Editorials

Biofuels once were considered a viable option to the fossil variety and they had additional support for their potential to alleviate some global-warming problems.

But, some unexpected results are making biofuels more of a nightmare than a dream product. Global warming activists have managed to convince political leaders throughout the world that the problem is real and enactment of strong global-warming policies is essential. The notion that responding to the "climate crisis" could be more hazardous than helpful was simply shrugged off if it ever arose.

There are indications that is happening, with a biofuels mandate adopted by the United States Congress now contributing to the very global warming problems it was designed to prevent.

Frightening predictions have been associated with global warming. One is that it will have an adverse impact on future food supplies. A 2020 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said by 2020, "agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised."

A frequently cited global-warming study conducted for the Pentagon went a step further, outlining potential hunger-related political unrest and national security concerns, noted Ben Lieberman, a Heritage Foundation policy analyst. It said "Aggressive wars are likely to be fought over food, water and energy."

Yet, Lieberman pointed out, temperature increases during the 1980s and 1990s, on which current global warming concerns are largely based, were accompanied by increases in food production. Thus, the predicted link between warming and reduced food supplies is not based on past experience.

But a tightening food supply is now developing worldwide, only it was not caused by global warming.

America's first mandatory policy to reduce global warming emissions is its biofuels mandate. These agriculturally based alternative fuels were purported to have lower global-warming emissions than the petroleum-derived gasoline or diesel fuel they displace. At the beginning of the decade, Al Gore said, "by tripling U.S. use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010, we can keep millions of tons of greenhouse gases out of the air."

The 2007 energy bill signed into law by President Bush last December is making that happen faster than Gore imagined, Lieberman said. The mandate is mostly met by corn-based ethanol. Europe has set similar targets for biofuels.

Diverting crops from food to fuel use has resulted in rising food prices. Cost for a bushel of corn jumped from about $2 per bushel to well above $5. Wheat and soybean prices also are escalating. Most experts say biofuels mandates are the most substantial contributor to rising food prices.

All of this is happening from biofuels usasge that is only a fraction of what will be required in the years ahead. America is only one-quarter of the way toward the 36 billion gallon requirement by 2022 included in the energy bill.

In addition, the global-warming benefits of biofuels also have been called into question. Two recent studies published in the journal Science concluded that, rather than reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels actually increase them.

If Congress wants to "do something" about food shortages, and maybe global warming at the same time, it appears repeal of the current biofuels mandate would be a place to start.

The biofuels backfire also should remind the Senate when it debates S. 2191, the major global warming bill, to avoid any new measures that might create more problems than they solve.

()