to find market for their fertilizers which actually pollute our water table and oceans not to mention potentially destroying our land due to acidity (to name a few).

Your suggestion for the development of other alternative energies like wind, solar and geothermal is sound however and can be developed in parallel to biodiesel production.

As a further suggestion; there are already electric jeeps in Metro Manila, this should be expanded and electric tricycles should be developed as well.

There are already very efficient electric motorcycles already in the US, it is a simple technology transfer of off-the-shelf products to develop this for use here in the Philippines or convert them to electric tricycles for that matter.

Rep. Golez has pointed out his concern. There is nothing wrong with that. No matter how we praise the biofuel as an alternative source of energy, it indeed affect food security, and may lead to environmental degradation.

We really don’t need to use vehicles at all. Cycling helps - and its a trifle better.

Fossil fuels is bound to be depleted. The search for renewable and cheaper sources of energy and for cleaner fuels is a world concern. Let’s be thankful that there are people who thought about that.

Bio-diesel from Coco-Methyl Esters or coconut oil is not only feasible, it is reality.

In Ethanol, corn has been produced by U.S.A. for a very long time now even before the issue of biofuels. The U.S.A is the biggest producer of Ethanol. That more and more of their grains are being diverted to bio-fuel production because of the bio-fuel craze may be a sad thing. Sa States ‘yon. That is in ‘States’. But this is a problem of corn importers like Mexico which I believe does not spare the Philippines because we are actually corn importer, too. We are surely affected.

Sugar cane is a perennial tropical crop. They are naturals of the tropics and not in places where there is winter. Sugarcane produce 120 metric tons per hectare while corn, a short term crop, makes 8 metric tons per hectare at best.

Food prices is expected to climb because of the Ethanol program. Many grain and grain based products will be seeking new level. there is nothing anybody can do about that.

But better price for agricultural produce, if transmitted to farmers, will also motivate them to plant more. Today ,many of our farmers are “lazy” and we have territories that are idle and half idle.

Give the masses of farmers a break!

Magnegosyo ka na lang, doon din lahat uuwi ang mga pera na yon, but not if like one reader puts it - its all the monopoly traders that benefit every time.

To philkid and Jerry Gervacio,

There are biofuel plant sources that does not need much water, nor would it necessarily affect our food supply or degrade our environment. Biodiesels have even less impact on water and food resources.

Check out my blog response to chris galon, 20.12.07 10:32 am.

kabayan, fyi
one scientific study done about the oilseed from jatropha-the plant that thrived in sub-continent of india up to the sub-saharan desert envronment. the nomadic berbers tribe of morrocan saharan desert-who where consider the world greatest desert survivalist consider jatropha as one of the poisonous plant that they fully stay away from it.

the accidental discharge-spill of processed by-product on soil and run off storm discharge will be a catastrophic environmental mishap.
i am not personally against to any of the bio-fuels initiatives, my bone of contention are that biofuels (i.e. jatropha oilseeds) source must be throughly study. what are the pharmacological and toxicological effects to human it may cause in the long short and long term exposure to it, and what are the proper way of processing and discarding the by-product waste from jatropha’s oilseeds extraction.
i am very familiar with “tuba-tuba”(jatropha), my great-grandmother in our village used to grew it for some kind of herbal medicinal use. its whitish sap from leaves, branches and outer seeds covering if it is ingested accidentally will make a grown up man exhibiting the like of a very highly intoxicated appearance followed by violent vomiting.
goats will not even venture to try to much a single leaf from it. and we all knows that goats eats anything.

GUANGZHOU, China, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Oilseed plant jatropha does not offer an easy answer to biofuels problems as some countries hope, because it can be toxic and yields are unreliable, experts and industry officials warned on Wednesday.

The woody plant can grow on barren, marginal land, and so is increasingly popular in countries such as China that are keen to boost biofuels output but nervous about food security.

But its nuts and leaves are toxic, requiring careful handling by farmers and at crushing plants, said experts at an oils and fats conference.

In addition, it is a labour-intensive crop as each fruit ripens at a different time and needs to be harvested separately. Its productivity is also low and has yet to be stabilised.

M. R. Chandran, adviser to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, told Reuters it would take five years of intensive research before jatropha could achieve productivity that would make its cultivation economically viable. The oil yield of the plant, originating in Africa and still largely a wild species, is less than 2 tonnes per hectare with large swings from year to year.

An engineer specialising in oil and fat processing plants, including for biodiesel production, said special facilities were needed for crushing jatropha nuts as they could produce a toxic vapour.

The engineer, who declined to be named, said his company hoped to seal a deal with a private investor to build one of the world’s first large-scale jatropha-based biodiesel plants in China’s southern province of Yunnan before the end of this year.

At least we are talking about plants now. For over three decades now, people have been mindlessly suffocating the earth with cement in the places where people make decisions for the country. The lack of green has been as absent as the care for the environment in implementing and creating laws.

Plants for fuel, food, medicine, or even ornaments… should be brought back to the Filipino. Tuba-Tuba for fuel, Malunggay for nutrition, Gatas-Gatas for dengue, Talinum for ornamental veggies… these are what should be injected into kids in school.

The migrants from the provinces are out of their minds in scrambling to the cities. If the details of planting had been part of education, then very few will have to pick through urban garbage for food. Lives will be saved by herbal treatment. Agri by-product and organic “trash” can be converted into fertilizer or turned into charcoal bricks to save the trees from being chopped down for uling.

To me, these things are more important than knowing who killed Magellan.

We know nothing now about nature. We have no concept of sustaining our resources. We all are so dependent on the plastic bag mentality while looking up to GMA or whoever it is up there to make life easier for us.

My christmas present to all of you!

“Quotes from the heart”

Dream what you want to dream. Go where you want to go. Be what you want to be because you have only one life and one chance to do all the things you want in life.

It’s true that we don’t know what we’ve got until we lose it but its also true that we don’t know what we’re missing until it arrives.

The happiest of all people don’t necessarily have the best of everything, They just make the most out of everything that comes their way.

To love and win is the best thing, To love and lost is the next best.

Love is blind, Marrieage is a real eye opener. Marriage based on love and trust, Without it, It’s meaningless!

There are moments in life when you miss someone so much that you just want to pick them from your dreams and hug them for real.

It takes only a minute to get a crush on someone, An hour to like someone, And a day to love someone but it take a lifetime to forget someone.

Giving someone all your love is never an assurance that they’ll love you back. Don’t expect love in return; Just wait for it to grow in their heart but if it doesn’t be content it grew in yours.

Love begins with a smile, Grows with a kiss, End with a tears.

The brightest future will always be based on a forgotten past, You can’t go on well in life until you let go of your past failures and heartaches.

A careless word can kindle a strife, A cruel word may wreck a life, Kindly word may level a stress; A loving word may heal and bless.

In giving it is always the thoughts that counts. What comes from the pocket is immaterial, WHAT COME FROM THE HEART IS ENTERNAL.

Merry christmas! and a happy new year!

