eg2401: food vs. fuel - an ethical analysis...eg2401 report !4. environmental the production and use...
Post on 11-Mar-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
!!
EG2401: Food vs. Fuel - An Ethical Analysis
Final Report
!Daniel John Tan Jan Ming (A0111318W)
Leonard Lim Jing Jie (A0110954L)
Tan Yung Kyi Amos (A0111957A)
!iEG2401 REPORT
Honour Pledge
We, the following students of NUS, upon our honour, hereby confirm that we have neither
received nor given any unauthorized help on the EG2401 group project carried out by us.
The project report and the presentation reflect truly our own efforts. In all cases where
material from other sources such as books, articles, notes and websites have been used, we
have taken care to provide clear and unambiguous references to the same.
We confirm that we have not provided unauthorized help to other groups doing the same
project. Furthermore, we also confirm that we will not pass on our research materials, report
and presentation materials to other students who may take this module in later semesters.
In addition, this project report has been prepared and submitted by us only as a part of an
academic exercise. Its contents are not meant for publication in any manner.
Year Semester Project Title Tutor
AY 14/15 1 Food vs. Fuel Prof. Martin Reinhard
!iiEG2401 REPORT
S/N Matric. No Name Signature Date
1 A0111318W Daniel John Tan
Jan Ming
2 A0110954L Leonard L im
Jing Jie
3 A0111957A Tan Yung Kyi
Amos
Table of Contents
EG2401: Food vs. Fuel - An Ethical Analysis i Honour Pledge ii Table of Contents iii Introduction 1
Key Terms 2 Assumptions of Lowered Carbon Emissions & Increased Energy
Efficiency Through The Consumption of Biofuels 2
Challenges & Opportunities 3 Economic 3 Societal 4 Technical 4 Environmental 5
Problem & Ethical Analysis 5 Stakeholders and their Aims 5 Economic 6 Societal 9 Technical 11 Environmental 13
Conclusion 15 Recommendations & Improvements 16 Alternative Solutions 16 Afterword 17
References 18
!iiiEG2401 REPORT
Introduction
Figure 1: Group Project Preamble
The “food versus fuel” debate is essentially a debate that involves a competition for
agricultural resources between two distinct products - foods and fuels. This debate is one that
has come into recent prominence not only due to a rising awareness of the potential of
biofuels, but also due to a deepening understanding that biofuel production involves the use
of the same agricultural resources used in food production. The scarcity of agricultural
resources further exacerbates the trade-offs that arise from diverting resources to either use.
Given the food versus fuel debate, the objective of this report is to investigate the resultant
ethical implications and ultimately determine whether the development of biofuels should be
accelerated. Furthermore, the ethical analyses will be focussed through the perspectives of
both third world and developed countries. This is because our research has found these two
types of countries to be impacted in different ways when biofuel production is accelerated.
In this report, our group will first outline the challenges and opportunities in the production
of biofuels. We will then define the key stakeholders and their aims, and finally analyse the
acceleration of biofuels development from economic, societal, technical and environmental
perspectives. Based on our findings, we will synthesise our stand in the debate and provide
both recommendations and alternative solutions to mitigate the ethical issues raised.
Lastly, the reduced carbon emissions and increased cost efficiencies that arise from
consuming biofuels will be assumed in order to maintain a focus on the ethical aspects of the
food versus fuel debate. This is because extant research has been on the whole inconclusive
on the true efficiencies and carbon emissions benefits that arise from the consumption of
biofuels. These two assumptions are hence made in order to keep our discussion focussed,
and will be briefly elaborated on in this section as well.
!1EG2401 REPORT
Key Terms Before proceeding with the discussion, we will clarify the key terms in the preamble. Firstly,
since the food versus fuel debate involves the diversion of agricultural resources away from
food production towards biofuel production, the biofuels in this discussion will be taken to be
those that are produced from edible raw materials - the agricultural crops themselves.
Examples of such biofuels include corn and wheat based bioethanols. Secondly, developing
countries, as compared to developed countries, have lower standards of living and
underdeveloped industrial bases. Hence, these countries are likely to have less income than 1
developed countries. Lastly, acceleration of biofuels development include the upscaled
production and consumption of biofuels, technological development, and the implementation
of relevant governmental policies. These aspects will be subsequently elaborated on.
Assumptions of Lowered Carbon Emissions & Increased Energy Efficiency Through The Consumption of Biofuels Some extant research supports the claim that biofuels are energy efficient and reduce carbon
emissions. For example, life cycle analyses (LCAs) conducted by laboratories and
governmental agencies have shown both first and second generation biofuels as able to
reduce emissions as compared to fossil fuels. Also, certain types of biofuels have higher 2 3
energy outputs as compared to fossil fuels. An example of such a biofuel would be soybean-
based biodiesel, which can produce 3.2 times more energy than fossil fuels. 4
Yet, LCAs vary widely across institutions and may result in opposite conclusions. For
example, studies done by ecologists in Cornell University have refuted the increased energy
efficiency of biofuels by demonstrating that the energy input in the production of biofuels is
greater than the energy output made available after consumption of biofuels. 5
In spite of differing conclusions across academic sources, it is necessary for us to assume the
increased energy efficiency and lowered carbon emissions that arise from biofuels
consumption. This is done in order for us to maintain a focus on the ethical aspects of the
food versus fuel debate. Furthermore, we judiciously make these assumptions based on the
existence of conclusive supporting evidence. By assuming reduced carbon emissions and
greater energy efficiencies, we avoid any points of contention that pertain to these
assumptions.
