Lyseng is a Winnipeg-based reporter for the Western Producer, who writes primarily for the Production/Farming section.
There are many things to consider when we look at converting traditional farmland into biofuel land, either ethanol or biodiesel.
Some factors are purely practical or economic. Others are more philosophical or perhaps even religious in nature.
Add in the probability that a positive point for one person may be a negative for another.
Rather than try to qualify the factors, let’s briefly list some of them in random order, not to draw conclusions, but rather for something to think about.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Do we need another 9/11 disaster or another group plotting to blow up downtown Toronto? Islamic fundamentalists say their Holy War will continue to expand for as long as the Western world tries to dominate their lands and exploit their petroleum resources.
A common North American response has been to advocate full energy self-reliance so we can, in fact, put a halt to our relationship with that part of the world. Biofuel plays a big role in this move.
But what about the morality of converting food crops into energy crops when a hungry world continues to cry out for help? If the morality aspect isn’t of concern, then consider the impact on the Western world when Third World populations read the message as saying we have abandoned them in favour of our own fuel needs. Does this prompt a fresh wave of terrorism?
According to a diversification specialist with Manitoba Agriculture, “the only reason we are seeing increased interest in biofuels now is because the petroleum sources have become so expensive and the value of our crops have diminished. If wheat and canola prices were at the levels we like them to be, it would be unlikely that converting them to fuel would be profitable.”
A Saskatchewan farmer asks, “at what point do wheat stocks become so low that prices take off? Five dollar wheat on the Kansas City exchange is nice, but what happens to all those new biofuel facilities if wheat stocks drop further so wheat settles long-term at $7.50 and canola settles at $10?”
A mere 70 years ago, farmers grew all their own fuel in the form of oats and hay. Is a switch to ethanol and biodiesel really any different?
Perhaps we have allowed ourselves to become overly dependent on the cash we get from exports. Maybe biofuel would pull us into a modern day cottage industry that is more sustainable in the long run.
The cost of producing a barrel of oil remains basically the same from year to year, whether it sells for $40 or $80. The higher price obviously means higher profits. If biofuel ever became established to the extent that grain and canola prices followed crude instead of ag commodity prices, it would mean that higher per barrel crude prices would benefit farmers instead of hurting them.
Not many farmers would complain about that scenario.
Although the major petroleum companies buy millions of dollars of advertising to proclaim their support for green energy, the fact is that they have a massive vested interest in the crude oil exploration, extraction and marketing systems in place today. It would not surprise farmers to see these companies ultimately try to thwart biofuel efforts.
All scientists seem to agree with the idea that some sort of global warming is taking place, but the degree of that threat is still open to debate. If we believe the crisis is real, then moral, economic and environmental factors drive us toward biofuel.
However, not everyone is convinced that global warming is the great threat David Suzuki says it is.
On the open prairies, with a shrinking rural population and a constant wind, is a cleaner burning tractor fuel even a valid concern?
Regardless of how real the global warming problem may be, the fact is that the Canadian government has signed Kyoto and we are now in search of cleaner fuel.
As a society, we advocate smart cars, hybrid cars and fuel efficient compacts as symbols of how strongly we embrace the green scene. Yet, at the same time, we systematically force more petroleum-fueled semi-trucks onto our roads as we ignore the continued demise of the more fuel-efficient rail system.
Tokenism rears its ugly head in other ways. We take the bus or ride bicycles and 50cc scooters, yet as a society we defend commercial air travel as a God-given right. We carefully ignore the fact that a jet airliner is the most fuel-consuming method of moving people and product.
So, how serious are we really about a greener environment? Serious enough to cut air travel and air transport by 50 or 60 percent?