From: all of us Salanas

If those from the provinces are out of their minds for coming to the big city then perhaps mbm is now in the province to replace those insanes that left the provinces. Then he could help people realize that there is plenty of opportunity in the province and regarding of who leads the country if we remain idle and believe that our leaders will do the things for us to be successful nothing will happen to us. It is really a very sad thing to hear someone pointing to someone as out of mind when he or she has not proven anything to them. In short those from the provinces deserves to experience how to be in a city but yet they dont deserve to be called out of their minds just because a certain program (livelihood) is believed very much feasible there. These things are just mere theories and still to be proven especially this jathropa which can poison a whole river with its rotten fruits. I should know and many can attest to that. If there is a gold mine in the province then you might migrate and replace those who are out of their minds and leaving the province.

chris galon,

The key here is that it grows on barren and marginal land, plant it barren land so as these areas will have some use for it. Cross plant these with nitrogenous shrubs so that no fertilizer is needed. This is the reason why Jatropha wouldn’t compete with food sources and security, because it has to be planted in barren areas which would not be planted by food crops anyway. Proper spacing along with cross planting of nitrogenous crops would prevent too much intensive care for the plant.

Given the fact that barren areas is actually producing NOTHING, might as well plant something that can produce 2 tonnes or less of the said oil. How many liters of processed biodiesel can be produced by these 2 tonnes? Multiply these by the current cost of diesel? Compare this with zero earnings of barren land.

As for processing facilities, that is why there is need for investment for this; much better than giving P 500,000 per government official and Congressmen for political favors and also much more sound rather than Congressmen giving themselves P 200,000 as “bonus”.

The food security issue in Mexico is caused by using converting foodstuff like corn into ethanol. We need not do this, other parallel sources of biofuel especially biodiesel can still be found.

this is Roilo golez. So that readers will have a full appreciation of my proposal to review the Philippine biofuels program, here’s a copy of my House Resolution No. 376 entitled “RESOLUTION
DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE CURRENT BIOFUELS PROGRAM AND REVIEW ITS IMPACT ON ENERGY SECURITY, CARBON EMISSIONS, GLOBAL WARMING AND FOOD SECURITY”

Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

House Resolution No. 376

Introduced by the Honorable ROILO GOLEZ

RESOLUTION
DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE CURRENT BIOFUELS PROGRAM AND REVIEW ITS IMPACT ON ENERGY SECURITY, CARBON EMISSIONS, GLOBAL WARMING AND FOOD SECURITY

WHEREAS, Congress passed on 12 January 2007 into law Republic Act No. 9367 otherwise known as the “Biofuels Act of 2006”;

WHEREAS, Section 2 of the Biofuels Act of 2006 declared that “It is the policy of the State to reduce dependence on imported fuels with due regard to the protection of public health, the environment, and natural ecosystems consistent with the country’s sustainable economic growth that would expand opportunities for livelihood by mandating the use of biofuels as a measure to:
a. utilize indigenous renewable and sustainably-sourced clean energy sources to reduce dependence on imported oil;
b. mitigate toxic and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;
c. rural employment and income; and
d. the availability of alternative and renewable clean energy without any detriment to the natural ecosystem, biodiversity and food reserves of the country.”

WHEREAS, Section 4 of the Biofuels Act mandated the phase out of the use of harmful gasoline additives and/or oxygenates within six months from the effectivity of the said law, and Section 5 of said law instead mandated the mandatory use of biofuels within a specified timeframe, thus:
“5.1 Within two years from the effectivity of this Act, at least five percent (5%) bioethanol shall comprise the annual total volume of gasoline fuel actually sold and distributed by each and every oil company in the country, subject to the requirement that all bioethanol blended gasoline shall contain a minimum of five percent (5%) bioethanol fuel by volume: Provided, That the ethanol blend conforms to PNS.”
“5.2 Within four years from the effectivity of this Act, the NBB created under this Act is empowered to determine the feasibility and thereafter recommend to DOE to mandate a minimum of ten percent (10%) blend of bioethanol by volume into all gasoline fuel distributed and sold by each and every oil company in the country.”
“In the event of supply shortage of locally-produced bioethanol during the four-year period, oil companies shall be allowed to import bioethanol but only to the extent of the shortage as may be determined by the NBB.”
“5.3 Within three months from the effectivity of this Act, a minimum of one percent (1%) biodiesel by volume shall be blended into all diesel engine fuels sold in the country: Provided, That the biodiesel blend conforms to PNS for biodiesel.”
“Within two years from the effectivity of this Act, the NBB created under this Act is empowered to determine the feasibility and thereafter recommend to DOE to mandate a minimum of two percent (2%) blend of biodiesel by volume which may be increased taking into account considerations including but not limited to domestic supply and availability of locally-sourced biodiesel component.”

WHEREAS, biofuel industries are becoming established in many developing countries, to wit:
1. Countries such as India and China are developing both bioethanol and biodiesel programs;
2. India is extending plantations of jatropha, an oil-producing tree that is used in biodiesel production. The Indian sugar ethanol program sets a target of 5% bioethanol incorporation into transport fuel;
3. China is a major bioethanol producer and aims to incorporate 15% bioethanol into transport fuels by 2010;
4. The Philippines has major additional biofuel-related investments such as
(a) Coromoto of Spain is looking at investing some $100 million in a biodiesel plant in Southern Bukidnon;
(b) A Japanese firm, JGC, is also studying the possibility of putting up a P2-billion biofuel processing plant in San Mariano, Isabela,
(c) $200-million distillery/jatropha plant feedstock production of Bionor, a subsidiary of publicly-listed CIE Automotive of Spain, for a 100,000 hectare jatropha plantation in South Palawan;
(d) $175 milllion Abengoa Bionergy of Spain in Ozamis City;
(e) Green Fuels Inc., to invest $150 million and open 10,000 jobs in a biofuels processing plant in Davao Oriental.

WHEREAS, biofuels aim to be carbon neutral, which means that:
1. The carbon released during the use of the fuel, e.g. through burning to power transport or generate electricity, is reabsorbed and balanced by the carbon absorbed by new plant growth;
2. Carbon neutral fuels lead to no net increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, so that global warming need not get any worse.

WHEREAS, in practice, biofuels are not carbon neutral because energy is required to grow crops and process them into fuel; examples of energy use during the production of biofuels include: fertilizer manufacture, fuel used to power machinery, and fuel used to transport crops and fuels to and from biofuel processing plants;

WHEREAS, the amount of fuel used during biofuel production has a large impact on the overall greenhouse gas emissions savings achieved by biofuels.

WHEREAS, in October 2007, doubt has been thrown on the advantages of biofuel by one of the world’s global warming experts Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen who says that the advantages of reduced carbon dioxide emissions are more than offset by increased nitrous oxide emissions since Nitrous oxide is deemed to be both a potent greenhouse gas and a destroyer of atmospheric ozone;

WHEREAS, it is necessary that the carbon emissions produced by biofuels are calculated using a technique called Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), that is:
1. Using a “cradle to grave” or “well to wheels” approach to calculate the total amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted during biofuel production, from putting seed in the ground to using the fuel in cars and trucks;
2. Many different LCAs have been done for different biofuels, with widely differing results;
3. The majority of LCA studies show that biofuels provide significant greenhouse gas emissions savings when compared to fossil fuels such as petroleum and diesel. Therefore, using biofuels to replace a proportion of the fossil fuels that are burned for transportation can reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.
4. This does assume however that the land used for growing the crops would alternatively be desert or paved area. If the land was previously a (tropical rain-) forest, the carbon absorption of this forest should be deducted from the greenhouse gas savings. This implies that the net effect of burning bio-fuels is an increase in greenhouse gasses. This effect should be incorporated in the LCA, to get a proper overview of the total net effect. Using waste material from plantation forests on previous agricultural land could be carbon positive, due to the carbon stored below ground in the root systems.
5. The aforementioned 2007 study by scientists from Britain, U.S., Germany, Switzerland and including Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone, has reported that measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and corn have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.