!2EG2401 REPORT
Challenges & Opportunities Challenges and opportunities abound in the production of biofuels. These serve as key
considerations that will shape the ethical analyses later on. In this section, the challenges and
opportunities of biofuel production are classified into four types: Economic, Societal,
Technical and Environmental.
Economic Given that biofuel production and food production are both competing uses of agricultural
crops, economic challenges from upscaled biofuel production will be presented in the form of
increased food prices. With agricultural produce being made into biofuel, food supplies for
consumers will be reduced. The reduction in food supply would hence lead to increased
prices, given constant supply. Furthermore, such increased food prices are likely to affect
developing countries more adversely , since expenditure on food constitutes a greater portion 6
of the income of these countries as compared to that of their developed counterparts.
However, the production of biofuel also presents its economic opportunities as well. One
form of opportunities has to do with biofuels becoming a substantial alternative to fossil
fuels. The opportunities here are twofold. Firstly, an increased biofuel supply would help to
moderate prices of oil and other fossil fuels by channeling demand away from such fuels,
hence benefitting all energy importers. Secondly, domestic producers of biofuels also reduce 7
their reliance on fossil fuels and hence their vulnerability to external price shocks. These 8
economic opportunities would be especially important for developing countries, since
expenditure on energy also constitutes a significant portion of their income.
Another opportunity would be the potential of biofuel production to reduce income inequality
between developing and developed countries. Because developing countries are mainly
agrarian societies , they stand to benefit from increased income through effective use of 9
government subsidies. Specifically, subsidies given to biofuel companies would increase their
demand for agricultural crops. Holding supply constant, this would lead to increased crop
prices and output for agriculture producers in developing countries. These economic benefits
would significantly benefit these agrarian and developing societies to a greater extent, and
hence reduce the income disparity that they have with developed countries.
!3EG2401 REPORT
Societal On the societal level, most of the challenges will be faced by developing countries. Chiefly,
the challenges involve human rights, as increased biofuel production endangers developing
countries people’s access to food, water and land. For example, the shortage of food for
poorer nationals in developing countries who are unable to pay for pricier food would
adversely impacts on their survivability. Studies from the World Health Organisation, for
example, indicate that the food shortages could lead to an excess of 192,000 deaths a year in
developing countries. Furthermore, the diversion of land and water to biofuel production 10
may impinge upon poorer people’s access to these basic amenities. The purchase of land and
water resources by biofuel companies for the production of biofuels in developing countries
may impinge upon these basic rights, especially where vulnerable and poor groups of people
are concerned. These clearly denote societal violations of welfare. 11
The mitigating societal opportunity comes in the form of enhanced livelihood for developing
countries that produce agricultural crops for biofuel production. With the purchase of
agricultural raw material for biofuel production by biofuel companies, developing countries
would have an additional source of income through the growth of biofuel crops. This
additional income would not only enhance the livelihood of people in these countries, but
also mitigate the aforementioned societal challenges to some extent.
Technical The main technical challenge facing the use and development of biofuels is the inadequate
level of available technology, which in turn limits the efficiency of production. Currently,
biofuels require higher energy input per unit of energy content as compared to that of fossil
fuel. As such, there could be better utility in using agricultural crops for food instead. 12
However, there exist opportunities for the advancement of biofuel technology. The popularity
for biofuels is growing, as evidenced by policies pushing for an increased percentage of
biofuels to be blended into conventional fuel. This rising popularity consequently 13
incentivises Research & Development to develop biofuel technologies. For example, more
grants are being given towards this end, such as a $30m USD grant from the Obama
Administration. 14
!4EG2401 REPORT
Environmental The production and use of biofuels poses significant environmental challenges as well,
including the loss of biodiversity and habitat, as well as the production of pollutants through
the combustion of biofuels. For example, the conversion of natural plant lands for agricultural
purposes results in a loss of valuable biodiversity. This loss of biodiversity is also of 15
functional importance - the reduction of plant biodiversity would reduce mankind’s ability to
deal with blight as well. The combustion of biofuels may also result in the emission of toxic 16
compounds which are unregulated in current emissions laws. For example, the burning of
biodiesels produces toxic aldehydes that cause irreversible harm to the human body. These 17
environmental effects are of considerable significance, and hence cannot be ignored.
Problem & Ethical Analysis Having outlined the challenges and opportunities that arise from biofuel production, we will
now analyse the food versus fuel debate. Firstly, we will outline the stakeholders in the food
versus fuel dilemma and their broad aims, as shown in Figure 2. Secondly, we will present a
deeper analysis of the issues from a economic, societal, technical and environmental point of
view, and proceed to analyse the consequent ethical implications of these issues.
