Nexus - 1505 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

GLOBAL NEWS WORLD BANK REPORT: BIOFUELS CAUSED FOOD CRISIS B iofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 per cent—far more than previously estimated, according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian, UK. The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally respected economist at the global financial body. The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant- derived fuels contribute less than three per cent to food price rises. It will add to the pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil. Senior sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing US President Bush prior to the G8 meeting. "Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat." Rising food prices have pushed 100 million people worldwide below the poverty line, the World Bank estimates, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers in the UK have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation". President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes this: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases." Even successive droughts in Australia, the report calculates, have had a marginal impact. Instead, it argues that the drive for biofuels by the European Union and the USA has had by far the biggest impact on food supply and prices. Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5 per cent from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10 per cent by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that this will only push food prices higher. "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," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140 per cent between 2002 and February 2008. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15 per cent, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75-per-cent jump over that period. It argues that production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel. Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher. The report points out biofuels derived from sugar cane, which Brazil specialises in, have not had such a dramatic impact. Supporters of biofuels argue that they are a greener alternative to relying on oil and other fossil fuels, but even that claim has been disputed by some experts, who argue that it does not apply to US production of ethanol from plants. (Source: The Guardian, UK, 4 July 2008) abdominal fat, which wraps around internal organs, causes a pot belly and has been linked to an increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This did not happen with the group who consumed glucose instead, even though both gained an average 1.5 kilograms in weight. Those who consumed fructose also had raised levels of fatty triglycerides, which get deposited as intra- abdominal fat, and cholesterol. Their insulin sensitivity also fell by 20%. Glucose appeared to have no effect on these measures. (Source: New Scientist, 26 June 2008, http://tinyurl.com/Sgl9xv) ASTEROID TRACKING CALCULATIONS UNRELIABLE ince Apophis was discovered in 2004, asteroid-watchers have known that it has a slim chance of hitting Earth in 2036. At 270 metres wide, it is too small to rival the object that wiped out the dinosaurs, but it could cause devastating tsunamis were it to hit the ocean. Worrying as this is, we have been able to take comfort in the computed probability of impact, which is just 1 in 45,000. Now it seems the true risk is unclear, thanks to minute effects that the calculations didn't take into account. "You really can't estimate the probability because it's driven by these unknown physical parameters," says Jon Giorgini of the Near-Earth Object Program at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Alan Harris of the Space Science Institute in La Cafiada, California, says that watching Apophis will reveal much about the limitations of our calculations of asteroid motion. He adds that the vast majority of asteroids that could present a risk to Earth have not been seen, and that one of these is much more likely to strike us before 2036. (Source: New Scientist, 9 July 2008, http://tinyurl.com/5059gn) NEXUS ¢ 9 AUGUST — SEPTEMBER 2008 www.nexusmagazine.com