WHEREAS, the claim that biofuels result in emissions savings has also been critiqued on the ground that it overlooks the ‘displacement’ effects of large-scale biofuel production, in terms of its direct and indirect role in promoting land use changes and soil carbon losses.

WHEREAS, bioethanol is the most common biofuel worldwide:
1. This alcohol fuel is produced by fermentation of sugars derived from wheat, corn, sugar beet and sugar cane;
2. The production methods used are enzymatic digestion (to release sugars from stored starches e.g. from wheat and corn), fermentation of the sugars, distillation and drying;
3. Bioethanol can be used in petrol engines as a replacement for gasoline; it can be mixed with gasoline to any percentage;
4. All petrol engines can run on blends of up to 15% bioethanol with petroleum/gasoline. For higher percentage blends, engine modifications are needed. Many car manufacturers are now producing flex-fuel vehicles, which can run on any combination of bioethanol and petrol, up to 100% bioethanol.
.
WHEREAS, the worldwide biofuels program has generated a “food vs. fuel” debate, to wit:
1. Due to rising demand for biofuels, farmers worldwide have an increased economic incentive to grow crops for biofuel production instead of food production;
2. Without political intervention, this could lead to reduced food production and increased food prices and inflation;
3. The impacts of this would be greatest on poorer countries or countries that rely on imported food for their subsistence;
4. In early 2007 there were a number of reports linking stories as diverse as food riots in Mexico due to rising prices of corn for tortillas, a basic food item in Mexico;
5. It has also affected the beer industry in the U.S. when the barley area was cut in order to increase corn production thus increasing the price of Barley which is a very important ingredient in beer making;

WHEREAS, a noted environmental campaigner, George Monbiot, has argued in the British newspaper The Guardian for a 5-year freeze on biofuels while their impact on poor communities and the environment is assessed;

WHEREAS, the most recent UN report on biofuel also raises issues regarding food security and biofuel production: Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on food, concluded that while the argument for biofuels in terms of energy efficiency and climate change are legitimate, the effects for the world’s hungry of transforming wheat and maize crops into biofuel are “absolutely catastrophic,” and terms such use of arable land a “crime against humanity,” compelling Ziegler to call for a 5-year moratorium on biofuel production;

WHEREAS, a report prepared by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for a recent Round Table on Sustainable Development questions the benefits of first generation biofuels and concludes that governments should scrap mandatory targets and submit its summary findings as follows: The rush to energy crops threatens to cause food shortages and damage to biodiversity with limited benefits;

WHEREAS, the OECD, an international organization of thirty (30) developed countries, has since 1948 been one of the world’s most respected international organizations as it “provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies” and the OECD has a broad mandate that covers all economic, environmental and social issues and as such its findings on biofuels should be taken seriously in defining government policy on biofuels;

WHEREAS, the OECD study on biofuels was released in September 2007, during their most recent Round Table on Sustainable Development, and thus, introduced scientific, environmental and food security issues that were not considered during the crafting of the “Biofuels Act of 2006”;

WHEREAS, huge tracts of lands measured by the hundreds of thousands of hectares, have been allocated for use in the farming of various varieties of plants for use in biofuels production, which by their mere size will have an impact, positive or negative, on the environment and national land use policy;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, by the House of Representatives to direct the Committee on Ecology, Committee on Energy and the Committee on Agriculture and Food to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, on the current biofuels program and to review its impact on energy security, carbon emissions, global warming and food security.

Adopted,

ROILO GOLEZ

Here’s an article quoting Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen, one of the world’s respected experts on global warming:

Nobel scientist in biofuel warning
Print this page
Last Modified: 13 Dec 2007
Source: PA News
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist has warned that switching from fossil fuels to biofuels could do the planet more harm than good.
Prof Paul Crutzen calculated the global warming effects of the fertiliser needed to grow energy crops like biodiesel and bioethanol were much worse than has been estimated.
He believes a larger proportion than thought of the nitrogen in fertilisers is converted into nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, New Scientist magazine reported.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested that 1-2% of nitrogen added to fields becomes nitrous oxide.
But Prof Crutzen and his colleagues calculated the true figure was closer to 3-5% - enough to negate the savings in carbon dioxide emissions made by switching from fossil fuels.
They estimated that biodiesel made from rapeseed was the least efficient biofuel, potentially having a significantly greater warming effect than fossil fuels.
Only bioethanol made from sugar cane was clearly more beneficial to the fight against climate change, they found.
Prof Crutzen, of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany, won the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry for his work on the threat to the ozone layer.
Prof Crutzen told New Scientist: “Here and there the numbers may change. But the principle doesn’t.
At present about 12 million hectares - or around 1% of the world’s fields - are devoted to energy crops.

Here’s an article on Jatropha that came out in Reuters:

Toxic jatropha not magic biofuel crop, experts warn

GUANGZHOU, China, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Oilseed plant jatropha does not offer an easy answer to biofuels problems as some countries hope, because it can be toxic and yields are unreliable, experts and industry officials warned on Wednesday.

The woody plant can grow on barren, marginal land, and so is increasingly popular in countries such as China that are keen to boost biofuels output but nervous about food security.

But its nuts and leaves are toxic, requiring careful handling by farmers and at crushing plants, said experts at an oils and fats conference.

In addition, it is a labour-intensive crop as each fruit ripens at a different time and needs to be harvested separately. Its productivity is also low and has yet to be stabilised.

M. R. Chandran, adviser to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, told Reuters it would take five years of intensive research before jatropha could achieve productivity that would make its cultivation economically viable. The oil yield of the plant, originating in Africa and still largely a wild species, is less than 2 tonnes per hectare with large swings from year to year.

An engineer specialising in oil and fat processing plants, including for biodiesel production, said special facilities were needed for crushing jatropha nuts as they could produce a toxic vapour.

The engineer, who declined to be named, said his company hoped to seal a deal with a private investor to build one of the world’s first large-scale jatropha-based biodiesel plants in China’s southern province of Yunnan before the end of this year.

Here’s a very interesting, thought provoking article on biofuels. I suggest to everyone to get hold of a copy of the report on biofuels that was discussed in the OECD Round Table on Biofuels.