Stakeholders and their Aims Stakeholder Aims/Objectives
Crop Producers • Aim to generate higher revenue through the sale of crops • Aim to sell the crops at a higher price • Seek to produce the crops in the most efficient ways
Biofuel Producers • Aim to maximise profits through the production of biofuels • Responsible for propagating the use of biofuels • Responsible for improving production techniques and efficiency of technology
Developing Countries (Public)
• Aim to sustain their own well-being and to have sufficient food for daily needs • Aim to hold stable jobs and to secure and improve on their livelihoods/income
Governments (Developing countries)
• Aim to generate income for the country and to provide more jobs for the public • Responsible for protecting the well-being of their peoples • Seek to bring in foreign investors
Developed Countries (Public)
• Responsible for reducing carbon emissions in everyday consumption • Aim to sustain their own well-being and to support their family • Aim to increase their own disposable income
Governments (Developed Countries)
• Aim to build a sustainable economy, to ensure stable employment with low inflation rates, and to generate additional income for the country
• Responsible for protecting the well-being of their peoples • Seek to develop technology to increase productive capacity of the country
Environmental Activists
• Aim to reduce the environmental impact of crop production • Aim to push for more environmentally friendly fuel
!5EG2401 REPORT
Figure 2: Table of Stakeholders and their Aims/Objectives
Economic The key economic implication of an acceleration of biofuels development would be an
increase in crop prices, which would ultimately lead to ethical issues. The increase in crop
prices arises from demand-side and supply-side factors. On the one hand, the push for
biofuels will inadvertently lead to an increase in demand for agricultural crops that are used
as feedstock. In a quantitative study done, it was observed that the demand for "corn and
soybean increased greatly" due to their usage in biofuels. Consequently, demand for 18
agricultural crops will increase. Crop producers will favour this increase in demand, for the
resultant increase in crop prices will increase their revenue. Research has shown that "by
2025, producing the crops to make these fuels could provide farmers with profits of more
than $5 billion per year" In Colombia, the average crop producer earns "two to three times 19
the minimum salary through bioethanol production." 20
On the other hand, the purchase of crops for biofuels production will divert agricultural crops
away from food supplies. Given an increasing world population , there will be an increase in 21
the demand for food. Coupled with the drop in supply of crops for food, food prices will rise.
Furthermore, the effects of such price rises will be the greatest in developing countries such
as Pakistan, where a larger portion of disposable income (45.4%) is spent on food, as
compared to developed countries such as Singapore (8.1%) 22
However, an increase in a demand for agricultural crops may also result in economic growth
for crop-producing countries - both developed (e.g. USA) and developing (e.g. Indonesia).
One means of growth comes in the form of increased tax revenue collected by the
government from crop producers. Developing countries stand to benefit to a greater extent,
for they are also able to reduce their imports of fossil fuel, allowing them to save precious
foreign currency and increase "resources available for other urgent development needs." At 23
the same time, governments are able to improve their trade balance by exporting these crops
as biofuels, which translate to an increase in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the
country. Once again, developing countries stand to benefit more, for agricultural revenue
Fossil Fuel Producers • Aim to maximise profits and to reduce cost of fossil fuels • Aim to retain market share in the fuel market against alternative fuel sources • Responsible for fossil fuel production and energy supply
Stakeholder Aims/Objectives
!6EG2401 REPORT
constitutes a greater portion of their GDP (15.29%) as compared to their developed
counterparts (1.09%) 24
Duty & Rights Ethics All people have the right to access the basic needs of life. Rights ethics are thus violated for
the public in developing countries and fulfilled for their developed counterparts. For the
latter, rights ethics is satisfied as the increase in food prices will have a minimal impact on
their disposable income. For the former, however, price increases would result in their
inability to afford food. Furthermore, these price increases will affect them more
significantly, for expenditure on food takes up a large proportion of their income. Therefore,
rights ethics are violated, for they are deprived of their right to food.
However, price increases of agricultural crops do not result in a violation of duty and rights
ethics when applied to crop producers and biofuels producers. Rights ethics are not violated
for crop producers, for they have the right to sell their crops to buyers who offer higher
prices. At the same time, they fulfil their duty of maximising profits. For biofuel producers,
duty ethics is satisfied, for their purchase of crops allow them to fulfil their moral
responsibility of meeting the increased demand for an alternative energy source. Any increase
in food prices would also not be in their purview, for they do not have a duty towards
consumers of food.
Applying the ethics framework to governments, we conclude that duty ethics and rights
ethics are being violated, especially for developing countries. It is the responsibility of
governments to develop their countries, and economic growth in a country is through the
increase of its GDP is a means towards fulfilling this responsibility. While this duty may be
fulfilled, an ethical issue arises due to the differing natures of developed countries and
developing countries. We must note that governments are also responsible for ensuring the
interests and welfare of their citizens too. As food prices increase, there will be a hunger
problem, as citizens may not be able to afford pricier food. If governments do not take any
action, then they would have failed in their duty to protect the welfare of their citizens.
