!!

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