Food or fuel

Climate change is a crucial issue in today's global agenda. Hopefully, we will wake up to this reality, sooner rather than later. Pressure has been mounting on European Union member states to act decisively to fight global warming. A bold target has been set: reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2020.

It was obvious from the beginning that the achievement of such a target would only come at a cost. The direct economic effect is obvious to everyone. Nevertheless, there is more than meets the eye. Take fuel production. As part of the emission reduction package, EU member states want to increase the production of biofuels to make up 10 per cent of the supply of automobile fuels.

Until a decade ago, biofuels were considered as the exciting way forward in this sector. Countries such as Brazil invested heavily in this sector. Nevertheless, many are now waking up to the fact that the increase in the price of oil and the high demand for biofuels is making farmers shift their crops from food to fuel. Any secondary school economics student will tell you that, given the increase in world population, the decrease in food supplies will lead to higher prices. A policy encouraging the use of biofuels will do nothing to alleviate the current global increase in prices of key crops. Market theory suggests that it will make them worse.

The UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, being grilled by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight last week, made great television. Mr Ziegler was adamant in calling the increase in the production of biofuels "a crime against humanity" because it will deprive more people of food. He said that the poorest will be hit hardest and fastest. More affluent countries will also be dealt a blow.

His argument was that the "richer" communities, which spend, say, 30 per cent of their income on food, will feel the pinch as they will have to pay more. On the other hand, the poor, who spend 90 per cent of the little they earn to sustain themselves, will simply die. A crude and effective point.

I could not resist e-mailing a friend of mine who works for an environmental lobby. I remembered how she thought that the EU targets on climate change were not ambitious enough.

I asked what she thought of this situation where, basically, progressive pro-environment lobbies were trying to fend off criticism by fellow progressives concerned about development policy.

Her answer gave me yet more food for thought. She argued that drastic measures must be taken against climate change because this is leading to desertification and erosion of arable land. Thus, inertia would still lead to a decrease in the production of food given the drop in the surface area suitable for farming. Furthermore, desertification is increasingly being identified as one of the key factors leading to mass immigration from the southern to the northern hemisphere.

I cheekily answered back asking whether GMO food could provide an answer, knowing that both of us have huge reservations on the subject.

The reply is unquotable.

All sides of this argument hit us up, close and personal. It is a shame that very few find the time and space to discuss them.

Dr Muscat is a Labour member of the European Parliament and vice president of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee.

www.josephmuscat.com