Furthermore, governments would also depriving their citizens of their rights to food and
hence their rights to live, resulting in a violation of rights ethics. Developing countries would
be more adversely affected too, and these violations are thus especially pertinent them.
!7EG2401 REPORT
Hence, governments of these countries will have to strike a finer balance between ensuring
the affordability of food prices and the development of the economy.
Utilitarianism From an act-utilitarian point of view, the increase in crop prices due to the acceleration of
biofuel will raise ethical issues, particularly in developing countries, but also bring about
benefits too. Firstly, ethical issues will be raised for citizens in developing countries. These
people may not be able to afford the increased costs, and hence struggle to survive. Similarly,
increased prices will not benefit citizens in developed countries as they will have to spend
more on food. However, they will still be able to afford the food as the increase in prices will
have a dampened effect on their spending as compared to citizens in a developing country.
On the other hand, economic benefits may arise from the acceleration of biofuels. It is
estimated that biofuels could eventually be cheaper than gasoline and diesel, saving "about
$20 billion per year on fuel costs by 2050.” This is because biofuels can be produced from a 25
wide range of sources, such as corn, sugar cane and soy. As sources of fossil fuels start to 26
deplete, fossil fuels prices are expected to rise at a much higher rate as compared to biofuels.
In the long run, it is thus more likely for the public in both developing and developed
countries to benefit, as they will enjoy greater cost savings.
Other stakeholders also stand to benefit from the price increases. Crop producers, for
example, will be able to increase their profits and hence their income, and those from
developing countries will earn comparatively more than their developed counterparts. They
thus will have the opportunity to improve their economic status. Governments also stand to
benefit from the increased tax revenue and economic growth, as mentioned earlier.
However, the economic benefits enjoyed by developing countries might be negated, as
citizens in their countries may not be able to afford the increased food prices. Governments
of these countries who have a duty unto public welfare may need to adopt policies such as
subsidies in order to lower food prices, hence incurring higher federal cost.
Looking at all the stakeholders and society as a whole, accelerating biofuels satisfies act-
utilitarianism from an economic perspective, as more stakeholders will benefit despite an
increase in food prices. Furthermore, developing countries may actually reap more benefits
!8EG2401 REPORT
in the long run in terms of energy cost due to the increasing prices of fossil fuel, even though
their citizens may more acutely feel the impact of higher food prices.
Societal As examined above in the Economic aspect, the decrease in food supply combined with an
increase in food prices will result in a critical shortfall of food available for consumption.
This reduced availability of food is of importance, for it adversely impacts upon people’s
survivability. Such adverse impacts are especially relevant in developing nations where
problems of malnutrition are already a problem. For instance, malnutrition in Pakistan, a
developing country, is prevalent among more than 40% of children below the age of 5, while
in Singapore, less than 5% of same age group suffer from malnutrition. Studies have also 27
shown that the promotion and acceleration of biofuels through governmental policies have
resulted in an increase of 51,000 deaths in 2010. 28
Another societal issue that results from the acceleration of biofuels is the increase in
competition for water supply and land space, which in turn results in farmers being denied of
these essentials. Biofuels production involves the intensive use of water in the production of
feedstock and the fuel itself. In China, an average of 2,400 litres of water is required for the
production of 1 litre of ethanol from maize. Hence, biofuels production could lead to 29
insufficient water in water scarce areas. Furthermore, biofuels production require large plots
of agricultural land. To achieve this end, biofuel companies may buy out small agricultural
companies and other farmers - groups who may neither deal with agriculture for biofuels
production nor have the ability to compete with large biofuel companies that produce crops
on an industrial scale The acceleration of biofuels production would hence pry away land 30
and property from these farmers.
However, countries may benefit from improved livelihood, social mobility and welfare
through the acceleration of biofuel production; these are desirable from a societal perspective.
the acceleration of biofuels production would result in more business for crop producers and
indirectly help to generate employment for the citizens. These benefits are especially marked
in developing countries. For example, the sugarcane industry in Brazil is used to produce bio-
ethanol. It has employed "around 1 million workers (,) and the number is expected to grow by
204,000 in the next five years." This increase in employment serves to help improve the 31
!9EG2401 REPORT
livelihood and social mobility of workers in developing countries while also solving the
socially undesirable problem of unemployment. Through improved livelihoods, people will
also be better able to afford their basic necessities, resulting in improved societal welfare.
Furthermore, the local production of biofuels secures societal stability, for society’s
dependence on foreign oil is now reduced. Many countries that export oil are considered as
"dangerous or unstable" governments. By decreasing dependence on foreign energy, 32
governments can keep their countries safe from external powers that may use fossil fuels as a
form of leverage. This decreased dependence will ultimately serve to protect the national
interests by ensuring good governance and security within the country.