The False Hope of Biofuels
For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
Sunday, July 2, 2006; Page B07
Biofuels such as ethanol made from corn, sugar cane, switchgrass and other crops are being touted as a “green” solution for a large part of America’s transportation problem. Auto manufacturers, Midwest corn farmers and politicians are excited about ethanol. Initially, we, too, were excited about biofuels: no net carbon dioxide emissions, reduction of oil imports. Who wouldn’t be enthusiastic?
But as we’ve looked at biofuels more closely, we’ve concluded that they’re not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn’t supply all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the effects on land and agriculture would be devastating.
WHO’S BLOGGING?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
• Morks.org
• The Daily Czabe
• Celsias

Full List of Blogs (105 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

SAVE & SHARE
• Tag This Article

Saving options

1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Subheadline
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Subheadline Blurb None

It’s difficult to understand how advocates of biofuels can believe they are a real solution to kicking our oil addiction. Agriculture Department studies of ethanol production from corn — the present U.S. process for ethanol fuel — find that an acre of corn yields about 139 bushels. At an average of about 2.5 gallons per bushel, the acre then will yield about 350 gallons of ethanol. But the fuel value of ethanol is only about two-thirds that of gasoline — 1.5 gallons of ethanol in the tank equals 1 gallon of gasoline in terms of energy output.
Moreover, it takes a lot of input energy to produce ethanol: for fertilizer, harvesting, transport, corn processing, etc. After subtracting this input, the net positive energy available is less than half of the figure cited above. Some researchers even claim that the net energy of ethanol is actually negative when all inputs are included — it takes more energy to make ethanol than one gets out of it.
But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73 million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the demand.
It is argued that rather than using corn to make ethanol, we can use agricultural wastes. But the amounts are still a drop in the bucket. Using the crop residues (called corn stover) from corn production could provide about 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol, according to a recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The net energy available would be greater than with ethanol from corn — about 60,000 Btu per gallon, equivalent to a half-gallon of gasoline. Still, all of the U.S. corn wastes would produce only the equivalent of 5 billion gallons of gasoline. Another factor to be considered: Not plowing wastes back into the land hurts soil fertility.
Similar limitations and problems apply to growing any crop for biofuels, whether switchgrass, hybrid willow, hybrid poplar or whatever. Optimistically, assuming that switchgrass or some other crop could produce 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, over twice as much as we can get from corn plus stover, and that its net energy was 60,000 Btu per gallon, ethanol from 300 million acres of switchgrass still could not supply our present gasoline and diesel consumption, which is projected to double by 2025. The ethanol would meet less than half of our needs by that date.
Perhaps more important: The agricultural effects of such a large-scale program would be devastating.
Recently, there has been lots of excitement and media coverage about how Brazil produces ethanol for its automobile fuel and talk that America should follow its lead. But Brazil consumes only 10 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, compared with America’s 170 billion. There are almost 4 million miles of paved roads in America — Brazil has 60,000. And Brazil is the leading producer of sugar cane — more than 300 million tons annually — so it has lots of agricultural waste to make ethanol.
Finally, considering projected population growth in the United States and the world, the humanitarian policy would be to maintain cropland for growing food — not fuel. Every day more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes — one child every five seconds. The situation will only get worse. It would be morally wrong to divert cropland needed for human food supply to powering automobiles. It would also deplete soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain food production. We would destroy the farmland that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will need to live.
The writers are research professors in Maglev Research Center at Polytechnic University of New York.

PRESS STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ROILO GOLEZ

REVIEW OF BIOFUELS PROGRAM URGED

I filed yesterday House Resolution No. 376 “DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE CURRENT BIOFUELS PROGRAM AND REVIEW ITS IMPACT ON ENERGY SECURITY, CARBON EMISSIONS, GLOBAL WARMING AND FOOD SECURITY.”

Since the Republic Act No. 9367 (Biofuels Act of 2006) was enacted on January 12, 2007, there have been some very critical findings by noted scientists that necessitate an urgent review of the country’s Biofuels policy considering the huge investments in land and funds allocated for biofuels projects, whose impact on energy security, carbon emissions, global warming and, most important, food security, may be irreversible if not corrected now.

I cite the following scientific findings which demand urgent assessment:

1. Biofuels may contribute to Global Warming:

a. In October 2007, doubt has been thrown on the advantages of biofuel by one of the world’s global warming experts Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen who says that the advantages of reduced carbon dioxide emissions are more than offset by increased nitrous oxide emissions since Nitrous oxide is deemed to be both a potent greenhouse gas and a destroyer of atmospheric ozone.

b. In practice, biofuels are not carbon neutral because energy is required to grow crops and process them into fuel; examples of energy use during the production of biofuels include: fertilizer manufacture, fuel used to power machinery, and fuel used to transport crops and fuels to and from biofuel processing plants.

c. The claim that biofuels result in emissions savings has also been critiqued on the ground that it overlooks the ‘displacement’ effects of large-scale biofuel production, in terms of its direct and indirect role in promoting land use changes and soil carbon losses.

2. Biofuels may endanger Food Security:
a. The most recent UN report on biofuel also raises issues regarding food security and biofuel production: Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on food, concluded that while the argument for biofuels in terms of energy efficiency and climate change are legitimate, the effects for the world’s hungry of transforming wheat and maize crops into biofuel are “absolutely catastrophic,” and terms such use of arable land a “crime against humanity,” compelling Ziegler to call for a 5-year moratorium on biofuel production;

b. A report prepared by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for a recent Round Table on Sustainable Development questions the benefits of first generation biofuels and concludes that governments should scrap mandatory targets; the OECD report summarized its findings as follows: The rush to energy crops threatens to cause food shortages and damage to biodiversity with limited benefits;

c. The worldwide biofuels program has generated a “food vs. fuel” debate, to wit:

i) Due to rising demand for biofuels, farmers worldwide have an increased economic incentive to grow crops for biofuel production instead of food production;

ii) Without political intervention, this could lead to reduced food production and increased food prices and inflation;

iii) The impacts of this would be greatest on poorer countries or countries that rely on imported food for their subsistence;

iv) In early 2007 there were a number of reports linking stories as diverse as food riots in Mexico due to rising prices of corn for tortillas, a basic food item in Mexico;

v) It could even cause a rise in beer prices: It has reportedly affected the beer industry in the U.S. when the barley area was cut in order to increase corn production thus increasing the price of Barley which is a very important ingredient in beer making;

The environmental and food security impact of the biofuels program is potentially enormous considering that at least one million hectares of land have already been allocated for biofuels-related plantations. The impact of farming on million hectares of land cannot be overstressed since the Philippines has only 30 million hectares of land. It is certain that the various biofuels-related plantations some with areas of at least 100,000 hectares will surely intrude into forested or already planted areas, thus endangering the environment, biodiversity and the delicate balance between food and energy.

There are reports that food security concerns are already being expressed in some areas in Mindanao now being targeted for biofuels-related plantations.

There is plentysaid that is not more than half-truth, even by Golez.
First has to be cleared which kind of oil pants could be used in RP soil and climate. Then has to be cleared which areas can be planted without affecting and reducing the areas where foods are grown. And then it has to be cleared whether common or mechanised planting and harvesting has to be used, since common farmers have no such machines nor the money to buy.
That sooner or later the fossil oil will end, is indiscutable. Also that then iots price will kyrocket. Not to mention that burning oil s financially a disaster. Out of oil, there can be made plastics, medicines, colors and hundreds of products which would create jobs and a hundredfold income compared to just burning it.
TheArabs are now the richest on earth, wade in luxury they did not even dream of just one generation earlier. There is no doubt that they will at least hold their profits, nomtter how less oil can be produced. They will just increase the price and the speculation will increase it more, as it does now already. Future contracts push the price more than the producing countries. If traders sign contracts at 100 Dollar per barrel, they will do anything to lift the price over 100 for to make a profit at maturity of contracts.
It is like with the Peso which is far overvalued not only against the Dollar. But what has RP to show in economy that could explain the rise against the EURO? Nothing, the local purchase power of the “strong Peso” is lower than anytime before. Compared to it purchase power when the rate was 55, it should now be at least 70 to the Dollar.
But there is also speculation, and contrary to what government and BSP are telling about slowing the Peso rise, they push it up again and again. As long as brainsick officials talk about a rate of 38, 35 or even 25 to the Dollar, speculation will buy Pesos and lift its rate. Why not buying at 42 if there is a chance the governmnt will even accept a 35 rate and then buying Dollars back with extreme profit? If BSP only would state that they buy Dollars at 40 and sell at 45, speculative money would run away and the Peso go up to a more realistic rate, in favor of OFWs, tourists, exporters, investors, and create jobe which would boost tax income. Unfortunately, the government has very different reasons to this matter, really not in favor of common people.

