Water auctions and participatory water management

An excellent article by Abraham Abhishek on innovative ways to improve water management. Some highlights from the post:

"The Umatilla County Critical Groundwater Solutions Taskforce in Oregon, United States is a body that represents government officials, scientists and (perhaps most importantly) various communities and native tribes in the county. It was formed in response to a dual crisis - rapidly depleting groundwater, and impending conflict amongst various users in the county and neighbouring areas. The taskforce enabled water users and technocrats to work together, which resulted in comprehensive planning and effective implementation of groundwater management activities".

"the proposed water auction mechanism and the observed water management system—seem to make at least one common suggestion: that water security demands efficient water management, which should be based on decentralized decision making. All-in-auctions run counter to the more centralized processes of reallocating water rights, represented by quotas and subsidies. Umatilla-like participatory planning and outreach brings water governance a notch closer to the end users".

Full article here.

A Special Report on Water from The Economist

The audio program above provides a thorough review of the world's water situation. John Grimond from The Economist, discusses the "hot topics" of global water resources.

We hear about hydro-electric power (a clean and green form of electricity but controversial as shown in China's Three Gorges Dam.) We also hear about the future of desalination, a technology that allows us to convert salt water to fresh water through a process called reverse osmosis. It is utilized in a few places in the world currently, (Israel, the UAE and Australia to name a few). The economics of desalination is getting better, however, the energy requirements are still really high. This has created the impetus to use renewable energy to power desalination, a process that could eventually happen on a large scale basis.

Singapore (population:4.5 million) is cited as a steward of water conservation and efficiency. Singaporeans use 155 litres of water a day, that's half of what the average Canadian uses. Andhra Pradesh (a state on the south eastern coast of India) is another example where we are seeing more experiments with effective groundwater management which has reduced demand for water. In Andhra Pradesh, all sectors including agriculture, use less water and far more efficiently.

Finally, cooperation is another significant component in our discussion of water resources. The Nile Basin Initiative is cited as the example regarding good cooperation on water. It is a "partnership among the Nile riparian states that seeks to develop the river in a cooperative manner, share substantial socioeconomic benefits, and promote regional peace and security".

Key Message: While water is becoming more scarce globally, the use of technology is becoming more sophisticated. Also, some of our global leaders (in Singapore, Andhra Pradesh and Guelph) are demonstrating the importance of water conservation and fair allocation. How we price and trade water in an era of scarcity will be one of the more interesting topics in the years to come.

Our Guest Post for Aguanomics

David Zetland was kind to write a guest post for Enviro Boys. David's key message was: with good water management in place, the conditions for equity, efficiency and sustainability are all achievable.

On that note, Chris and I wrote a guest post (an exchange) for David's blog at Aguanomics. We wrote about Guelph, Ontario, as Canada's water steward leader.

Feel free to check out our post at Aguanomics.

Guest Entry: A few thoughts for the Canucks...

By: David Zetland of Aguanomics

Tim and Chris asked me to turn my California perspective on Canada's water situation. I won't talk about pollution from refining tar sands, aquifer depletion in the plains, unsustainable "traditional" fisheries and farms in Nova Scotia, Quebec's hydropower, or the water-people mismatch in Nunavut. Instead, I will talk about those great big lakes full of fresh water.

I was chatting with one of your neighbors about the potential for marking water from the Great Lakes. I told him that "you folks" should define diversions, clarify water rights, and create a market for trading rights.

"But David," he said. "There's so much water that the price is sure to be $0. Demand is so small compared to supply."

"Ahhh, but that's the point."

Apparently people are getting all excited and upset about Great Lakes water when it's really too abundant to worry about. A $0 price for water signifies one of two things. Either people are making senseless arguements about its precious nature when supply far exceeds demand, or people are making sensible arguments that need to be integrated into our definitions of supply and demand. In either case, we need more objective facts (prices) and fewer subjective emotions.

You tell me if I'm right or missed something.

But let's just assume for the moment that the price really would be $0. Does that mean that a market and prices are a bad idea?

No. First of all, it's useful to set up a framework when there is still plenty of water around. If the price rises above $0, then people will know that water is getting more scarce. Second, the value of water is always higher than its price. There's no need to fear that a $0 price connotes a $0 value.

