As long as the world is getting 3% (and growing) of its liquid transportation fuels from agriculture (which requires ~20% (and growing) of the world's food), then there will be more and more demand for agricultural lands... Whether those lands grow food or fuels is immaterial, since both agriculture and food are fungible commodities - therefore if one person grows food, another can sell his food to fuels refineries, or vice-versa.

As long as we continue to need more fuel than is provided through petrofuels, then the problem will worsen.

Until then, there is a strong financial incentive for the Brazillian government to look the other way, and a strong financial incentive for the people to burn down more forestland and plant more farmland... because food is still expensive, and will only become more so as more and more food is converted into fuel.

World Bank estimates that by 2050 the world demand for food will be twice what it is today...
Where will that food come from? One option is to increase the yields of the acres currently being planted: The other option is to plant twice as many acres.

I consider this a blatant challenge to those misguided environmentalists that are obsessed with "organic" foods. Your choice of food requires more land, which means more forests will get cut down, because with a fungible commodity that's how the world works. Of course, those who eat beef and pork instead of chicken and fish (I'm not cruel enough to suggest eating bugs, and I certainly wouldn't suggest eating tofu - ugh) also require more farmland, and most people have figured out that biofuels are VERY VERY bad for the planet... but most environmentalists know about these... yet many actively fight for something that also bad for the planet, in the name of environmentalism...

Something, I hope, for people to think about.

,,,so that other land can be left alone.

Why not hydrogen? Use nuclear plants to generate electricity, electrolysis to make hydrogen, and burn the hydrogen in our cars making water as an end product.

No carbon, no mess, no fuss.

It still costs ~$300,000 to make a hydrogen car. That's with a production line for most of the components, and an efficient assembly line.

These cars have low power compared to the average fuel-burning car, and typically only last ~80,000 miles.

Hydrogen pumps work out to several million dollars a pop, and hydrogen is impossibly difficult to ship. We buy it (for lab purposes), and it's delivered cost is over 100 dollars/kg (a kg of hydrogen has slightly less energy than a gallon of gas)... So the only way that it would work is if the filling stations each had massive electrolyzers and HVDC power lines running to them... adding several million dollars for every hydrogen pump you choose to install (this is cheaper than other options).

Note that Iceland was the country that invested the highest percentage of its money into hydrogen - it went bankrupt... California was the state that invested the highest percentage of its money into hydrogen... It had to be bailed out several times, and is facing bankrupcy.

Hydrogen technology is simply not competitive... but it's mainly the cost of the car, and the difficulty of distributing the hydrogen that are the major problems.

We're proposing to combine electrolyzed hydrogen (using off-peak wind and nuclear energy) with CO2 to essentially recycle that CO2 back into liquid fuels...

www.WindFuels.com

It gives you the same benefit of using carbon-neutral energy to produce fuels, but you can actually distribute the fuels, and you don't need a half-million dollar car.

:)

Look us over. (note we're at the development stage and looking for an investor... I'm not trying to sell you anything).

I agree with you on the fact that the biofuels movement is very, very dangerous. Mixing the food market and the (non-people) fuel market shouldn't be done lightly.

I disagree, though, that land is completely fungible. You can't grow everything everywhere. Also, you hinted at this, but I would just have to roll my eyes at anyone who still eats beef and complains that organic spinach is taking up too much space to grow. :D

PS I love tofu!

We also agree that some meats are pretty bad for the environment (though farmed tilapia is the most environmentally sound food that exists - far better for the environment than any plant grown food... and most fish and foul have similar environmental impacts to that seen by tofu.)

But most beef-eaters are aware that their choice is more harmful to the environment than other choices might be... and they don't care. The challenge is getting them TO care.

But with the organics crowd... they care, but they not only practice food choices that are worse for the environment - but they seek to ban practices that are better for the environment. The beef-eater isn't trying to bludgeon me to eat more beef... He's just having a burger. The organic foods people are trying to force people - through persuasion and through lobbying - to shift most or all of their consumption to organic foods... If they ever succeeded, it would do FAR more damage than a small increase in beef consumption.

So that's the issue for me... one person is making a choice for himself to do something bad for the planet, while another person is trying to force everyone to make a complete switch to a constant choice that is bad for the planet... Those people will do more damage.

Now the person who simply likes the tase of organic veggies better and chooses them for herself, and lets others make their own choices... That person is doing far less damage than the beef eater... and the person who has a garden and grows his/her OWN vegetables, that person is doing the least damage overall (at least in terms of food consumption).