Duty & Rights Ethics Rights ethics, when applied to the public, are being violated and fulfilled in different areas
through the acceleration of biofuels. It is the rights of the public in developing countries to
have access to food and water. By permitting the acceleration of biofuels production and
hence the drop in food and water supplies, the basic rights of the public in developing
countries will be infringed upon. However, it is also the rights of the public to have basic
welfare. This welfare is only possible they have a secure livelihood and income. Since
unemployment rates in developing countries are generally higher than that of developed
countries, an increase in biofuels production would help to reduce such unemployment and
hence fulfil the public’s rights to welfare.
A similar picture of violation and fulfilment results when we apply duty ethics to
governments. On the one hand, governments in developing countries have a duty to ensure
the welfare of its people too. Hence, the acceleration of biofuels development would result in
a denial of the public’s rights to food and water, consequently resulting in a violation of the
governments’ duties. On the other hand, governments also have to provide employment for
its people, and by bringing in investments from biofuel producers, they will be fulfilling duty
ethics. Furthermore, governments also satisfy duty ethics by lowering their dependence on oil
producing countries and hence securing internal societal stability.
The rights of other crop producers who do not grow agriculture for biofuels are more clearly
violated through the acceleration of biofuels production. Specifically, their rights to own and
!10EG2401 REPORT
use their own land are infringed upon by biofuels producers who buy out and snatch land
space away for the growth of raw materials for biofuels feedstock.
Utilitarianism Analysing the societal aspect of accelerating biofuel production through the act-utilitarianism
framework raises ethical issues and potential benefits for the different stakeholders. On the
one hand, utilitarianism seems to be fulfilled for some stakeholders - crop producers stand to
gain more business due to the increase in demand for their crops, while biofuel producers
stand improve their livelihoods by producing more biofuels. On the other hand, however,
fossil fuels producers stand to lose out from the reduced dependence on their products. This
reduced dependence impacts upon their livelihoods and might even put them out of business
in the long run. Hence, utilitarianism is not fulfilled for the fossil fuel producers.
However, developing countries are likely to be the biggest losers of utility, given the reduced
availability of food, water and land space with the acceleration of biofuels production. These
lower their overall welfare and may lead to their deaths. However, they may benefit from
increased employment opportunities in the long run, and their livelihoods may then improve.
On the whole, utilitarianism is not fulfilled for the developing countries in spite of the
potential long-term benefits, because any societal gains simply cannot be used to justify the
huge loss of life brought about by depriving people of the basic amenities of food and water.
Technical From a technical point of view, the acceleration of biofuels development will result in the
occurrence of a couple of key events. Firstly, there will be a proliferation of grants, funding
and investment towards the advancement of biofuels technology. With the purported benefits
and increasing popularity of biofuels, federal agencies have stepped up funding to advance
research and development targeted at improving biofuels technology. For example, the
Obama administration has put in "$30 million in federal funding” in 2010 to match private
investments and a further $32 million "to drive technological breakthroughs and additional
cost reductions in the industry.” Developing countries that accelerate the development of 33
biofuels stand to further benefit from foreign-supported Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) projects and investment under the Kyoto Protocol. These projects not only boost the 34
level of biofuels technology, but also improve development and skill sets in these countries.
!11EG2401 REPORT
However, the acceleration of biofuels development may endanger the development of other
renewable and more efficient energy sources, thus leading to the loss of energy savings. For
example, photovoltaic sources, according to conducted studies, are “orders of magnitude
more efficient than biofuels pathways in terms of land use” Hence, the proliferation of 35
biofuels may negatively impinge upon the development of these more efficient renewables.
Duty & Rights Ethics Analysing the technical key events with duty ethics and rights ethics frameworks, it can be
seen that both ethical frameworks are fulfilled in some ways. Firstly, duty and rights ethics
for crop producers, biofuels producers, governments and the public are fulfilled with the
acceleration of biofuels development. With the development of biofuels technology, an
increased output of biofuels at lower production costs results. This allows crop producers and
biofuels producers to fulfil their duties of increasing revenue from biofuels production. At the
same time, the public enjoys greater access to such an energy source at lower prices, hence
satisfying their rights to energy and ultimately their survival. On the whole, governments will
also be able to fulfil their duties towards the country’s economy and the public’s welfare due
to the increased output for more profitable biofuels.
However, with the endangerment of the development of other renewable and more efficient
energy sources, certain rights and duties may also be violated. For example, the public’s
rights to more efficient energy sources is partly violated. With the development of more
efficient renewable technologies hindered, the public would not get to enjoy potential cost
savings which may be greater in magnitude when compared to biofuels. This hence violates
rights ethics. Also, the duty of non-biofuels energy producers (e.g. Fossil fuels producers and
other renewable energy producers) of retaining market share is also violated, since biofuels
producers now compete with them in meeting the world’s energy needs.
Utilitarianism On the whole, an analysis of the key technical events with the act-utilitarianism frameworks
leads to satisfactory conclusions, for the most number of stakeholders will be able to gain
maximal utility. Biofuel producers and crop producers stand to benefit from improved
production methods, resulting in cost reductions and increased output. Consumers also stand
to benefit from cost savings. Governments, as a natural consequence, will reap economic
benefits and increased societal welfare. However, fossil fuel producers and other more
!12EG2401 REPORT
efficient renewable energy producers may stand to lose out due to competition from biofuels,
resulting in a net loss of efficient production and lost opportunities to exploit more clean
technologies.