Third, it's important to get market signals -- prices -- out there early. Water shortages are manmade, and they often show up because bureaucrats in charge of allocation do not aggregate all of the supply and demand signals that a market would. Bureaucrats would still keep their jobs (whew!), but they would make sure that the market -- rights, trades, delivery -- was functioning.

But some of you might be wondering if we don't already have a price for water, the price that appears on your monthly water bills. Well, no you don't. Those bills reflect the cost of delivering pressurized clean water 24/7. They reflect the cost of pipes, energy and salaries that go into that service. They do NOT reflect the price (or value) of water. That price is $0, not just because there's no market, but because most of your water comes from utilities that have a right to divert as much as they want from lakes, rivers or aquifers into the water distribution system.

By the way, your cost of service may be flat rate -- an all-you-can-eat fixed charge -- or uniform rate -- the more you use, the more you pay, but either system is based on recovering the cost of the system, not "paying for water." Note that uniform rates tend to reduce consumption (the same way that paying per liter of petrol does); they also make heavy water users pay for a larger share -- their "fair" share -- of the system costs.

It may not make sense to switch to meters -- if their installation cost is much greater than the water savings -- but they are the best first step towards promoting water conservation. (I wonder if farmers in the Plains buy metered water?)

Bottom Line: Good water management is equitable, efficient and sustainable. Don't start too late, or you'll follow California into a deep dark hole of "how the hell are we going to get out of this?"

Dr. David Zetland has a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Davis. Currently, he is S.v. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellow in Natural Resource Economics and Political Economy, University of California, Berkeley.

Water use per person in the U.S. is nearly 30 percent lower than in 1975...

This post is from Peter Gleick's blog: City Brights

Ponder this paradox...

"Water Number: 410 billion gallons per day in 2005 compared to 413 billion gallons per day in 2000. This is the total amount of water withdrawn in the U.S. for all purposes (residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, and power plant cooling). Despite continuing population growth, despite continued economic growth, total water use in the United States is effectively unchanged from five years ago. Even more remarkable? Water use today is lower than it was 30 years ago, in 1975. And on a per-capita basis, the drop is dramatic: Water use per person in the U.S. is nearly 30 percent lower than in 1975."

"It used to take 200 tons of water to make a ton of steel. Now steel plants in the U.S. use less than 20 tons of water to make a ton of steel. That is a 90% reduction."

To read more on this topic, click here.

As you read, keep in mind population growth as a major factor. U.S. population circa 1975: 215,000,000. U.S. population circa 2009: 305,000,000. Therefore, total water use per capita should theoretically be lower, given bigger population and less water available for each person. Water droughts and shortages have been more common over the past 20 years and climate change has reduced the quantity of water in major U.S. rivers.

Is the environmental attack on the Oil Sands going to make any headway?

A recent article in the Globe and Mail signalled that the fate of the hyper-destructive and very profitable Alberta Oil Sands might well be tipping in favour of those opposed to them. The article outlines the role the Norwegian state-owned oil company, Statoil, who has invested over $2B in the Oil Sands, is having in the country's federal elections.

Norway, from an international standpoint, is widely regarded as a friendly, progressive country, similar to its counterparts in Scandinavia. And even its historic oil industry -- Norway is the world's first country to employ a one-way CCS project -- is among the more respectable groups in the sector.

So being involved in the Oil Sands is sure to raise some eyebrows and rustle some feathers. The negativity of Statoil's involvement in the Oil Sands is so heavy that it could play a major role in the federal election as candidates from nearly every party are promising to carefully examine the role of Norway's state-owned company. One prominent leader is already offering to create environmental laws that would make it impossible for Statoil to even come close to getting involved with anything like the Oil Sands.

Norway is not the only one rethinking its involvement in Alberta. Even the Chinese government, whose state-owned oil enterprise is heavily invested in the Oil Sands, is looking at what's going on. The article also mentions that several Chinese journalists are on their way to take a tour of the areas surrounding the Oil Sands to witness the environmental destruction of the place.

But before we start to think that the tables have really turned and the Oil Sands are on their way to being shut down, let's just put a few things in perspective.