:)

I tend to disagree with Beef being the most damaging, rice is the biggest emitter of methane. I do like organic and the idea of people producing their own food but it is far more inefficient and most people don't have the land available to do that. So while it may be a good thing for people to do it really isn't a realistic option for everyone to do it.

I've never encountered people who've tried to convert others to organic vegetables, but that's probably a function of where I live.

Can you direct me to the studies that compare the land use of organically farmed versus traditionally farmed plant foods? I'd be very interested to read them. I'd like to know exactly how much more land is needed for organic farming of various foods.

Also, I think your statement about growing veggies assumes that people are living in an environment (single family home with large enough yard) that allows them to do so. Already these people are making a choice that is not as environmentally friendly as living in closer quarters.

I hate fowl (tastes soooo gross to me!), but I eat fish occasionally.

There's no ready answer for that. But we suburbians should be encouraged to plant small veggie gardens.

*shrug*

As for the productivity/yield of organic vs industrial farming, I suppose there does need to be another DOA study on that. This is a matter that is very well understood by almost all soil scientists and most farmers... but the organics lobbying effort has thrown up a bunch of BS "studies" as smokescreen in the last decade - in their endless attempt to force more organics farming.

So there needs to be something modern that is clear and unbiased, but there is no doubt whatsoever what that unbiased study will find. I know this at least in part because of this (not small) piece of anecdotal evidence: The "Green Revolution".

<link>

:)

It would be nice to know exactly how much of a difference organics make on land-use... but without industrial farming hundreds of millions would have starved to death, which makes me not want to revert away from industrial farming.

I hope no one is actually advocating a return to subsistence agriculture! I don't see an industrial-organic dichotomy, since organic farming has become such a huge industry.

Agricultural productivity is the cornerstone for producing wealth, so you'd think scientists would be all over this issue. Why have you found the studies already done unconvincing?

But there's a lot of crap out there deliberately designed to obfuscate the findings. It's the lack of a credible large-scale study from a non-biased entity that is the issue... since as it stands I can cite studies to back up my claim and some organics advocate can cite "studies" that say that I'm wrong.

A lot of studies concerning this issue take small plot-by-plot comparisons, often specifically controlled by the researcher, rather than industry averages. So an organics study might come out which compares a 100 ha plot of wheat the season after a year of legume nitrogen crops had been grown and plowed into it with a 100 ha plot which didn't actually use the suggested amount of chemical fertilizer or the suggested balance of lime and had been used to grow wheat for the last 10 years with no fallow seasons... And HUZZAH! A shock to all: the organics plot yielded better than the petrochemical plot! WOW!
*sigh*

I'd like a simple survey of U.S. census data, checking the average yield/acre of real organics farms, and comparing that survey with the real world average yield/acre of standard industrial farms.

I don't doubt for an instant what we'll find... but if I was proven wrong I'd concede that I was wrong (I'm not). The problem is that such a study needs time and money, and that's money that the government seems unwilling to spend just now... so google is ruled by complete crap "studies" that are insults to the inteligence of the readers - no matter which side of the debate those readers happen to argue for.

Your last paragraph is provocative.

Your (organic) choice of food requires more land, which means more forests will get cut down, because with a fungible commodity that's how the world works. Of course, those who eat beef and pork instead of chicken and fish (I'm not cruel enough to suggest eating bugs, and I certainly wouldn't suggest eating tofu - ugh) also require more farmland...

Don't organic foods themselves (grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, etc.) requite far less resources (land, water) than meat? Isn't beef eating en masse (cows raised in feedlots) just about the worst food practice? I'm not talking about smaller scale cattle grazing inedible shrubbery and grass. That's what I'd be fulminating against, and not organics or tofu, which in any case constitute a small minority of food eaten by Americans.

I aknowledged that beef was worse than organic food for any individual's consumption choice... but organics advocates are attempting to force all food production to shift to organic farming... while beef eaters are just trying to eat a burger.

One burger would do more damage than three meals worth of organic farming... but advocacy to force all farming to shift to organics would do more damage than literally hundreds of millions of burgers.

:)

Hey, I was away for awhile, but just popping back in to say thanks for your detailed reply. I did read it, even if a bit late.

I just figured you might have been looking for a study that did not actually match my description...

:)

It's kind of neat how this topic dovetailed into the next green lantern article... I might almost suspect that the new guy - Brendan - is actually reading the fray.

:)