Food vs Fuel: Are biofuels moral or immoral?

April 6, 2011 |

The Food-n-Fuel in Sioux Falls, South Dakota

The public says “depends on the feedstock,” but generally more moral than converting land for oil & gas or housing. An in-depth Digest survey looks at a wide variety of cases.

In Florida, respondents to a Biofuels Digest survey concluded that the morality or immorality of “food versus fuel” depends entirely on the feedstock, with 45 percent describing conversion of “land that is used for conservation purposes, or as national park or forest preserve, to energy or fuel production” as “immoral”.

Respondents get behind biofuels made from wastes, residues, idle land or the oceans.

Less than 1 percent agreed that it was “immoral” to produce energy or fuel from waste fats, oil or greases, municipal solid waste, agricultural wastes, forest residues collected at the sawmill, or idle land not suitable for growing food or feed crops.

Biofuels Digest survey respondents were slightly more uneasy about the production of energy or fuel “from forest residues collected in the forest – dead trees, fallen logs, fallen leaves and branches, or trimmings and thinnings,” with 5 percent describing it as an immoral practice. Three percent said it was immoral to use desert or salt-intruded land. Four percent described the production of fuel from algae or wood as immoral.

Six percent said it was immoral to convert land that could be used for food or feed crops, but was fallow. Seven percent said it was immoral to use a food crop to make energy or fuel, if a surplus was available,. Eight percent said it was immoral to use the oceans to produce energy or fuel.

Uneasiness about utilizing land currently in food or feed production

Respondents were significantly more uneasy about other cases. 12 percent said it was immoral “to use crops that are generally used for animal feed to make energy or fuel”. Fifteen percent said it was immoral “to use a (human) food crop at any time to make energy or fuel,” while 24 percent said it was immoral “to convert land that IS used for growing (human) food crops to the production of energy or fuel.”

Opposition to utilizing land used for conservation purposes, for biofuels, oil & gas production, and especially housing

One biofuels case deeply troubled respondents. 45 percent said that it was immoral ” to convert land that is used for conservation purposes, or as national park or forest preserve, to energy or fuel production.” 47 percent said that this case was immoral if the target were oil & gas production.

Respondents were not enthused about “drill, baby, drill,” with 25 percent of respondents indicating it was immoral “to convert land that could be used for (human) food production to oil & gas production”. Shale gas deposits fall into this range in many cases.

Respondents saved their contempt, generally, for land use for real estate development purposes. 29 percent said it was immoral “to convert land that could be used for (human) food production to real estate development – e.g. shopping malls, housing developments,” while 65 percent said it was immoral “convert land that is used for conservation purposes, or as national park or forest preserve, to real estate development.”

The Digest’s Take

The public hath spoken, and where biofuels supporters and opponents see black and white, the public sees shades of gray.

We note that the public is unsure over the issue of utilizing idle land. When asked if fallow or useless land could be used, they were broadly supportive. When asked if land used for conservation purposes could be used, they were far more unhappy. It appears that the concept of carbon conservation does not yet resonate with the public – if the conservation purpose is broader, for example, national parks, there is broader support.

We also note the broader support for utilizing land for biofuels than for housing or oil & gas exploration. Not to say that there is hostility to drilling – just a greater degree of unhappiness. Also, we saw some uneasiness over the combustion of wood for biofuels. Respondents are broadly more comfortable with the concept of using crops than trees. Something the industry needs to be aware of.

Note that, in this survey, we did not look at the economic arguments, but rather the social aspects, the morality of food vs fuel. The economics, we hope, will shake themselves out, though we did not ask about the use of subsidies, incentives, tariffs, mandates and other policy supports, in the context of the survey.

2700 individual comments from respondents

One final note. We were astonished by the number of individual comments offered by respondents, more than 2700 in all, that added fascinating color to their answers. Although we have hidden the identity of respondents for privacy purposes, we have made all comments available as a part of the overall survey results publication.

Survey distribution

The survey was distributed to Biofuels Digest readers via a note and link in the Digest newsletter. The link was also circulated to biofuels campaign coordinators and analysts at  the National Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth and the Environmental Working Group with a request to distribute the survey link to interested parties.  In distributing the link, the Digest wrote that it was “hopeful that this reaches beyond an audience of biofuels supporters; it’s an issue that requires a view from a broader set of stakeholders”.

Complete Results

Survey results can be viewed online here (does not include comments).

Or, downloaded (with all comments) here.

Category: Fuels

Thank you for visting the Digest.