Biofuels

This post is a response to the following readings: 

Are biofuels pro-poor? Assessing the evidence

Prospects of biodiesel from Jatropha in Malaysia

The readings seem to be skeptical about the sustainability of biofuels as an alternative source of energy. For instance, the conclusion of the article talking about Japtropha in Malaysia mentioned “Japtropha is claimed: not to compete with food…” and the article about biofuels being anti-poor even stated that biofuel policies is ‘a crime against humanity’

The idea of biofuels being carbon neutral, being a renewable source of energy, even its name make it seem like a promising solution to energy security issues in the light of climate problems we are facing today.

However biofuels cause problems such as food security (first generation biofuels) and worsening of environmental problems (second generation biofuels) which are difficult to address. Thus the question is: Is this trade-off worth it?

If we take this question to a global scale where fossil fuels are depleting rapidly, the trade-off would be worth it as food security is not undermined. Moreover, biofuels are relatively more environmentally-friendly compared to fossil fuels. Today, we produce more than enough food for everyone in the world – the problems lies in food distribution. Hence, allocating some food crops to biofuels can in fact reduce food wastage. I admit this is a very naïve idea but I believe if detailed analysis was done and policies are put in place, there will be minimal price spikes in the agricultural markets. Idealistically, an effective system that collects wasted food to be used as biofuels would make the world go round.

However if we were to take it to a national scale, biofuels may not be the answer to countries with poor food security and limited arable land. Nations that lack food security usually are underdeveloped (and are reliant on primary sectors) hence may be more encouraged to dive into this new prospective market without proper policies in place to ensure food security and minimize environmental degradation.

Even with sound policies in place, there are still risks in biofuels investments as these biofuels would mainly be exported out for energy consumption in developed countries, who are pumping capital to fund research efforts to deal with the energy crisis. Technology such as fracking or third generation biofuels could be seen as a better alternative to the conventional biofuels which have a shorter lifespan.

Biofuels has been around for a long time and yet it has never gained popularity. Albeit there has been technological improvements (second generation and the upcoming third generation), biofuels are still not as sustainable as it claims to be and it is closely linked to food markets, which is an important yet volatile market by nature. Hence, biofuels should not be the answer to our impending energy crisis as there are many other alternatives we can turn to. 

Are obese people causing environmental problems?

Agricultural activities are major drivers of climate change. For instance, The U.S. food system contributes nearly 20 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions. Usage of fertilisers and pesticides releases pollutants and greenhouse gases into the environment. Not forgetting the costs of food distribution.

The idea that over-consumption of food is causing environmental problems seems like a legitimate one. Since people consume more food, more are produced to satisfy their demands hence obese people generally will have a larger footprint. Especially since population in increasing exponentially, over-consumption of food would be major problem of tomorrow even if it is not today.

However we can argue that it is over-production of food that caused environmental problems – not consumption. Since food is a basic necessity, nations would like to be self-sufficient instead of importing food from other nations. In the world where free trade is encouraged, governments have to take protectionist measures in the forms of subsidies, food storage for surpluses, etc. to ensure that food products produced by their nation remains competitive in the global market. As such, the ‘invisible hand’ will no longer be able to work its magic, resulting in too many producers in the market, contributing to the problem of food wastage. A report estimated that a third of food produced in the world is never consumed, and these unconsumed food results in an array of other environmental issues.

With the noble notion of solving world hunger, many different food product markets such as GMOs have been introduced due to technological innovation. Food industries are more productive than before, yet world hunger persists due to unequal distribution of food resources. Are technology introduced for the sake of using technological production methods? Or is it simply a ploy of the large firms. For instance, Golden rice is pegged as a solution for Vitamin A deficiency. However, there are many other sources of vitamin A such as sweet potatoes, which delivers around 150% more tonnes of food per hectare than Golden rice and 15 times the beta carotene of the best performing Golden rice variety. Some markets in agriculture exists as large firms manipulate poor farmers to continuously purchase seeds that are unable to reproduce. Usage of pesticides and fertilisers have improved food crops in terms of quality and quantity but has adverse effects on the environment and human health. Simply put, why would you consume something even pests are avoiding? What are the chemicals they put in the pesticides that deters pests and most importantly, how are these chemicals affecting our body? The answers to this question could become an industrial secret, or are unfound. Yet our farmers are using these products as there are insufficient scientific proof that these products are harmful (or rather there is not much funding given to such research).

In general, the markets in agriculture have failed, and are not operating at which the ‘invisible hand’ would guide them to. Paradoxically, it is not due to increased demand for food products, but increased supply driven by rich firms and even the governments. 

Is capitalism the answer to ENV problems?

Why are people so alienated from nature today? We attain food from food kiosks instead of plucking berries from bushes; we attain potable water from taps instead of rivers; our roads are tarred instead of grassy greens or mud. Today, nature and the society we live in seems to be mutually exclusive.

Majority of us city dwellers forget the fact that everything we have in our lives today is a result of a forced sacrifice by nature. For instance, printing an article. Where did the paper come from? How much electricity is consumed to print it? How is electricity generated? What are the components of the printer? What materials were used to make them? How were the materials obtained? My point is, people are not unaware that we are stripping earth’s natural resources to support our daily activities.

In the past, when humans were still one with the nature, mankind depended on nature for basic survival. Today we depend on nature not for basic survival, but for greater comforts which un-coincidentally shares a positive relationship with economic development. We overconsume finite resources like fossil fuels and metals which had no economic value in the prehistoric age, in turn resulting in adverse effects on the environment which never was an issue before the age of humans.

