No, first generation biofuels should not be promoted if they compromize food security, because such promption may not be welfare improving as I have shown in the case of sugarcane bioethanol in India. Moreover, such promotions may affect millions of poor in the world who spend large proportions of their incomes on food. In deciding on biofuels, and food security, global food situation rather than national should be considered.

Impressive, thanks a lot Herath for the excellent response. However, In as much as you and I wish that global food situation rather than national be prioritized, the contrary is being observed in most of the developed worlds (for political and economic reasons rather than social). Have you any suggestion(s) on safeguards/measures to help minimize the unpalatable situation of cars for the rich and starvation for the poor situation created by the increasing demand and emphasis on biofuels?

There are alternative biofuel feedstocks that will have less impact on food supply. Yes, there is a trade-off in the economics and technical efficiency of the production process, but it is multi-objective problem: minimizing impact on food supply, climate change AND economics.

Thanks a lot Catherine for your brilliant suggestion. It is well noted. From your first statement however, I quote "there are alternative biofuel feedstocks that will lessen the impact on fuel supply", could you kindly elaborate more on this?

Sorry David, that was a typo, now corrected.

oh ok, thanks for the clarification Catherine dear...am most grateful for your response

Well, my unprofessional answer: no noone should look on the global scale.. but it may be too late to reverse this globalisation on everything.

in germany biofuel is booming. not without many variable and more or less serious problems. most of the problems arise from this going big to be rentable.

and like most in these cases, subventions are the wrong bias to cause unresponsible behaviour. Europe's agriculture would not survive without direct financial help to the peasants. So how to discuss here about solving global problems, if the german peasant should survive whatever it costs, but the indian one should sell his ground and go work in the city..

probably we will need to wait some more 20 years for energy to get so much expensive that globalisation will stop. so that the subventions in europe do not afffect the indians, since the interaction may stop.

we have 20 years time to change our beaviour. instead of investing in wrong securities offered by the financial industry, we should spend our responsability in sense purchasing behaviour. it will need radical changes,

to everyone, that is the pain (especially for the today's well living)

I see one positive trend today: there is still no inflation coming from the QE politics in the whole world? this is because this money does not find its way in the real physical exchanges. and hopefully this continues like that, no of us will ever believe in what so ever hype our modern world wants us to believe in. the banking misery had this positiv effect that we started thinking for ourselves, and questioned our security bad security business into everyday sounded (ecological) decisions which we know are more sustainable.

let us hope this will last 20 years.

thanks a lot Lukas for the wonderful response. You suggestion is well noted

Hello David

If the world is continuing to use the first generation biodiesel (from food sources crops), the biodiesel will have huge effect in global food supply chain. However, currently the other sources (non food crops) such as Algae, Buchloe dactyloides, Jatropha and Switchgrass are under investigation. If this alternative sources are feasible, I think the world will shift to the non- food crops biodiesel sources. For the time being every nation need develop its own policy in their land utilization effectively.

Thanks a lot Belachew for the great suggestion. Let's hope that in the midst of increasing demand for food as a result of population growth, urbanization and incomes, the dilemma of filling the tanks or not (without emptying the stomach) will be solved to promote welfare of all

In the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, biofuels are a practical and pragmatic solution. Their advantage is that they are carbon-neutral while being suitable for use in existing technology like diesel fuelled cars. The economics of energy would be best studied from the point of view of the laws of thermodynamics (first and second law). Exergy is used up in economic processes like production. Exergy is a scientific concept for the useful part of energy. We obtain it most cheaply from fossil fuels, also easily from biofuels and solar energy is becoming cheaper by the day. But we also get it from our food. Directly from plants is most efficient but we can get energy indirectly through eating meat as well. This requires a lot more land surface for producing fodder for animals. SO one aspect of the global food production system is the percentage of vegetarian meals. Another aspect is the sources of biofuels. To avoid the competition with food production, we can use the remaining organic matter after harvest and we can use methane from manure and from landfills (solid waste disposal). However, we need to close the nutrition cycles urgently (N, P and K are necessary for living organisms). So I would not recommend the use of organic matter as fuel. It is a waste of very valuable nutrients, while we can use solar energy to fuel our economy. In the short run the production of solar energy may be insufficient, but it is increasing fast and we can do all we can to reduce energy use so that it will be easier to meet demand. The major factor in reducing energy demand is reducing production growth in energy-intensive sectors and focussing growth policy on alleviating poverty, while changing to policies to achieve sustainability in situations where welfare is already high. If the larger problem of nutritient cycles is ignored and the problem is framed as the need to produce biofuels without sacrificing arable land for food production, then take a look at the results of research into the enzymes that can break down straw to produce biofuels from inedible parts of crops (Wageningen University). More about the importance for economics of the laws of nature in Ayres, 1998: Eco-thermodynamics: economics and the second law. Best of luck

Impressive, thanks a lot Wiep for the brilliant response. Your point is well noted and appreciated

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Climate.pdf

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-ethanol.pdf

Article The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment