Biofuels Are A Crime Against Humanity

So writes award-winning environmentalist and professor, George Monbiot, in Britain's The Guardian yesterday, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/15/food.biofuels .

His headline says: A food recession is underway. Biofuels are a crime against humanity. But - take it from a flesh-eater - eating meat is worse.

He writes:

Never mind the economic crisis. Focus for a moment on a more urgent threat: the great food recession that is sweeping the world faster than the credit crunch... the price of rice has risen by three-quarters over the past year, that of wheat by 130%. There are food crises in 37 countries. One hundred million people, according to the World Bank, could be pushed into deeper poverty by the high prices.

But the most telling statistic? World grain production also broke all records, 5% bigger than all previous years. So it is not lack of increasing production! But...

Of the 2.13bn tonnes likely to be consumed this year, only 1.01bn...will feed people.

Remarking on the new UK law which yesterday required all transport fuel to be mixed with biofuels, he notes that:

The World Bank points out that "the grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol ... could feed one person for a year".

This year global stockpiles of cereals will decline by around 53m tonnes...The production of biofuels will consume almost 100m tonnes.

This indicates that biofuels "are directly responsible for the current crisis."

In the midst of a global humanitarian crisis, we have just become legally obliged to use food as fuel. It is a crime against humanity, in which every driver in this country has been forced to participate.

He sees, however, an even bigger cause of world hunger than biofuels.

While 100m tonnes of food will be diverted this year to feed cars, 760m tonnes will be snatched from the mouths of humans to feed animals - which could cover the global food deficit 14 times. If you care about hunger, eat less meat.

The U.S. eats about 2 kg. (4.4 lbs) of meat a week per person, the UK about 1kg, which is about 40% above the global average. Cows eat 8 kg of grain per pound of beef produced, but chickens only 2 kg of grain per pound ofmeat.

He cites figures to show that a vegan UK could feed itself using only half of its farmland..

But I cannot advocate a diet that I am incapable of following. I tried it for about 18 months, lost two stone, went as white as bone and felt that I was losing my mind. I know a few healthy-looking vegans, and I admire them immensely. But after almost every talk that I give, I am pestered by swarms of vegans demanding that I adopt their lifestyle. I cannot help noticing that in most cases their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey.

But "...some livestock is raised on pasture, so it doesn't contribute to the grain deficit. Simon Fairlie estimates that if animals were kept only on land that is unsuitable for arable farming, and given scraps and waste from food processing, the world could produce between a third and two-thirds of its current milk and meat supply...The only reasonable answer to the question of how much meat we should eat is as little as possible. Let's reserve it - as most societies have done until recently - for special occasions."

Re-reading this article, I see that there is something surreal about it. While half the world wonders whether it will eat at all...our shops are better stocked than ever before. We perceive the global food crisis dimly, if at all.

(George Montiot's website is www.monbiot.com.)