By Jennifer Green
Marketed as a solution to environmental degradation and our dependence on peak oil, biofuels once appeared a promising ‘green’, renewable energy source. Research bodies worldwide published data supporting biofuel use, claiming they can reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
As a result, governments have subsidised a biofuel boom, providing tax incentives to drive a global expansion. The aim? To create thousands of jobs and reinvent the economy of the developing world. The Malaysian biofuel industry provides a model illustration of this, employing over 570,000 workers within its palm oil industry and racking up more than £12 billion export earnings last year.
Yet biofuels have become increasingly unpopular; with sceptics blaming the industry for jeopardising, what the Royal Society recently described as “one of this century’s key global challenges,” food security.
A bus that is powered by biofuel
It’s not surprising. Covering an eighth of Malaysia, oil-palm trees are cultivated on over 4.5 million hectares of land. But supply has grown slowly, while demand has soared. The result? A 70 per cent jump in oil prices last year, leaving locals unable to afford oil-based consumables.
The problem is not restricted to Malaysia. Few people dispute there is a global food crisis. In the three decades leading up to 2005, world food prices fell by three-quarters, according to the Economist food prices index. Yet from 2005 it took only three years for prices to rise by 75 per cent, with many crops reaching record highs in 2009.
As a result, violent protests have plagued many developing countries. In 2008, Haiti made headline news after food riots spread across the country. Most Haitians earn no more than $2 a day and struggled to feed themselves as the prices of rice and beans rose by 50 per cent.
And with the added concerns of climate change and a growing global demand for meat and dairy products, economists warn that prices are set to rise further.
As the situation deteriorates, the debate over what role biofuel expansion has played in accelerating price rises has intensified. In July 2009, the World Bank released a report blaming US and EU biofuel policies for causing between 70 and 75 per cent of food price escalation.
“Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate,” the report said.
However a paper titled ‘Evaluating biofuels’ written around the same time by Tim Searchinger, Princeton University’s agricultural specialist, criticised the degree to which biofuels are accused.
“Biofuel critics…have probably exaggerated,” he said. “Crop prices are a small fraction of the retail food prices paid in grocery stores, and an even smaller fraction in restaurants.”
Still, he accepts the increase has had a detrimental impact on developing countries, “particularly on the roughly one billion people who live on $1 per day or less and who are likely to be already chronically malnourished,” he said.
Biofuel demand has rocketed recently, with one third of US maize crops now grown to satisfy it. And this is set to rise further as the Government and transport sectors are pressured to reach ‘green energy’ targets and continue to finance the industry.
However at a ‘Food not Fuel’ demonstration held in London last year, protestors warned that biofuels made from food crops cannot provide a sustainable energy source as the world population grows and requires feeding.
They focused on the recent incorporation of bioenergy into transport sectors such as the aviation industry, deeming it an exploitation of the poor to support rich lifestyles.
“The aviation industry know they have their secret weapon growing somewhere in the poor world and that is biofuels,” says John Stewart, spokesperson for Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise. “Flying is largely a rich person’s game done at the expense of the poor. Land will be taken that is needed for food production in the poor world to grow biofuels.”
However the European Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio) believes sceptics are concentrating on short-term disadvantages. As much of the developing world survives on agriculture, they defend biofuel production by taking into account the potential effects of climate change.
“Global warming could be considered more of a danger than biofuels,” it was stated in a report published by EuropaBio. “The development of biofuels will bring direct opportunities to developing countries because their production will create many local jobs,” it states.
Even though the biggest effects of biofuel expansion are felt in developing countries, the industry has also begun to revolutionise British farming. The National Farmers Union recognised the economic benefit of a UK farmer converting to biofuel production.
“The biofuels market allows farmers the opportunity to add value to crops that would otherwise be exported at minimum price,” they claim. “The additional production of high-protein feed also reduces the need for imports such as soya and maize from USA, Canada, Brazil and others.”
But the benefits of biofuel expansion could be limited to production. Food prices are now fuelling a rise in the average UK family’s shopping bill of £750 a year, taking its toll on low income families.
With an increasing proportion of land allocated to the production of biofuels it is easy to blame the industry for aggravating food insecurity. Yet biofuels have certainly served one purpose by revealing the fragility of our agricultural system.
The sheer number of farmers who have recently abandoned their crops and turned to biofuel production reveals the true extent of an economic hardship that may not have otherwise been exposed for years.
Whether or not biofuels have accelerated a food crisis, they have certainly highlighted the fact there is one. And now the correct treatment must be applied.
The defence of journalism and climate science in 2010
By Aine Gormley
Legal and moral issues on climate science have made a splash in 2010. This week, a leading climate scientist is suing Canada’s National Post for libel. In the UK, a climate scientist recently lodged a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the Sunday Times. The parliamentary inquiry into the behaviour of climate scientists also received ample coverage. But what legal issues surround these cases, particularly in light of the growing campaign for libel reform?
Simon Lewis, a researcher in human-induced climate change at the University of Leeds has filed a 31-page official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).
Lewis complains that an article published in the Sunday Times breaches the PCC Editor Code of Practice Point One, Section i, which states “The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.”
The issue is that, in the article by Jonathan Leake, Lewis’ name was apparently used to back up a claim that the science behind the IPCC report was unsubstantiated where it refers to global warming wiping out 40 per cent of the Amazon Rainforest.
This year's controversy surrounding the IPCC report began in 2009 when email were leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (pictured). Image credit: ChrisO
But Lewis said that this claim in the IPCC report is “basically correct, but poorly written.” Thus he maintains that his name and the science were misrepresented.
After the complaint was filed, the Sunday Times left a voicemail for Lewis stating, “It has been recognised that the story was flawed.”
Lewis says that, “The Sunday Times should simply take the piece down and issue a retraction and apology.”
The paper has, so far, only changed the online article title, from ‘UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim’, to ‘The UN climate panel and the rainforest claim’.
There is no legal obligation to be truthful as long as the reputation of the subject is not adversely affected. So, if the article drove an impression to the readers about Lewis’ integrity, he may have grounds to sue for defamation. But, if the paper could then, for example, prove the statement to be true, it may be covered by the defence of justification.
However, Lewis went to the PCC, not the courts. The PCC does insist on a moral obligation for journalists to be truthful. Thus, possible outcomes of this case are that the PCC will insist the Sunday Times editor take action such as publishing a correction or an apology.
George Monbiot is doubtful of this. “Good luck to Lewis, but as the PCC’s treatment of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal suggests, he’s likely to find himself shut out of another closed world – journalism – in which self-regulation manifestly doesn’t work,” Monbiot said in a recent blog post.
In Canada, Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria, has taken his case to the next level. He is suing the National Post for libel after they refused to remove online articles that will, according to Weaver, “poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming,” he recently told the Guardian.
According to the lawsuit, the articles make defamatory claims because readers are lead to believe that Weaver conceals scientific data and is driven by a corrupt pursuit to gain government funding.
Complaints to publishers, such as those from Lewis, seem to be occurring more often. But Weaver’s case appears to be the first lawsuit to be filed between a climate change scientist and the media. So is it likely to be the first of many?
Like the UK, libel laws in most of Canada are more plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in the US. The New York Times Co v Sullivan (1964) case in the US altered the libel laws so that the publisher was only at fault if false information was published out of malice.
The "McLibel" two were involved in the longest running libel case in UK history. Image credit: Spanner Films
In the UK, a paper can be sued for publishing something even if the public has a right to know. It is only considered in defences such as the Reynolds defence, which originated from the Reynolds v Times Newspapers (1999) case. This allows a series of factors to be considered in defence of the publication, such as the urgency of the matter and the tone of the article.
Another defence that the public’s right to know is considered is in the defence of fair comment. But this can be difficult to prove. Clive Coleman, a BBC legal affairs analyst said, “In defending a libel action the difference between a statement of verifiable fact and one of opinion can be crucial.”
But this month saw a historic ruling from the UK Court of Appeal when it was decided that Simon Singh, who was being sued for libel, had the right to use the defence of fair comment, which the judges clarified as honest opinion.
The charity Sense About Science published this button in support of Simon Singh’s case.
Robert Dougans, Singh’s lawyer, said, “the judgment is clear that not only should the courts be ready to find that a statement is honest opinion, but that scientists should be able to engage in debate and research without facing expensive litigation.”
But Singh was defending his own journalism. Whereas Weaver and Lewis have built a case against the actions of journalists.
Perhaps the contrast between these legal and moral issues in science journalism highlights the need for trained science journalists reporting on scientific issues. Or perhaps they highlight the need for libel reform so that scientists and journalists (and those dabbling in both) are able to act in the public interest.
In the wake of his victory, Singh announced that our politicians must act on libel reform. All three major political parties have now pledged reforms of the libel law in their General Election Manifestos.