As the fuel price soars, it seems difficult to achieve the transition to more sustainable and renewable energy supplies without using biofuel for at least a portion of our fuel consumption. While we have a range of technically possible biofuel solutions, they are all more or less unsustainable, some are even wasteful and/or dangerous. In my opinion, the biofuel alternative that is practical should at least have a few characteristics:
First and most importantly, the energy invested in the whole life cycle of such biofuel should not exceed what human can extract from it. This seems natural yet many alternatives reported in the past year failed to meet this criterion. Some appear to have higher output than their fossil counterparts but the actual result is opposite if one count the energy cost of collection, extraction and transportation in.
The second and equally important characteristic is that the raw material had better be a byproduct, or at least the growth of the raw material does not reduce land availability for food production. The rapid adoption of biofuel crops in some countries may have contributed to rapidly increasing food prices worldwide.
The effort to increase unit productivity of biofuel crops should be responsible and do not cause ecological problems. It is worried that some biofuel species may be invasive, rendering the food production problem more serious. Biofuel based on algae without effective control may be a problem for the marine ecosystems. It is also possible that economic incentives urge people to transform previous landuses to new ones that are not so sustainable, or destroy key habitats.
And pollution, though an old problem already, should not be enhanced by biofuel production. Many kinds of biofuel boast less pollution in combustion compared to fossil fuels, but pollution in production and exhausts still need attention and auditing.
At present there is few biofuel that meets all these criteria, and that's why I am against mass adoption of them. For transitional energy alternatives, nuclear may be a better choice.
2008年5月29日星期四
2008年5月21日星期三
CAP 政策、粮食市场和环境
日前，欧盟委员会（European Commission）提出方案，要对其 Common Agriculture Policy （CAP）进行修订，目的在于使农业生产更贴近市场需求，同时缓解食品供应的紧张状况。修订方案的主要内容包括如下几条：
CAP 可能是欧盟内最大和最富争议的财政项目，用于 CAP 项目的资金每年超过400亿欧元。CAP 最初是欧洲为了解决战后粮食短缺的问题，用补贴鼓励粮食生产而设立，而且卓有成效：欧洲出现了粮食富余，欧洲人可以用较低的价格购买食品。在2004年为了解决粮食过剩的问题，CAP 开始引入休耕补贴等制度。2005年我在英国的 Peak District 就见过一位幸福的农民，他只要管理好自己土地上的野生石楠就可以拿到足以养活一家人的补贴，根本不需要他把自己的羊卖掉。但是无论在2004年改革前后，高额的津贴实际上都扭曲了市场，使欧洲的农产品可以按低于实际成本的价格在世界市场上出售，这大大伤害了世界其他地方的，特别是发展中国家的农民。而2004年后的政策也没有鼓励欧盟内部的粮食生产。最近由于美国等国家对生物燃料的补贴更加剧了粮食市场的供不应求状况，才使问题暴露出来。
对上涨的粮食价格表示了深切忧虑的《经济学人》杂志在本月1日就提出现在是减少 CAP 补贴的好机会。在现在的市场条件下，减少的补贴反而给欧盟的农民提供了利益的刺激，同时世界其他地方也更有动力生产和出口农产品。即使像有些人认为的那样价格只是市场被扭曲的结果而不是纯粹的供应问题，改革后的 CAP 政策也更能反应市场实际的供需状况。但在美国等国家继续补贴生物燃料的情况下，CAP 补贴率降低对于欧盟外的农民提供了多少增加粮食生产的动力呢？在《经济学人》网站上有人评论说
如果他的观察足够有代表性的话，也许还是有更多的人会转向生物燃料而不是粮食生产。当然也有这种可能性：他能卖出的橙子价格受到了欧洲便宜替代品的冲击，而商店里的橙汁价格是橙汁生产商对较高的需求的反应，或者这样说，一方面橙汁生产商不愿意提高价格从欧洲以外的供应者那里收购橙子，一方面橙子生产商转向其他生产继续导致供给不足
，还是应该 blame CAP。不论是哪种情况，欧盟对于 CAP 的新提案应该是朝降低食品价格的方向走了正确的一步，但其广泛的效果可能还要经过一番国际贸易博弈才能看到。