Sorry, of course oil plants not oil pants….

why ridicule cong golez’s use of beer in describing the economic impact of bio-fuels?

in my reading, he’s using one of the studies in the US where beer prices increased due to conversion of prime agricultural lands into bio-fuel projects.

in our country, beer consumption is still high. The increase of the price of beer has a significant impact on the Filipino households.

if indeed biofuels would eat into our food reserves, what are we doing about it? let’s plant the feedstock that would go into our biofuels plants. i’ve seen palm plantations in palawan which i hope would be for biofuels if not for the cooking oil to replace the coconut oil turned into cme. it could be done in various parts of the country too. romblon, where golez partly hails from (ro-romblon, ilo-iloilo) has a small biodiesel plant. yet the plant has not even made a dint in the price of copra in the province even if it produces 5% of the diesel needs of the power generating plant of the npc at the island. my point here is that the biofuels act had been passed. if we see a flaw in it, because it would make us starve, the good guys who passed it should do something about. let’s plant instead of talk.

Other concerns regarding biofuel production besides land limitations that our lawmakers should consider:

1. For bioethanol, the biggest problem is its water solubility. The most feasible way for transporting ethanol is using existing pipelines for gasoline supplies. (It will take us forever and possibly trillions of pesos just to construct new in infrastructures). You wouldn’t want anything with water running down our gas pipelines and storage facilities.

2. For biodiesel, a by-product of the transesterification reaction to produce biodiesel from oil is glycerol. Due to the mad rush for industrial-scale production of biodiesel abroad, there has been an oversupply of glycerol, once a high value product, now just a nuisance. Some overseas biodiesel producers even pay other companies just to get rid of this excess supply of glycerol.

This is something to think about especially for our scientists and university students for research topics. Most of us writing in this blog may not be scientists but at least we’re aware of the pros and cons of this serious matter. I think our senators and congressmen/women should read these blogs more often to be aware of these things. Those lobbyists have only their own interests and desire for $$$$$$$ under consideration.

I really have a lot of reservations regarding biofuels… so many reasons that this blog space cannot accommodate. This is not the only solution for the looming energy crisis. Geothermal, wind, solar, etc. should be considered.

Once more Roilo Golez failed to consider several aspects of his supposed study.

But before that, to Andro Mondala, supposed “excess” glycerol has abundant uses and new uses as well. Please research in the net. I’ll give an example for one of the newly developed process to use this byproduct:

http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/articles/University_of_Leeds_Scientists_Develop_Process_to_Convert_Biodiesel_Byproducts_Into_Hydrogen_Fuel_____11_29_2007-51108.html

Excerpt:

University of Leeds Scientists Develop Process to Convert Biodiesel Byproducts Into Hydrogen Fuel

… Now researchers at Leeds have shown how glycerol can be converted to produce a hydrogen rich gas.

Hydrogen is in great demand for use in fertilisers, chemical plants and food production.

Moreover, hydrogen is itself viewed as a future •clean’ replacement for hydrocarbon-based transport fuels, and most countries currently reliant on these fuels are investing heavily in hydrogen development programmes.

The novel process developed by Dr Valerie Dupont and her co-investigators in the University’s Faculty of Engineering mixes glycerol with steam at a controlled temperature and pressure, separating the waste product into hydrogen, water and carbon dioxide, with no residues…

As for Roilo Golez’s claim that the biodiesel is not “carbon neutral”, he failed to take into account that much of the carbon dioxide emitted by biodiesel is absorbed by the biodiesel plant source itself.

http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/

Excerpt:

A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel. This is due to biodiesel’s closed carbon cycle.

For his concerns regarding biofuel affecting food security, I have answered this before and I reiterate. Certain plants like Jatropha grows in BARREN SOIL. The country could utilize its BARREN SOIL to plant Jatropha.

Next, since Jatropha only produces thus far about 2 tonnes a year, a farmer who has fertile land which could earn better by planting food crops would not plant Jatropha. Only when the farmer fails to earn sufficiently for from food products will he convert to Jatropha. The price of food products in the market vis a vis the earnings from Jatropha would serve as a natural check and balance from planting this in fertile areas which produces food products with better income. One possible concern however if food products from farmers are being bought dirt cheap by traders and controlled by middlemen. However that is not the fault of the farmer. That would be the fault of the exploiting middlemen and the stupidity of government to fail to provide adequate food refrigeration facilities and direct food outlets in the cities.

For his concern that this is supposed to be poisonous, that is the reason we have to have BIODIESEL PROCESSING plants of which some are capable of neutralizing these supposed toxins.

Some wish to promote bio-ethanol over bio-diesel. This should not be the case, BOTH MUST BE DEVELOPED. However the problem with traditional ethanol products is that this is usually extracted from corn. This is highly inefficient way to get ethanol and this is the one which threatens food security. A temporary answer to this is to develop high yield ethanol from sugar cane. We should also convert to biodiesel which come from various plant oils.

Why do we have to do this? Because this is a TRANSITION FUEL, not a permanent one. Since biofuel could be readily adapted to current vehicles, the transition to biofuel would be smooth. From this point, efficient ELECTRIC CARS must be developed when biofuel comes into regular use.

In summary, the best route for us will be,

A. Develop biofuels especially those which do not compete in land areas suitable for food crops.

B. Develop proper refrigeration, transport and city distribution system for food products. If the farmer gets adequate income from food crops, he would plant food crops. If the stupidities of this government fail to address this, then food crops will continue to have low prices thus discouraging the farmers to plant such items and may use too much fertile lands for biofuel production.

C. Biodiesels including those coming from coconuts would serve to raise the price of our copra, this would actually greatly reduce speculators and middlemen at the same time allowing the farmers to earn more for their produce.

D. Once biofuels take hold, the money which used to go to the Middle East will now simply circulate in our country. We STIMULATE our economy rather than the economy of Middle East nations.

E. Because biofuels easily adapt to current engines, TRANSITION would be smoother as compared to going directly to ELECTRIC CARS.

F. While biofuel start to replace and reduce our need for traditional fuel, we must NOT rest on our laurels. An immediate development for efficient and cheap ELECTRIC VEHICLES must be developed.

G. While we somehow mitigate pollution through the use of biofuels and at the same time make better income for our farmers, we then can pursue development of electric vehicles in a better (non-rushed) manner and start creating basic infrastructures for this. Electric vehicles will now slowly replace inefficient conventional internal combustion vehicles and start REALLY cleaning up our environment.

So you see, this is a stepped long range program which is Pro-People as:

A. This helps our farmers earn better income

B. Prods us to develop more efficient food refrigeration and distribution system.

C. Greatly reduce health hazards caused by pollution

D. The money of our nation would not go abroad just to procure imported pollutive oil; the money will simply circulate in our country

Second, it is also Pro-nature as this would reduce pollution in our environment.

A word of caution here would be, despite all of this, care should be taken to prevent kaingin. So the DENR should have better budget, wages and an honest Secretary so that possible abuses of our forests would still be kept in check.

As for strategic program of government, it should be:

A. Transition to Biofuel
B. Development of efficient Electric Vehicles and full swing on biofuel as replacement to imported oil.
C. Transition to Electric Vehicles, slow weaning away from biofuels. Development of Electric Vehicle Infrastructures
D. Full use of Electric Vehicles and further R & D for clean renewable energy. Reduction of vehicles with Internal Combustion Engine even though they already use biofuel.

An unused powerful energy source we have not yet really developed is harnessing Sea Wave Power. We often forget that we are an archipelago surrounded by seas. We must not just immediately follow the US system since their thinking are based on land mass. We must think and develop technologies particular to our country.

That is my take on this matter. Stopping biofuel development will only lead us to worse scenarios. A proper transition program must be implemented with long range vision that would benefit our people.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL…..

Helloooo, Garci! where are you. This is a lonely place to be nobody here. HO HO HO MERRY CHRISTMAS!

kabayan,
there are ten ways to skin a cat. your -research - looks good as it is- but then do you really believed that in juan dela cruz real “world” the biofuels’ initiative will make a significant change in his socio-economic viability? or will the motherland revisit the world of mercantilism one more time on this millennia?

i am posting these q’s to the cerebrals out there that can share with us some of their intellectual wisdom.
why - G-7 countries which monopolies technology and capital are not getting involve internationally and taking the first initiatives to fully endorse the mass production and use of biofuels?
why G-7 countries which has all the wherewithal in their disposal to develop full scale operation in mass production and distribution of biofuels are still doing a second look to the costs and effects of biofuel initiatives?
why japan, korea and some euro- countries that are very dependent to foreign source of fossils fuel are not making capital investment and bankrolling the full scale r and d of biofuel iniatives?

if all for the good reason we are pursuing the production of biofuels to cut off our dependency to foreign source of fossils fuel and looking for new sources of renewable green power, this new source must not be a band aid patch to the present problem. because our patria adorada 50yrs from now will be on the same predicament and will have more toxic laden soil, polluted water source and less breathable air.

on the lighter side of the debate,the dept.of transportation, roads and bridges construction and engineering division, in the district i am employed, just purchased new models of fleets of people mover that are designed and engineered to use biofules. a new refueling point was designed and built to support hundreds of our light and heavy duty trucks. besides the gasoline and diesels fuels we also use lpg and propane gas to power the fleets. in return the dept. collects datas that are shared with federal govt to used for research and scientific studies.
happy holiday to all………………

chrisgalon
lasvegasnv.

Aside of all the questions of efficiency, food danger, poisoning or insufficience, there has been the question why the rich and highly scie4ntific G7 countries did not mainly initiate the production of biofuel. The answer is very easy;
The G7 are very industrialized countries with very limited agricultural land reserves, they could not produc even one percent of the worlds fuel demand and can not force other countries to produce it.
The only way they can do something is pushing their industries to produce vehicles and engines that use much less fuel. Such usually smaller engines would then affect their carmakers who produce big, comfortable cars which could not match with small engines. It would lead to less production and therefore less jobs. As long as people wants big cars, they will produce them or somebody else will start to do it.
The only real way out of the dilemma is boosting alternatives like, for instance, hydrogen, which burns just to water. But even this needs the acceptance of buyers, the expensive research for producing efficient but affordable engines, construction of new car plants and to provide availability of refuel stations equivalent to gasoline stations now.
Then, it is very questionable if the mighty oil industry just would swallow their quasi-elinimation after they made their biggest profits in their history during the past years with rising oil prices, even a good chunk of the increase is due to speculative future contracts. The same for the oil producing countries like the arabic countries, who wade now in luxury out of the huge income from high demand and high price of oil. At the other hand, if there is no change and oil becomes more scarce and expensive, it could even trigger an “oil war” with unpredictable dimensions, compared with the Kuwait war which in fact was an oil war already, not a war for to install democracy in Iraq.

As usual, this politician is always after a good “sound bite.” Who cares if it will, as he put it: “making beer more expensive”. Is he connected to a brewery establishment?

That is my least worry. Being Christmas, I want to talk how we Filipinos are celebrating it. We have completely adapted the Western tradition, and we almost want to believe that it is ours. We have fallen into the commercialization of Christmas. We display Christmas trees with snow, Santa Claus in red suit, Reindeers that fly, Elfs making toys, etc. Ever since I was a child, this was my concept of Christmas. Now that I am no longer that innocent and gullible person, I want to see that we as a people should have our own Christmas, celebrating the birth of Jesus, and not the commercial style.

Let us be down to earth and honest to ourselves, There is no Santa Claus as presented in the Western tradition. Reindeers can not fly. They are no less than a cow with antlers. There are no elf anywhere. There is no snow in our land.

I am not trying to ruin your Christmas, but as a people, let us not fool ourselves into accepting the Western tradition, that even in American and Europe, people there are realizing that the commercialization of Christmas is getting our of hand. Let us be honest to ourselves. thank you.

‘Christmas’ was introduced to us by the Spanish conquerors. If ‘we don’t fool ourselves into accepting western traditions’, then maybe we should be celebrating the ‘anitos’ instead.

To chito:

Right, the beer price is not the most important matter which could be affected by using corn for biofuel. But Golez did not say that, he just mentioned it, maybe since Filipinos are usually heavy beer drinkers and could change from expensive beer to harder drinks, means more drunkards.
Besides, the originals of beer are anyway not made from corn, it is from wheat which is malted.
And about the commercialized Christmas, it is true that most western societies are already thinking and even complaining about that, but how you stop it if the customers agree? If customers would just not buy anything displayed for Christmas, say before December 15, it would very fast change many things.
Regarding a “westernized” Christmas, please do not forget that no western society celebrates Christmas with such noise than the Philippines. Filipinos shout their “Silent Night” through karaokes and at the same time throw their firecrackers. In western countries, Christmas eve is really a silent night, neither a noise nor a drinking occasion. Besides, remember too, that the whole catholizism is also a western import.
And you are right, there is no Santa Claus, rendeers can not fly etc., but let kids think that is by far better than all the idiotic cartoon figures which also do not exist but usually celebrates nothing more than stupidity and violence.
Lastly, if we argue what exists and what not, we would even have to question the reality of Jesus Christ. We celebrate his birth at December 24, his birth year as the year following 1 BC in our current counting. And that is all not correct or true. At that time, the year had just 10 months in roman calendars (decem means ten) and months 30 days until roman Caesars and Popes reformed the calendar. And what has been seen as the “star of Bethlehem” was only a conjunction of two planets and this has been seen at the Bethlehem region like one big star in the year 4 BC. Any Planetarium can easily show that.
The modern bible contains so many discrepancies to the reality than not many other publictions. It has been so many times reviewed and changed, even truth should not be changed.
It is, as one example here in RP, that catholic kids have to be circumcised. And that, because Jesus has also been circumcised. The problem with this unnecessary torture is, that Jesus has been circumcised for being a jewish child. There was no christian circumcision yet because there was no Christianity yet.
So, better not arguing about westernised Christmas, it is just reduced to a business opportunity since customers accept it and business will do what customers wanr, or are forced to think theywant it. Like Valentine’s day,too, which is a creation of a big (card) business which needed a boost to its sales.

