I am writing in response to the March 12 guest commentary “World’s food supply threatened by biofuel,” submitted by Christopher Calder, University student.
For a critique of “the twisted logic of biofuel advocates,” this particular piece of writing lacked a logical discourse to its various claims. Admittedly, I am not familiar with the larger political discussion over biofuels, but I have seen how the new technology has affected the farm I used to work on. The Hammond Angus Ranch in Northeastern Oregon produces a variety of products ranging from alfalfa and wheat to mint and cows. Several of the claims made in Calder’s commentary contradict heavily with the real life decisions made on this farm.
Readers who have lived on farms or are familiar with how they work will most likely be aware that the U.S. government subsidizes certain crops to ensure that the price remains economically viable for producers. That means in this case that they pay landowners money to let their fields lay fallow (to not grow anything). So there is not a shortage of land on which to grow our food supply, and Calder need not worry. He might also find it interesting that the single largest and most water, chemical and fertilizer-intensive crop in Eastern Oregon is the abundance of green grassy front lawns within city limits. Pound by liter by square foot, farmers use significantly less agricultural materials to grow our food than we do to keep our yards looking presentable.
As the owners of the Hammond Angus Ranch are aware of the raw materials needed to run a farm, they are currently exploring the prospect of producing their own engine-oil and biodiesel products onsite from canola oil, as soon as it becomes cheaper than the current option. In the meat of his commentary, Calder claims that biofuel manufacturers have a dirty little secret: “biodiesel made from canola oil costs the same to make as regular diesel made from oil.” If this is indeed true, then I am optimistic about the prospects of biodiesel replacing its fossil fuel counterpart, since the former is a renewable resource that could last forever and the latter is expected to become scarce within the next forty years, if not sooner. It might be a good idea after all for public transit systems to adopt biofuel infrastructural capabilities in light of grim fossil fuel forecasts.
While I personally do not care about the he-said/she-said of the biofuels debate, I think it is highly irresponsible for Calder to even imply a causal link between increased biofuel production and world hunger rates. A quick Google search of “U.S. government agricultural subsidies” will yield 340,000 hits that shed light on the economic factors playing into the current wheat shortage, and the complicated effect that this system has on the subsistence economy of foreign nations. If Calder is angry about high food prices he need not look further than supply-side economics; his tax dollars are directly contributing to prices.
Conor Ross is a University student