新 CAP 相比2004年至今的政策可能有一个副作用，就是农民保护生物多样性和某些生态系统的积极性会降低。像我上文提到的农民，他的羊群规模在取消补贴后可能不足以给他与原来相当的收入，因此他可能会搬迁到别处或者索性放弃农业生产，从而放弃对 Peak District 一部分石楠草地的管理。还有一些濒危的鸟类一直是依赖农业生态系统而存在的，但增加粮食生产必然要求农业的集中化和高强度，包括休耕制度的取消，这都是对它们的生存不利的。不知道 ecocentricists 们这次面对关系人类性命的粮食问题会不会继续抱着生态系统和生物多样性至上的立场。也希望新 CAP （能通过的话）关于乡村发展和环境保护的提案能在这方面发挥作用。
- 减少对大农场主的补贴；
- 停止对农民休耕（set-aside）的补偿制度；
- 逐步增加奶制品生产配额直至2015年完全放开；
- 将节省下来的资金用于乡村建设和与环境有关的项目；
CAP 可能是欧盟内最大和最富争议的财政项目，用于 CAP 项目的资金每年超过400亿欧元。CAP 最初是欧洲为了解决战后粮食短缺的问题，用补贴鼓励粮食生产而设立，而且卓有成效：欧洲出现了粮食富余，欧洲人可以用较低的价格购买食品。在2004年为了解决粮食过剩的问题，CAP 开始引入休耕补贴等制度。2005年我在英国的 Peak District 就见过一位幸福的农民，他只要管理好自己土地上的野生石楠就可以拿到足以养活一家人的补贴，根本不需要他把自己的羊卖掉。但是无论在2004年改革前后，高额的津贴实际上都扭曲了市场，使欧洲的农产品可以按低于实际成本的价格在世界市场上出售，这大大伤害了世界其他地方的，特别是发展中国家的农民。而2004年后的政策也没有鼓励欧盟内部的粮食生产。最近由于美国等国家对生物燃料的补贴更加剧了粮食市场的供不应求状况，才使问题暴露出来。
对上涨的粮食价格表示了深切忧虑的《经济学人》杂志在本月1日就提出现在是减少 CAP 补贴的好机会。在现在的市场条件下，减少的补贴反而给欧盟的农民提供了利益的刺激，同时世界其他地方也更有动力生产和出口农产品。即使像有些人认为的那样价格只是市场被扭曲的结果而不是纯粹的供应问题，改革后的 CAP 政策也更能反应市场实际的供需状况。但在美国等国家继续补贴生物燃料的情况下，CAP 补贴率降低对于欧盟外的农民提供了多少增加粮食生产的动力呢？在《经济学人》网站上有人评论说
Only yesterday we complained about mountains of butter, cereals and lakes of wine in the EU that went to waste. As an orange producer, I can assure you that I still receive cents for a kilo and have not seen any benefit of the rally in OJ futures. The price in the stores is many times what I receive. There is a disconnect between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays. This can not be explained by transportation costs or the retailer's mark up.
如果他的观察足够有代表性的话，也许还是有更多的人会转向生物燃料而不是粮食生产。当然也有这种可能性：他能卖出的橙子价格受到了欧洲便宜替代品的冲击，而商店里的橙汁价格是橙汁生产商对较高的需求的反应，或者这样说，一方面橙汁生产商不愿意提高价格从欧洲以外的供应者那里收购橙子，一方面橙子生产商转向其他生产继续导致供给不足
，还是应该 blame CAP。不论是哪种情况，欧盟对于 CAP 的新提案应该是朝降低食品价格的方向走了正确的一步，但其广泛的效果可能还要经过一番国际贸易博弈才能看到。
新 CAP 相比2004年至今的政策可能有一个副作用，就是农民保护生物多样性和某些生态系统的积极性会降低。像我上文提到的农民，他的羊群规模在取消补贴后可能不足以给他与原来相当的收入，因此他可能会搬迁到别处或者索性放弃农业生产，从而放弃对 Peak District 一部分石楠草地的管理。还有一些濒危的鸟类一直是依赖农业生态系统而存在的，但增加粮食生产必然要求农业的集中化和高强度，包括休耕制度的取消，这都是对它们的生存不利的。不知道 ecocentricists 们这次面对关系人类性命的粮食问题会不会继续抱着生态系统和生物多样性至上的立场。也希望新 CAP （能通过的话）关于乡村发展和环境保护的提案能在这方面发挥作用。
2007年10月27日星期六
Follow-up: biofuel debate
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Biofuels 'crime against humanity'
There is yet another voice to express the concerns behind the large scale adoption of biofuel crops, especially corn. It has been pointed out by Mr Ziegler that plantation of biofuel crops has already led to decrease of available arable land, and the increase of food price.
This seems to be one thing that market cannot solve satisfyingly. If we rely solely on price and demand to adjust the production of food and biofuel, it can be expected that farmers will always have incentives to plant corn to produce ethanol before the price of biofuel is the same as fossil fuel. At the same time food price will also rise and leave more people in hunger. But farmers will not turn to food production until food price (combined with subsidies, maybe) is high enough to provide revenue as good as fuel. By then millions would have starved.
A threshold should be determined which states the maximum land and other resources allocated to biofuel production and should be enforced as a law. If we cannot determine the threshold yet, I think it is another time to apply precaution principle and set a safe limit. At the same time attempts to reduce fuel consumption and improve fuel efficiency should always be encouraged.