It’s not because we learned to celebrate Christmas from the Spanish but rather as Christians it is a tradition that Christians practice every where. If Islam had become the dominant religion we would be celebrating the Eid al-Fitr and attending the Hajj instead.

To Rod:

I say AMEN.

It is really sad that we are in state of accepting all the Western traditions, loved almost anything foreign, and yet we threw out the Americans from their bases in our country.

From Pres. M.L. Quezon to the present politicians,…..all will jump at every opportunity to reject any suggestion of any U.S. incursion on our land, and yet when they want to go on vacation or hide from the authorities, their first destination is the U.S. mainland. I wonder why?

I really wonder if we will ever get rid of our colonial mentality. Hopefully the future generation will. I am of the old generation, and I have been conditioned to that colonial mentality myself. SAD indeed !!!!

26 December 2007 - 9:04AM View all news | Send to a friend | Print

UN issues warning of critical food shortages ‘The livelihoods of billions of people will be se
Rosslyn Beeby

Most Viewed Articles

Canberra
Leading lawyer dies in smash
Lines drawn for CSIRO battle
Paris Hilton in new “sex tape”
Cleary mourns death of star Clan O’Sullivan
Liberals to investigate ‘disturbing’email hoax

Life is Local
Paris Hilton in new “sex tape” [Lifestyle]
Leading lawyer dies in smash [Canberra]
Opposition claims victory in Kenya poll [World]
England’s a long way from Idol [Lifestyle]
Another charged over WA Xmas bash death [National]

Almost 40 countries are facing critical food shortages as world food prices soar to record levels, the United Nations warns.
The world’s food supplies are rapidly dwindling due to crop failures caused by global warming, natural disasters, wars, and a trend away from farming food crops to growing biofuels and grain to feed cattle, the agency says.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s global food price index reached its highest level this year, rising by more than 40 per cent, compared with 9 per cent last year.
“There is a very serious risk that there will be less people able to get access to food because of prices,” FAO head Jacques Diouf said.
The cost of imported food for the world’s poorest countries has risen by 25 per cent this year to about $US107 billion the highest on record. Countries facing critical food shortages include 20 African countries as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Nepal and Pakistan.
Food riots caused by shortages and rising prices have also occurred in Mexico, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Senegal.
In its monthly analysis of global food prices, the FAO said there had been an unprecedented “hike in world prices of, not just a selected few, but of nearly all, major food and feed commodities”.
Rarely had the world felt such “a widespread and commonly shared concern about food price inflation,” the FAO analysis said. In Australia, food prices have increased by 12percent over the past two years, chiefly because of drought and crop shortages linked to global climate change.
Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows prices for bread and eggs have increased by 17 per cent since 2005, vegetables by 33 per cent, honey by 100 per cent, dairy products by 11percent and fruit by 43 per cent.
A recent report by economist John Quiggin for the Australian Conservation Foundation concluded “price shocks similar to those being experienced by Australian consumers during the currently severe drought may start to occur every two to four years, rather than once a decade, unless strong action is taken to reduce global emissions”.
Quiggin said some practices proposed as strategies to mitigate the impact of climate change such as growing corn and sugar cane for biofuels and the use of forestry plantations as carbon sinks would inevitably contribute to “upward pressure on food prices”.
The impact of biofuels on world food production will be reviewed at a UN conference on food security next year.
It was essential biofuel policies were “coordinated at an international level taking into consideration the objective of fighting hunger,” Diouf said.
Higher meat consumption in emerging market nations across Asia are also driving food price increases.
In 1985, China’s average consumption of meat was of 20kg, but per capita meat consumption had now increased to 50kg, Diouf said. This reduced the amount of grain available because 1kg of beef could take as much as 8kg of grain to produce.
The British medical journal The Lancet recently published a study suggesting a 10 per cent cut in global meat consumption by 2050 would reduce greenhouse emissions from agriculture and also improve health for rich and poor nations.
Agricultural experts have also warned global warming will result in shorter growing seasons and smaller crop yields across most of the developing world, affecting the lives of billions of people. A report by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research estimates wheat production in India could drop by 50 per cent within 40 years, putting as many as 200 million people at risk of worsening food shortages.
Growing seasons in many parts of Africa will decrease by 20 per cent, with some of the world’s poorest farming communities in east and central Africa including Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia and Eritrea among the worst affected.
“The livelihoods of billions of people in developing countries, particularly those in the tropics, will be severely challenged as crop yields decline due to shorter growing seasons,” International Rice Research Institute director Dr Robert Zeigler said.
The FAO said soaring petroleum prices had contributed to price increases for agricultural crops by raising farm production costs and boosting demand for biofuels.
“The combination of high petroleum prices and the desire to address environmental issues is currently at the forefront of the rapid expansion of the biofuel sector: this is likely to boost demand for feedstocks, most notably, sugar, maize, rapeseed, soybean, palm oil and other oil crops as well as wheat for many more years to come.”
According to the FAO, the amount of corn used for biofuel production in the US will double to 110 million tonnes by 2016. In Europe, the amount of wheat devoted to biofuel will rise twelvefold to 18 million tonnes by the same date.
Earlier this year, Jean Ziegler, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, denounced biofuels as “a crime against humanity” and called for a five-year moratorium on their production.

Happy New Year to all, I guess for the most part here, many would agree that an alternative energy source other than traditional petroleum products.

As a compromise and an approach to a “petroleumless” future especially with regards to vehicles, an efficient policy scenario could be this:

First: Development of biofuel (whether biogasoline or biodiesel) and use of this; as no major conversions are needed in current internal combustion vehicles in order to use these.

Second: Development of electric or alternative fuels like hydrogen which will slowly supplant conventional internal combustion engines.

Third: Research and development of even more efficient and pollution free alternative energies now and in the future

By toeing this general policies, we could then carefully wean away from dirty fuels from other nations and greatly reduce our dependence of these foreign products not to mention reduce pollution in the country.

In order to know how inefficient current petroleum run vehicles are, just count the number of vehicles running idle through the traffic in the cities, and calculate how much fuel are wasted because of this and calculate the pollution created by current vehicles while running idle. Add this to the normal inefficiencies that current vehicles are doing. The results could surprise you.

I am not even counting the billions of pesos lost due to health problems caused by pollution in cities caused by ground extracted petroleum.

It is high time to change our tack towards traditional fuel products. While the US, China, India and other nations drag their feet regarding these issues, it does not mean that we should emulate them and drag our feet as well. They have their own interests, our country have our own interests as well. We should trailblaze a new path and start a new direction with regards to fuel for the present and fuel for the future.

Mr. Golez,

The problem in the Philippines is not lack of land for food production; there are lots of unused lands for that. The problem is the proper storage, proper refrigeration, proper distribution and procession of these food items. Moreover, it is also better price for farm products that are being grown and sold at farms.

Go around the provinces and you will see a lot of untended land simply because it is more expensive to produce the food compared to the price it is being bought at farmgate prices (prices bought at the farms themselves) while these end up being sold at horribly high prices at the city market.

Once more, we cannot compare ourselves to other nations in terms of food security or insecurity for that matter. We are capable of producing food far more than what we are currently producing; much more than what our population need really. However there is simply little incentive for farmers to grow more because it is being bought from them for dirt cheap.