Nonetheless, the acceleration of biofuels production, considered from technical aspect,
remains beneficial on the whole. This is because the acceleration is not a mere increase in
production - it is more importantly an increase in the support given to technological
development. In the long run, this will strengthen the viability of biofuels as an energy
source, and hence outweigh any costs that may arise from a drop in production of other fuels.
Environmental The acceleration of biofuels development will undoubtedly result in environmental
implications. Firstly, a major issue to consider is the true extent of carbon emissions that
result from both the production and consumption of biofuels. While LCAs have shown that
the consumption of biofuels are able to reduce carbon emissions (Refer to footnotes 2 &3),
the emissions from the production process must be considered as well. For example,
significant increases in carbon emissions result from indirect land use changes, or the
conversion of plant lands to agricultural lands for biofuels production. Studies conducted at
Princeton University have indicated that changes in land use in the production of corn ethanol
have resulted in a 93% increase in carbon emissions as compared to gasoline production. As 36
such, the existence of these contrasting factors complicate the determination of carbon
emissions from the acceleration of biofuels development, and it would be unwise to
immediately deem such an acceleration as beneficial to mankind.
Secondly, the acceleration of biofuels development would result in a loss of valuable
biodiversity. This is because the production of the agricultural crops used for biofuels
synthesis involves the conversion of natural plant lands to agricultural lands. Furthermore,
studies have shown that biofuel plantations are usually ‘intensively managed monocultures’
that support a limited diversity of plants and forest species. The losses from a limited 37
diversity are twofold - one would be the loss of the intrinsic benefits of biodiversity, and
another would be the loss of ecological function and capability. With reference to footnote
13, a limited range of crops would have lowered resilience to dangers such as blight.
!13EG2401 REPORT
Thirdly, an acceleration of biofuels development would result in an increase in novel
pollutants that are unregulated in current emissions laws. With reference to footnote 14, the
burning of biofuels such as biodiesels produces toxic organic compounds that cause
irreversible harm to the human body. Furthermore, other comparative studies have shown that
the burning of biofuels, on the whole, results in increased organic carbonyl compound
emissions - non-regulated compounds that pollute the air. 38
Lastly, accelerated biofuels development also entails the increased production and usage of a
sustainable source of energy. This means that biofuels can be used "without compromising
the energy needs of future generations.” Unlike fossil fuels, the supply of biofuels will not 39
dwindle, for it can be replenished through the growth of crops, and its supply will hence be
able to keep up with the growing global demand for energy.
Duty & Rights Ethics An analysis of the key environmental implications with duty ethics and rights ethics
frameworks presents largely negative conclusions. Firstly, with the conversion of natural
plant lands to agricultural lands, the public’s rights to intrinsically valuable biodiversity and a
healthy ecosystem are being violated. Secondly, with the emission of unregulated and
polluting organic compounds, the public’s right to healthy air as well as the government’s
duty to uphold public health are being violated. Needless to say, both of these negative
environmental implications would violate the duty of environmental activists - to preserve the
integrity of the environment.
However, the increased production and usage of a sustainable source of energy would help to
fulfil the public’s right to sustainable energy for generations to come, given that fossil fuels
are a finite source of energy. Furthermore, if the acceleration of biofuels does result in an
overall reduction of carbon emissions, then mankind’s (Both the public and the governments)
duty to protect the environment would be fulfilled, and its right to a more sustainable
environment would also be upheld.
Utilitarianism Using the act-utilitarianism framework, we have concluded from the environmental point of
view that an acceleration of biofuels would be ethically undesirable. This is because the
overall utility gained by the various stakeholders is minimal. On the one hand, there exists
!14EG2401 REPORT
utility to be gained from such an acceleration, such as the development of a sustainable
source of energy for generations to come, and the prospect of reducing carbon emissions. On
the other hand however, there exists irreconcilable losses of biodiversity and health.
Furthermore, the utility to be gained from the acceleration of biofuels development is not
guaranteed, as evidenced by the uncertainty surrounding the carbon emissions that arise from
both the consumption and production of biofuels. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded
that the utility gained from the acceleration of biofuels is minimal, and such an acceleration,
when considered from the environmental perspective, would be not justified.
Conclusion Many ethical issues in the “food versus fuel” debate have been analysed through different
aspects in this paper. Proponents of biofuels production might push for the acceleration of
production from the economic and technical perspectives. After all, the economic gains from
biofuel production benefits more parties in the long run, and the steady increase in support
for developing biofuels technology will serve to improve its viability in the long run.
However, the main issue that pertains to accelerating biofuel production is the competition
for agricultural resources between biofuels and food. Opponents of biofuels production
would therefore argue chiefly from the societal perspective, for an acceleration in biofuels
production would result in lesser food for people and lead to deaths around the world,
especially in developing countries. Furthermore, these opponents can also argue from an
environmental perspective, because an acceleration of biofuels production would result in
irreconcilable losses in biodiversity and increases in novel pollutants.
Furthermore, we have concluded from our analysis that the duty and rights frameworks
prevent us from taking a reasonably decisive stance on whether the development of biofuels
should be accelerated. While we have established that duty and rights ethics are largely
satisfied for some of the stakeholders discussed, we cannot say the same for other
stakeholders, especially when it comes to the developing countries.
Using act-utilitarianism as a fundamental framework for our analysis, we concluded that
there are much benefits to be gained by most parties as well. However, one irreconcilable
issue is the deaths incurred in the developing countries from an acceleration of biofuels
producdtion. From the standpoint of utilitarianism, which aims for the most good for the most
!15EG2401 REPORT
people, accelerating biofuels production certainly does not bring about the most good when
lives are lost. Furthermore, we are unable to put a value to the lives lost and should also
refrain from doing so, as the human life should be treated with sanctity. Hence, despite the
purported benefits of biofuels, it is simply not the best option due to the loss of lives.
Hence, our paper does not recommend the acceleration of biofuels development. At this
juncture, we will provide recommendations and alternatives that may better address the issues
raised earlier on in this report.
Recommendations & Improvements To the best of our knowledge and ability, we will suggest possible recommendations that
could be implemented to mitigate some of the ethical issues raised. Firstly, in order to tackle
rising food prices, governments, particularly those in developing countries, could provide
subsidies for basic food supplies for their citizens, especially for those with lower income.
These subsidies could be given directly in the form of vouchers, allowing them to sustain and
feed themselves despite the increased food prices. However, this is likely to incur high costs
for developing countries, and will also distort the market for food.
Secondly, governments can also implement regulation on land usage to ensure an adequate
supply of crops for food. Regulations can be set to dictate the total land area used for crops
for biofuels production. These regulations will serve to mitigate food shortages in developing
countries by ensuring a controlled supply of food.
Furthermore, regulations on total land area can mitigate environmental issues by decreasing
deforestation, reducing the loss of carbon sinks and maintaining the biodiversity of the land.
However, there may be a shortage of food supply as land area for biofuels crops is now
restricted. Furthermore, there exists a potential loss of revenue for the governments with the
imposition of such regulations, which might be a larger concern for developing countries too.
Alternative Solutions Besides trying to solve the ethical issues through the aforementioned recommendations,
alternative energy sources can also be adopted to alleviate the rising demand for energy. One
such method is the acceleration of biofuel using non-agricultural crops, such as Jatropha
curcas or algae. Research is currently being done to produce biofuel from such crops , and 40
could prove to be a more viable raw material as compared to agricultural crops. For instance,
!16EG2401 REPORT
Jatropha can survive in arid and semi-arid conditions. More importantly, it is “not a food
source (,) and (also) adapts well in degraded soil” As such, it would not compete for 41
agricultural land space, and also help to preserve food supply. Furthermore, prices of food
will not be affected as demand for food will not increase due to an increased demand for
biofuel crops. Jatropha would thus resolve the ethical issue of citizens not being able to afford
food at increased prices. However, this solution may also bring about environmental ethical
issues, such as loss of biodiversity, if this crop is produced commercially on a large scale.
Furthermore, it would still produce toxic emissions from organic compounds, which may still
lead to environmental pollution issues as well.
Other alternative sources of renewable energy can also be used to both meet increasing
energy demands and circumvent the “food versus fuel” debate. For instance, solar and wind
energy are renewable sources of energy, and can be harvested at areas that are unsuitable for
farming, such as the mountainsides and the ocean. These alternative renewable sources of
energy hence do not take up any land for agricultural crops. Furthermore, studies have shown
that photovoltaic solar cells are more energy efficient as compared to biofuels . However, 42
the use of such alternative renewable technologies brings about different ethical issues, such
as the disturbance of natural landscapes, as well as the high opportunity cost of producing
such cells and structures at this point of time.
Afterword All of the suggested alternatives and recommendations may mitigate some of the ethical
issues raised from the acceleration of biofuels development, but raise other issues as well.
Currently, given the prevailing level of technology, there may not exist an ideal solution that
sufficiently overcomes both problems of food and energy demand. As such, a balance needs
to be struck between both extremes in order to reap benefits from all perspectives of the
problem and to minimise the various ethical issues to achieve the greatest utility for society.
!17EG2401 REPORT
References
!18EG2401 REPORT
Sullivan, Arthur; Steven M. Sheffrin (2003). Economics: Principles in Action. Upper Saddle 1
River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 471.