We know the problems, yet we still continue with our lives the way it is as we have a more pressing need for profits than saving the earth. Due to capitalism, people (hence the government) are more obsessed with making money and profits gained precedence over other aspects of life, including the environment. “The point is that environmental pollution is driven by economic necessity under capitalism. Within the existing political-economic context, drastically decreasing pollution can only be brought about by economic recession.”[1]

Is capitalism really such a horrendous system?
Are capitalistic methods such as carbon credits be a solution from a problem that stems from capitalism? 

Being capitalistic involves being self-interested, hence we tend to prioritise, even our values and principles against societal ones. Even though I am not pro-capitalist, I have to admit this system is rather effective. The competitive nature of this system is what brought about the Anthropocene, where many innovative technological advancements surfaced and mankind have achieved many milestones. The environment may have been neglected, or even alienated as a result of our greed. Nevertheless, firms down the supply chain will still have to address environmental issues eventually as we are never really alienated from the nature as resources for human activity stems from nature. Or simply because as people get richer they demand for a clean (and probably green) environment. Since capitalism manipulates the idea of self-interest, there will always be a place for the environment in capitalism as a person’s environment is always part of their self-interest. It may seem otherwise today as the environmental problems are either not close to us, or are still tolerable. In time to come, these problems would be impossible to ignore and capitalism would work its magic. However, will it be too late? And, will the poor be saved from the pending catastrophe?

---

[1] Adapted from Global Political Ecology by Richard Peet, Paul Robbins and Michael Watts

Private sector and community working hand in hand?

I have to make it known that some of my posts, including this post are adopted from my free response writing essays for another module, Green Capitalism.

This post is a response to this article: Renewing the Penobscot

Summary of the Article:
There are many damns built along the river in Penobscot, which resulted in a series of social and environmental problems, upsetting different parties including the locals and environmentalists. Then come along this guy named Scott who managed to bridge the gap between the hydroelectric company and the community.

Scott's story in Penobscot was a beautiful one. It shows that people with different interests can actually come together to help resolve socio-environmental issues proving positive changes possible - as long as the people are determined to make it work. In this case, asking a hydroelectric company to shut down her dam seems like an impossible idea. Yet the team managed to come to a consensus that the dam is to be removed, and the firm was agreeable as there were series of modest energy enhancements to sustain the firm’s generating capacity. It was a beautiful story with a great outcome in which all stakeholders benefitted eventually.

Yet the undeniable truth is that these are anomalies.

As technology advances, mankind are less and less dependent on the natural environment for sustenance. For instance, fossil fuels are finite and decreasing at an appalling rate. Governments are looking for alternatives to provide for energy but are spoilt for choices as there are so many different means of energy generation today. The worry that our future generations will not have sufficient resources can be easily resolved with technological innovation. The bigger issue is, will everyone be able to get access to the technology, or will some be left behind?

The problem lies in the fact that these producers choose to turn a blind eye to the environmental and social consequences and risks associated with these economic activities, which stems from outsourcing. Most developed countries have stringent environmental laws in place, policies to protect the well-being of the people hence it is very troublesome and expensive for production of certain goods in their home countries. This resulted in a shift of pollutive industries to cheaper alternatives with lesser red tape, generating more pollution than before.

The simple underlying problem is that the pollutants are not directly affecting the people running these firms. If the stakeholders of a chemical plant were to live in the vicinity of the plant, the plant is sure to produce minimal polluted air, process its waste properly and ensure that the plant would not blow up. The truth is, these stakeholders are probably across the globe in the comforts of their home, wondering how to further reduce cost of production, especially if outsourced to places with lenient rules and regulations in place. Firms generally are purposefully oblivious to these issues.

Hence I was greatly moved by Penobscot’s success in making things work. Not many firms would be willing to take this step, knowing that there could be economic losses but still invested time and money to hear the community out, and even benefitted from it eventually. Even though it was a small step towards saving the environment, it is a significant one which marks the start of Penobscot’s journey to saving their environment. 

Why Environmental Studies.

Hello!

This is a blog which is an assignment for a freshman girl studying Environmental Studies. Although it is just an assignment I hope to be able to continue updating this blog even after semester ends.

Since I was a little girl, I hardly left the comforts of the city hence I am intrigued by the idea of nature.

I watched National Geographic and Animal Planet instead of Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon. 

Yet I went on to Secondary School and Junior College burying this little interest of mine, and invested time and energy on what seems to be of utmost importance then. Netball and national exams were a huge part of my teenage life. Like almost every teen out there, I had no direction and was just enjoying my life having fun. Parts of me regretted but parts of me did not. 

It was only after A levels then I started to contemplate on what to major in, which career path am I to embark on. That is when I realised I want to stop following the crowd, I want to do something more meaningful and something that I actually am passionate about. I spent a few months looking through courses others recommended. Accountancy for good money, business for a general certificate with many jobs available, law and medicine for good money and prestige, arts and social sciences for a more relaxed uni life, engineering, architecture - the list goes on and on. Yet, I took interest in nothing of the above.  

I was lost and unsure of what to do, until I came across the Environmental Studies brochure online as I was skimming through the list of courses NUS offered. I remembered on the brochure there is a picture of a frog. That is beside the point. The point is, the moment I saw the brochure, I know that is what I want to study and advocate my life to - the environment. Many people were skeptical of my choice. They thought it was impractical and unsuitable for me. Yet I went on with it because, I know this is what I want to do. I may not have much knowledge in me right now, but it will be a different story in the near future. 

It sounds rather childish, the way I picked my choice of study. But I think sometimes you have to listen to your inner voice to lead you on the path you truly are meant to walk.

This blog post marks the start to a very amazing journey ahead. & this blog would be a record of this very amazing journey that I am about to embark on. It will be filled with views, opinions, experiences and whatever seems appropriate. Cheers to accomplishing great work!