The only possible danger we can see in biofuel production is this. When we start leasing out our land to foreign “investors” and they in turn convert massive tracts of agricultural land for mono-cropping. This however can be remedied by disallowing leasing out large tracts of Philippine land to foreign investors. One example was the attempt of government (was it an initial phase?) to lease to a China firm between one million to two million hectares of Philippine agricultural land. This however is the fault of government policy makers, which can be solved by changing policies in leasing out our nation’s lands.

But in the larger sense, biofuels would help the ordinary farmers to produce crops or plants which provide high value returns. As for food production, government should built proper food transport and storage facilities in order to encourage our farmers to plant more food crops in the small chance of “food insecurity”. There is just too much unused land; we simply have to use them.

Biofuels are simply a transition solution to the fuel problem. Eventually we have to develop other alternative ways like through the development of electric vehicles and even hydrogen fueled vehicles. Moves are being made towards this direction:

http://blogs.inquirer.net/roadtrip/2008/01/01/pinoy-made-electric-cars-top-draw-but-stuck-at-qc-circle/

The electric jeeps of Makati are also a prime example for a shift towards this trend.

While the acceptance of the electric cars is slow at this moment, we should continue our course through the transition fuel which is biofuel.

his “making beer more expensive” statement may have been based on an articled published by the Financial Times where Heineken’s CEO, von Boxmeer, expressed that “the expansion of the biofuel sector was beginning to cause a ’structural shift’ in European and US agricultural markets.”, referring to the reduction of barley production areas to increase corn production, for ethanol production purposes.

Article futher quotes Van Boxmeer to saying that “One consequence could be a long-term shift upwards in the price of beer. Barley and hops account for about 7-8 per cent of brewing costs.”

Here’s the link to the FT article: http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto022520071613595903

To kabayan

Biofuel looks like a nice and easy alternative to petrol products. But it is not.
If farmers want to get a good income out of that plants, then biofuel could become much more expensive than gasoline or diesel. This, because one liter biofuel has not the same power than one liter gasoline, it is much less powerful. Means, instead of tanking one gallon gasoline, you need 3..4 gallon biofuel. And that is for sure more expensive. In addition, the pollution out of three gallon biofuel is also more than out of one gallon gasoline. We have to compare the combustive power, not just the same volume. Sure, there will come a time when fossile oil becomes scarce and its price will skyrocket, but then it will anyway not just be burned anymore but used for chemical processes which create a hundred- or thousandfold value.
Aside of this, biofuel will unstoppable create monocultures since the plants and trees can not be taken out and something else is produced instead alternatively. But monocultures usually need more and more fertilizer, making it more and more expensive and the production of fertilizers will swallow more energy and create more pollution than ever can be saved with biofuel.

To chito

Yes, there is a problem. But not so much about westernized christmas etc., but because of the extreme commercialising of all occasions. You can not eliminate the “western” christmas without to eliminate the complete western christianity and catholic religion. All comes from outside the Philippines.
How commercial christmas is already, one can easy realize at the extreme price increases just shortly before christmas. 1..2..300 percent increase of common basic goods like food is happening. And Filipinos accept it, at least those with the “performance bonuses” and cash gifts, often more than common workers earn within half a year and for sure work harder than gov. employees with their much higher salaries, perks, incentives, privileges and much less working days. Therefore, this easy earned money is also easy spent and higher prices do not much matter for them. Still it is shameful how the business is trying to grab its share of that giveaway money, not caring that the majority of Filipinos are not showered with such easy money. Besides, how there can be billions of “savings” if all the year over the same agencies are unable to do the planned projects because of “not enough funds”? It looks like they just stop working projects out for to save that money which will then be given to them as performance bonus.

About the people going to the USA forspecial reasons, usually they are out of politics, govrnment. But just remember when Estrada has been asking for his knee operation abroad or at least by his longtime US doctor, he has been told that RP is abundant with specialists. But when those who have told this feel sick, immediately they go abroad instead to one of the abundant RP specialists. It is not the same to tell sombody else what to do and then also to do the same.

Ric said:

“…Biofuel looks like a nice and easy alternative to petrol products. But it is not.

If farmers want to get a good income out of that plants, then biofuel could become much more expensive than gasoline or diesel. This, because one liter biofuel has not the same power than one liter gasoline, it is much less powerful…”

***

Nope, for biodiesel and petroleum diesel they have very similar energy efficiencies, check out: http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/LifeCycle_Summary.PDF

Excerpt:

The total energy efficiency ratio (ie. total fuel energy/total energy used in
production, manufacture, transportation, and distribution) for diesel fuel and
biodiesel are 83.28% for diesel vs 80.55% for biodiesel. The report notes:
“Biodiesel and petroleum diesel have very similar energy efficiencies.”

***

Ric also said:

“…biofuel will unstoppable create monocultures since the plants and trees can not be taken out and something else is produced instead alternatively. But monocultures usually need more and more fertilizer, making it more and more expensive and the production of fertilizers will swallow more energy and create more pollution than ever can be saved with biofuel…”

***

Not necessarily, there are biofuel plants that do not need more fertilizer than what is currently being used anyway. Biofuel plants are PLANTS which unlike petroleum fuel are able to absorb carbon dioxide thus reducing a great amount of this gas in the atmosphere.

A new system of using nitrogen fixing shrubs planted in between biofuel producing plants in fact could further reduce dependencies on fertilizers. But despite this, current plants which are sources of biofuel do not need more fertilizer than what is currently being used.

Biofuel production in the country would also reduce our dependency on foreign oil and the money goes back to our farmers thus pump priming our economy instead of spending our money to buy petroleum from some foreign country whose citizens usually abuse our overseas foreign workers anyway (especially domestic helpers) .

***

Conclusion: Biofuels are far better to use than ground extracted petroleum. This is an excellent TRANSITION FUEL as in parallel we also continue to develop and promote other alternatives like electric vehicles, hydrogen fueled vehicles, and other alternate fuel sources toward a vision of a completely “petroleumless” future.

Can’t figure out how a poisonous weed like Jatropha had taken the fuel hungry
world like a storm. Nobody seem to object
offer an intelligent study, effects on environment, profitability, how it will
help the poor Pinoys or just another ploy
by the foreigners. In India where it all
started now have qualms about the
so-called ease of care. Harvesting is very
labor intensive as the nuts mature at
different stages,fruits are sorted manually
seeds are dried, peeled, pressed. Oil that
is recovered if used as is causes coking
and polymerization. Diesel conversion
is a difficult process unlike other oils.
I still can’t understand why we export
millions of tons of coconut oil and copra
yet import 150,00 tons of palm oil to fry
our foods with. Now we have to plant
poison.

Dyan tayo magagaling na Pinoy, pag hindi natin idea, kontra agad tayo.. Nung nadiscover ang langis di lahat ay sang ayon dahil nakasanayan na nila ang steam power, d nila ma gets ang concept ng petrochemical refining ng crude oil. Ganyan din tayo ngayon pag may alternative na naisip sinusupalpal agad, kahit na yung bakcground knowledge na alam ay kakatiting lang, nag gegeneralise agad ng conclusion. Kung sa tingin ninyo ay alam ninyo ang solusyon edi ilahad ninyo!! Hindi yung puro negatibo lang ang alam ninyong sabihin.