Wang, Michael. "Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results of Fuel 2
Ethanol" (PDF). Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved
October 19 2014, from http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/375.pdf
Isaias, M. et. al. (2004). "Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in the production and use 3
of fuel ethanol in Brazil" (PDF). Secretariat of the Environment, Government of the State of
São Paulo. Retrieved October 19 2014, from http://www.eners.ch/plateforme/medias/
macedo_2004.pdf
Sheehan, J. et. al. (May 1998). Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel 4
(PDF). Golden, Colorado 80401-3393: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/
SR-580-24089. Retrieved October 19 2014, from www.biodiesel.org/resources/
reportsdatabase/reports/gen/19980501_gen-339.pdf
Lang, Susan S. (2005), “Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel 5
from corn and other crops is not worth the energy”, Cornell Chronicles. Retrieved October
20, 2014, from http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/07/ethanol-biodiesel-corn-and-
other-crops-not-worth-energy
National Research Council. 2011. Committee on Economic and Environmental Impacts of 6
Increasing Biofuels Production. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and
Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Huang, H., M. Khanna, H. Onal, and X. Chen. 2013. “Stacking low carbon policies on the 7
renewable fuels standard: Economic and greenhouse gas implications.” Energy Policy 56
(May 2013): 5-15.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) 8
Regulatory Impact Analysis. Retrieved October 19 2014, from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf (PDF)
Binswanger, H. P., & Deininger, K. (1997). Explaining agricultural and agrarian policies in 9
developing countries. Journal of Economic Literature, 1958-2005.
Goklany, I. M. (2011). Could biofuel policies increase death and disease in developing 10
countries. Journal of American physicians and surgeons, 16(1), 9-13.
León-Moreta, M. (2011). Biofuels-A Threat to the Environment and Human Rights? An 11
Analysis of the impact of the production of feedstock for agrofuels on the rights to water,
land and food. Retrieved October 19 2014, from http://www.ejls.eu/8/102UK.pdf
Refer to footnote 512
Biodiesel Blends. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2014, from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/13
fuels/biodiesel_blends.html
U.S. Department of Energy. (2012). "Obama Administration Announces New Investments 14
to Advance Biofuels Industry and Enhance America’s Energy Security". Retrieved 21
October 2014, from: http://energy.gov/articles/obama-administration-announces-new-
investments-advance-biofuels-industry-and-enhance.
Ehrlich, P. and Ehrlich, A. (1981) Extinction, Random House, New York15
Divan, D. and Kreikebaum, F., "Organic (But not Green)", 2009 November, IEEE 16
Spectrum, v. 46, no. 11, North American, pp. 49-53
Krahl, J. et. al. (1996). Survey about biodiesel exhaust emissions and their environmental 17
effects. In Proceedings of the Third Liquid Fuel Conference: Liquid Fuel and Industrial
Products from Renewable Resources (pp. 136-148).
Alexander, C., & Hurt, C. (2007). Biofuels and their impact on food prices. Purdue 18
University Cooperative Extension Service.
Greene, N., & Mugica, Y. (2005). Bringing biofuels to the pump, an aggressive plan for 19
ending America’s oil dependence. NRDC report, July.
Dufey, A. (2006). Biofuels production, trade and sustainable development: emerging issues 20
(No. 2). IIED.
United Nationals Population Fund. “Linking Population, Poverty and Development. 21
Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://www.unfpa.org/pds/trends.htm
Annual income spent on food, malnutrition data. http://wsm.wsu.edu/researcher/22
wsmaug11_billions.pdf
Refer to footnote 2023
Quandl. "Agricultural share of GDP by Country". Retrieved October 21, 2014, from https://24
www.quandl.com/c/economics/agriculture-share-of-gdp-by-country
Refer to footnote 1925
Skye, J. (n.d.). "Advantages and Disadvantages of Biofuels”. Retrieved October 21 2014, 26
from: http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Advantages_and_Disadvantages_of_Biofuels.
EG2401 REPORT !19
Refer to footnote 2227
Refer to footnote 1028
Refer to footnote 1129
Refer to footnote 1130
Refer to footnote 2031
Lefton, R., & Weiss, D. (2010). Oil dependence is a dangerous habit. Center for American 32
Progress, January, 13.
Refer to footnote 1433
Refer to footnote 2034
Geyer, R., Stoms, D., & Kallaos, J. (2013). Spatially-explicit life cycle assessment of sun-35
to-wheels transportation pathways in the US. Environmental science & technology, 47(2),
1170-1176.
Searchinger, T. et. al. (2008). "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse 36
Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change". Science 319 (5867): 1238–1240.
Retrieved October 19 2014.
Campell, Alison & Doswald, Nathalie (2009). “The Impacts of Biofuel Production on 37
Biodiversity: A Review of the Current Literature” pp. 4-17
He, C. et. al. Comparison of Carbonyl Compounds Emissions from Diesel Engine Fueled 38
with Biodiesel and Diesel. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 3657-3661
Energy Futures Lab, Imperial College London. (n.d.) "Sustainable energy”. Retrieved 21 39
October 2014, from: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/energyfutureslab/about/sustainableenergy.
Hou, J., Zhang, P., Yuan, X., & Zheng, Y. (2011). Life cycle assessment of biodiesel from 40
soybean, jatropha and microalgae in China conditions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 15(9), 5081-5091
Seow, E. (2010, September 1). Jatropha: A new form of energy. Today, pp. B5.41
Hill, J. (2013, January 18). Are Photovoltaics Or Biofuels Better At Energy Conversion? 42
Retrieved October 26, 2014, from http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/18/are-photovoltaics-or-
biofuels-better-at-energy-conversion
EG2401 REPORT !20
top related