On the other hand, Food and Agriculture Organization in 2005 considered biofuel as a key to fight against hunger, as it reduces the import bill as well as brings investments and jobs. But that argument seems to miss the resource part, ignoring food production while it examines hunger.
There is yet another voice to express the concerns behind the large scale adoption of biofuel crops, especially corn. It has been pointed out by Mr Ziegler that plantation of biofuel crops has already led to decrease of available arable land, and the increase of food price.
This seems to be one thing that market cannot solve satisfyingly. If we rely solely on price and demand to adjust the production of food and biofuel, it can be expected that farmers will always have incentives to plant corn to produce ethanol before the price of biofuel is the same as fossil fuel. At the same time food price will also rise and leave more people in hunger. But farmers will not turn to food production until food price (combined with subsidies, maybe) is high enough to provide revenue as good as fuel. By then millions would have starved.
A threshold should be determined which states the maximum land and other resources allocated to biofuel production and should be enforced as a law. If we cannot determine the threshold yet, I think it is another time to apply precaution principle and set a safe limit. At the same time attempts to reduce fuel consumption and improve fuel efficiency should always be encouraged.
On the other hand, Food and Agriculture Organization in 2005 considered biofuel as a key to fight against hunger, as it reduces the import bill as well as brings investments and jobs. But that argument seems to miss the resource part, ignoring food production while it examines hunger.
Powered by ScribeFire.
2007年10月23日星期二
Bio-fuel and resilience
Today I attended a lecture given by Alan Bullin with the topic ``Biofuels in the Asia-Pacific'', which is just a general review of the situation of biofuel legislation, adoption and application in developed and developing world. But my question would be, how biofuel crops affect the resilience of farmers who adopted them out of economic interest?
I asked this because I thought of farmers in China. If they know this is going to make money you can bet they will begin to plant sugarcanes overnight. However, their relatively slow rate to access relevant information means they are very likely to encounter market failures and have losses. On the other hand, the question is also about long-term perspectives. If one day we suddenly do not need biofuel and fossil fuels anymore (invention of safe and cheap hydrogen/nuclear/solar/you-name-it energy technologies), will the farmers be able to quickly and easily turn to other income sources?
Dr. Bullin's answer to the questions, as I perceived, is that the market will determine what the farmers plant, the adoption of new energy will not be sudden, but a gradual process. The competition between various biofuel crops means the farmers will not be trapped in one crop and cannot get themselves out. They can always turn to another kind of biofuel. Of course, in the market, there is always risk.
I did not mention resilience or China's immature market in my question, which may change his answer a bit. On a second thought, the farmers may not always have alternatives due to climate and hydrology restrictions. I still would like to know whether farmers can turn their sugar cane field into, say, potato garden quickly enough. There have already been some studies on biofuels and resilience. Many of them expressed optimistic evaluation of this new technology concerning long-term gains and resilience, stating their positive role in the conservation of forest and reduction of carbon. However, I do think there is some negative issues that should be scrutinised carefully, for example, increased food price [1], changed land use and threat to natural area/food production [2], and Fairtrade concerns.
1. [Kill king corn](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/449637a). Nature 449, 637 doi: 10.1038/449637a (2007).
2. [Fuelling controversy -- can biofuels slow the speed of climate change?](http://www.panos.org.uk/PDF/reports/climatetoolkit1.pdf)
I asked this because I thought of farmers in China. If they know this is going to make money you can bet they will begin to plant sugarcanes overnight. However, their relatively slow rate to access relevant information means they are very likely to encounter market failures and have losses. On the other hand, the question is also about long-term perspectives. If one day we suddenly do not need biofuel and fossil fuels anymore (invention of safe and cheap hydrogen/nuclear/solar/you-name-it energy technologies), will the farmers be able to quickly and easily turn to other income sources?
Dr. Bullin's answer to the questions, as I perceived, is that the market will determine what the farmers plant, the adoption of new energy will not be sudden, but a gradual process. The competition between various biofuel crops means the farmers will not be trapped in one crop and cannot get themselves out. They can always turn to another kind of biofuel. Of course, in the market, there is always risk.
I did not mention resilience or China's immature market in my question, which may change his answer a bit. On a second thought, the farmers may not always have alternatives due to climate and hydrology restrictions. I still would like to know whether farmers can turn their sugar cane field into, say, potato garden quickly enough. There have already been some studies on biofuels and resilience. Many of them expressed optimistic evaluation of this new technology concerning long-term gains and resilience, stating their positive role in the conservation of forest and reduction of carbon. However, I do think there is some negative issues that should be scrutinised carefully, for example, increased food price [1], changed land use and threat to natural area/food production [2], and Fairtrade concerns.
1. [Kill king corn](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/449637a). Nature 449, 637 doi: 10.1038/449637a (2007).
2. [Fuelling controversy -- can biofuels slow the speed of climate change?](http://www.panos.org.uk/PDF/reports/climatetoolkit1.pdf)
订阅：
博文 (Atom)