Statoil is state-owned. Generally speaking, state-owned energy companies have a lot more to answer to than their purely private contenders, especially in a country like Norway. The Chinese, although to a much lesser degree of social & environmental responsibility, are also state-owned. The downside is that the majority of investment in the Oil Sands is private. Private companies often, but not always, answer only to their shareholders who often, but again, not always, only want to make more money. The Oil Sands make money. Lots of it.

Secondly, keep in mind that it is election time in Norway. For those of us who have followed election campaigns, they are filled with promises. Often, these promises are politically charged and do not always come to fruition. Considering the length of time it would take to get out of there and the investment losses, the task of pulling out would be very difficult. I would not be surprised if this issue slowly fades away after election fever winds away.

Thirdly, and almost in summation, the Oil Sands are very, very lucrative. They are profitable for those involved and beneficiaries range from international partners (the United States) to domestic governments (Alberta). The Alberta government has certainly signalled more than once how little it really cares about the environmental consequences and its internal bureaucratic systems (see Andrew NikiForuk's Tar Sands) are far from being pro-environment. Furthermore, the Conservative stronghold of Alberta is almost insurmountable and if the current policies of both the Alberta and Federal Conservative government's is any indication, these policies are not going to change quickly.

And I wouldn't put too much money on Obama making a big deal about the Oil Sands anytime soon. His hands are full with his health care reform plan and any fight with the Oil Sands would surely have short-term economic consequences, which is the last thing he needs as the U.S. economy is starting to recover. Right now, he has bigger, more homegrown fish to fry.

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, but the Oil Sands are big. Very big. I do not deny the environmental, economic and health damages due to the Oil Sands, but tackling such a beast is so complex and in my opinion, nearly impossible. However, I would urge those already fighting to shut down the Oil Sands to keep on doing what they're doing, as anything helps in the struggle against them.

But in some ways we need to be a bit realistic and make the best out of an already awful situation by looking more into conservation strategies, renewable energy markets and to pressure our elected officials. Perhaps we could at least reduce the demand for oil in this country. But really fighting the Oil Sands seems like a steep moutain to climb.

I can only hope I'm wrong.

Smart-metering, peak-demand pricing and rising costs for electric heating...

Ontario is starting to set up its 'smart' energy system. Everyday, hundreds of homes throughout the province are being visited by the local utility company to switch out the old electricity meters with 'smart' ones.

These brainiac meters are different from the current ones in that they are capable of measuring electricity usage at different times throughout the day and have the ability to send these readings immediately to the utility company via a wireless signal. Moreover, with the appropriate additions, some of these meters will be able to also send this information to the homeowner, allowing them to view up-to-date information on their usage. Even Google has gotten involved, so we know the possibilities could very well be endless.

The installation of these meters will allow Ontario to implement a new pricing structure for electricity. When demand is high, the price to the consumer will increase. When demand is low, the price will be cheaper.

Currently, the Ontario pricing structure is a flat rate. No matter what time people decide to turn on their stoves or do their laundry, the price is the same. So people do that stuff when it's most convenient: often in the morning before they do to work or past 5:00 after work. This is fine for the homeowner, who pays the same rate. But for the province, which produces and purchases the power, it's not a flat rate.

The production of electricity comes from a variety of sources: coal, hydro, nuclear and some renewables. But the cost of producing electricity varies from source to source. Coal and hydro are fairly cheap, but nuclear and renewables not so much. So when demand is low, more power comes from the cheaper sources, and when demand is high, more has to come from the more expensive sources, costing the province (and ultimately, the taxpayers) more money.

Sometimes demand on the grid can be so high (see heat waves & air conditioning use in Toronto) that the province's total production capacity is not high enough. It then has to import power from out of province and even out of the country. This is even more expensive.

So if the province can make higher-demand times more expensive to the consumer, it hopes that people will start to do these electricity-sucking activities at different times of the day, thereby spreading out the demand and reducing the number of times that the province needs to use its really expensive power or import it. It's a great idea.

