The mad race for alternative fuel sources is taking us to another lemming leap as biofuel production increases starvation deaths. Rising food prices, as well as food shortages, are causing famine rates to rise sharply around the world. While biofuel production is not the only factor in this alarming escalation, it is an important one. For example, since 2006, a significant amount of land previously used to grow food in the United States is now used to grow corn for biofuels, and the percentage of corn earmarked for ethanol production continues to rise, reaching 25% in 2007. (Kingsbury 2007). ).

It’s funny how the engineers of this new fuel plan didn’t consider the consequences of burning corn, one of the world’s main staple foods. And with the United States losing two acres of farmland every minute or about a million acres every year (American Farmland Trust), isn’t it strange that no one with influence would consider the consequences of changing the use of our precious remaining farmland? ? from food to fuel production.

Some brave souls oppose this mad dash because its predictable results of rising food costs and a consequent rise in worldwide hunger are already taking place. In April 2008, at the 30th Regional Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization, Jean Ziegler, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, described biofuels as a “crime against humanity.”

An image, perhaps oversimplified, but memorable, is captured in this quote:

“Speculation and so-called biofuels are leading us to a reduction in raw food sources around the world. The consequence: the poor go even hungrier, so the rich can drive their cars in a supposedly eco-friendly way.” environment. This shows the duality of the term biofuels. “Bio” means life. In this case, it is the life of those, who must deliver them for our refueling at gas stations.

Perhaps we should, as cynical as it sounds, indicate the use of a car in terms of hungry people per hundred kilometers. An SUV uses a year’s worth of one person’s food needs for every full tank of biofuel. Depending on your driving style, every hundred kilometers you use 0.2 to 0.3 people! I prefer to keep my bike.”

-Marco Walter, Konstanz, Germany, 2008

Mr. Walter strikes an important note here. Reducing fuel consumption is a much more ethical long-term solution to the fuel crisis. In fact, the central tenet of biofuels and other potentially harmful “fixes” is based on continuing our outrageous reliance on motorized travel. Replacing just a fraction of the more than 60% of trips that are less than five miles with fuel-free biking and walking would significantly reduce fuel consumption and save households up to 20% of their expenses each year (learn more by visiting the “Shift to Bike” link below). Plus, these active travel gadgets provide an easy way to fit healthy exercise into everyday life. And in dense cities where congestion is high and car parking is rare, walking and bicycling are often faster than driving.

Such a change would also reduce congestion, thereby reducing the need to build more roads, an often overlooked siphon of oil. Of course, streets will need to be completed with safe and attractive provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians for such a change to take place. Add in a comprehensive public transportation system, including free light rail, buses, and shuttles that allow onboard cycling, and this shift away from motorized travel could reach levels well above 50%, as many cities now enjoy around the world, including Manhattan, Copenhagen and Amsterdam. We must first open our eyes to the damage our fuel consumption is causing and then commit to reducing this consumption through more sustainable modes of travel.