Different Perspectives Addressing Bio Fuels

Presently, some mayor problems demand rapid and intelligent solutions. These problems refer to global warming caused by environmental contamination and the search of other transitional alternative energies than petrol. Big corporations are working in both senses, promoting Bio fuels as a clean source for the planet environment and as an alternative to petrol. They have been creating, faster than ever, new distilleries to produce bio fuels. Additionally, several governments support the idea and have set up main goals for the future such as increasing Bio fuel production up to a double by 2017. Ford Runge [1] argues that such ambitious objectives would mean the reduction of cultivable lands for mono cultivation, inflation of prices on food based on main crops, and terrible problems for poor people to get their food, especially those living in the underdeveloped countries (Ford Runge and Benhamin Senauer, May / June 2007). On the other hand, Rob Route, Director of Shell Corporation, supports the use of this fuel, explains the company achievements on this matter during these years and highlightes the policies adopted by Shell on alternative fuels for the future. (Route, 2008).

Bio fuels are included in the category of alternative fuels such as solar energy or wind energy. Little by little, Bio Fuels are replaces petrol. The first generation of these, which are actually in use, comprise fuels extracted from cereals like maize and soy. A second generation of green fuels, which will come in the future, include all the fuels extracted from green vegetables like grass, tree leaves and so forth.

As regards Ford’s arguments, they are solid and eloquent based on the following way of reasoning; if billions of tons of crops like maize or soy, which are the main sources of people’s food in the world, are destined to produce bio fuels, as it has already been decided by several governments, then, very likely, there will be inflation of prize on foods. As a concequence of this, the poorest of the developing countries would have problems to access to them. Additionally, he highlights that high standards production of bio fuel, extracted mainly from people’s food such as maize or soy, would increase the amount of arable lands destined for bio fuels, therefore there will be a decrease of lands used with the other crops to produce food.

Rob Routes arguments are credible too. In this sense, Routes supports the use of bio fuels overemphasizing the idea that Shell has set up goals to increase their production for the next 30 years. However, he takes for granted that if bio fuels are not handled cautiously, they can compete for food lands and water. Additionally, he quotes that Shell Company has been investing millions on innovative projects in order to develop a sustainable fuel which would replace petrol in the future and would be clean for our environment. In this sense, He highlightes Hydrogen as the alternative fuel for a very remote future.

Concluding, bio fuels are now the only alternative to tackle with environmental and petrol replacement problems. However, it seems to be necessary to overproduce them to cope with the actual and future world energy demands. In this sense, some people interested in this issue foresee that such measures could provoke damaging consequences to the economies of several countries, within which, the negative impacts would sadly fall on the poorest.

---

[1] Ford Runge: Distinguished Mc. Knight University Professor of Applied Economics and law, and Director of the Center for International Food and Agriculture at the University of Minnesota.