10 | New Scientist | 19 March 2022
THE war in Ukraine has already
caused food prices to shoot up as
global markets anticipate a loss of
wheat and maize exports from one
of the world’s largest producers of
these crops. But Europe and the US
could more than compensate for
the loss of Ukraine’s exports by
diverting crops destined to be
made into biofuels into food
production instead. This would
bring food prices down and help
prevent a major global food shock.
On 9 March, Ukraine banned
most food exports to try to ensure
that its people don’t go hungry as
Russian forces invade.
Food prices were already at the
highest levels for 40 years, says
Matin Qaim at the University of
Bonn in Germany. This is for many
reasons, including poor harvests
because of extreme weather
driven by global warming.
Quickly increasing the global
supply of food crops is difficult.
But a large proportion of food
crops isn’t eaten but converted
to biofuels. Globally, 10 per cent
of all grain is turned into biofuel,
says Qaim.Blended fuel
In the US, a third of the maize
grown is converted into ethanol
and blended into petrol. Around
90 million tonnes is used for
ethanol, nearly double the
50 million tonnes exported by
Ukraine and Russia, says Qaim.
In the European Union, 12
million tonnes of grain, including
wheat and maize, is turned into
ethanol, says Qaim, around 7 per
cent of the bloc’s production.
The EU also produces large
quantities of biodiesel. It turns 3.
million tonnes of palm oil alone
into biodiesel, says Qaim. “That’s
almost the amount of sunflower oil
coming out of Ukraine and Russia.”
Governments have the power tochange this, says Ariel Brunner
at Birdlife International. “Because
the biofuel market is entirely
driven by subsidies, you can
unplug it literally with the stroke
of a pen,” he says.
If the US and Europe were to
decrease their use of ethanol
made from grain by 50 per cent,
they would effectively replace
all of Ukraine’s exports of grain,
Tim Searchinger at Princeton
University has calculated in
response to a question from
New Scientist.
“This is one of the few really
quick things we can do,” says
Brunner. “We are literally
burning a hell of a lot of food.”
One country has already done
just this. On 11 March, the Czech
Republic ended its mandate
requiring ethanol to be blended
with petrol. It did this to reduce
the costs of fuel rather than food,
but Brunner is calling for other
countries to follow suit.
“It absolutely would make
a difference. It would begin torelieve prices immediately,” says
Jason Hill at the University of
Minnesota in St Paul. “It would
also send a signal that can be
acted on immediately by farmers.
Northern hemisphere farmers
are deciding now what to plant.”
The US Environmental
Protection Agency has the power
to waive the requirement to blend
ethanol into fuels, says Hill. “The
EPA could very quickly send a
signal that ethanol is not needed.”
Temporarily halting biofuel
mandates wouldn’t be popular
with farmers. The powerfulagrobusiness lobby in the US
is currently demanding the
opposite, that biofuel production
is increased in response to the
rising oil price, says Hill.
However, only 6 per cent of
fuel sold at petrol pumps in the
US is ethanol, he says, so changing
this either way isn’t going to
have a big effect on global oil
prices. By contrast, it could havea major effect on food prices.
Higher food prices hit those
with the lowest incomes the
hardest, and can contribute to
political unrest such as the 2011
Arab Spring. “Hunger may go
up significantly,” says Qaim.
“It’s profoundly immoral to
try to solve a shortage of energy
by creating a shortage of food,”
says Brunner.
In general, fuel price rises affect
those who can afford to drive cars
and fly, whereas people with
low incomes spend most of their
money on food, he says. “You are
taking food off the table of people
in the slums of Cairo to subsidise
rich people driving SUVs.”
“It’s a question of what you care
about most,” says Searchinger.
Some proponents of bioenergy
have argued that it provides a
buffer that could be removed
during food shortages, he says,
and now is the time to use it.
“Even that signal of increased
availability is going to have a
disproportionately beneficial
effect on prices,” says Hill. “You
are going to reduce the potential
for catastrophically large market
responses.”
Many researchers have long
been calling for a permanent
end to biofuel mandates, because
study after study has shown they
don’t reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by much if at all and
in fact often increase them.
Charities such as Oxfam have
campaigned against biofuels,
saying that by increasing demand
for food crops, they have caused
global food prices to rise, pushing
more people into poverty. Higher
demand has also led to more land
clearance and habitat loss, the
main factor driving the decrease
in biodiversity.
“There’s growing recognition
of the negative repercussions of
using food for fuel,” says Hill. ❚EconomicsANTON^ PET
RU
S/GET
TY
IMAGESHow to ease global food shock
The US and Europe could compensate for the loss of Ukraine’s grain exports
by scrapping biofuel mandates, reports Michael Le PageUkraine is one of
the world’s biggest
producers of wheat10%
The share of the world’s grain
that is used to produce biofuelNews focus Ukraine invasion