While this will give homeowners a beneficial increase in control over their electricity usage, those who use electricity consistently will get hit hard. The biggest group of consistent electricity users are those who use electric heating & cooling. If electric heaters are needed to maintain a consistent level of heat in a home, they will operate throughout the day, at both high and low demand times. In all likelihood, the higher demand times will be much more expensive than the lesser demand times cheaper, so these people will get hit.

And some people trying to be 'green' might also get hit. In a recent conversation with a friend of mine who had once considered getting a geothermal system, he pointed out that geothermal systems require an electric heat pump to circulate the air or water through the pipes underground and in the house. These will run all day and are anything but light on electricity use.

Despite these downsides, the smart metering system is a wonderful idea. I've come across several ideas that take the existing infrastructure several steps further. What if the appliances were smart enough to communicate with the meter and only operate a lower-demand times? What if heating units were able to optimize when they operate and strike that perfect balance of cost and home temperature?

The smart metering is a first step. Our electricity system is about to get a lot more futuristic. It should be very cool.

Winnipeg is going to privatize its water???...

It is heresy, they say. Blasphemy! Amongst environmental circles the sheer word is nary spoken without a plateful of disdain. Its polysyllables scathe one's ears, bringing forefront to the mind visions of fat cigars, corporate suits, a desertified planet and only the green found in your pocket.

The word--dare I say it?!-is privatization.

Melodrama is certainly not unique to environmentalists. Those of us who have gone through puberty know that all too well. It is not always warranted, but a growing coalition of Winnipeggers feel the drama unfolding around the word in their city is more than appropriate.

The city of Winnipeg (pop. ~650,000) needs massive upgrades of its drinking water systems in response to a crumbling infrastructure and new health regulations from the province. The city's estimated price tag is coming in at around $1 billion. That's a lot of money, especially for one of Canada's--it is the coolest one--'have-not' provinces.

The city is in a bind. The city's Mayor, Sam Katz, says the city can't afford it on its own. The solution appears to be to get somebody else to help pay for it: the private sector. The proposal, which is scheduled to be tabled to city council in the next few weeks, would create an independent utility to manage the city's water system and update the infrastructure. The controversy lies in the public-private partnership that would create the new utility.

Aghast! There is that word again. Private.

Many local residents, along with a slew of well-known observers including Maude Barlow, are concerned that the public-private partnership will ultimately transform into a completely privatized system where a private company could raise rates and restrict supply as it sees fit. Winnipeg being the landmark pioneer that it is, the domino effect would appear and the rest of Canada could be privatized. But in all seriousness, this is something we should be concerned about.

Many years ago, the Bolivian city of Cochabamba privatized its drinking water supply to an American company called Bechtel. Overnight, the price of water skyrocketed and before anyone knew what hit them they were putting a hefty chunk--almost equal to their rent--of their already small income towards drinking water. Riots ensued, people were killed and the company was kicked out. We don't want such a thing in Canada. Unlikely in Canada, but water is a special thing.

Katz has openly stated that this would not be a pure privatization of Winnipeg's water because 100% of the assets of this company would remain city-owned. However, other councilors and members of the public are criticizing the unclear language in his proposal he plans to table to city council. He doesn't dispute this fact and claims he'll clear it up by the time the meeting rolls around in a week or so. Several people, including many councillors, don't believe him and would like the proposal delayed until September so everyone can understand it properly.

There might even be a city-wide referendum on the idea. I wouldn't be surprised if the referendum ends up costing a pretty penny, too. Perhaps they should privatize that...I kid because I love.

Personally, I don't think they're planning to privatize the city's drinking water system. That would be insane. But I do think a public-private partnership could be dangerous. In these situations, the public ends of doling out taxpayer money and the private group makes a profit. But such a situation is not very surprising. After all, Canada's municipal water systems are all getting old and are in need of repair, but it gets more expensive every minute to do it. And in the more conservative, smaller-government mindset we find ourselves in, the governments throughout Canada are a little less trigger happy than they used to be with cash.

Establishing an independent, arms-length, city-owned utility to manage the city's system would be a smart idea. Several cities have done so. Peterborough, though not as large as Winnipeg, has had one for many years that handles water, sewage and electricity. Judging by the budget size of some programs I'm familiar with of theirs, I don't think they're struggling for much cash.

Despite the worries over the proposal, several people are in full support of privatizing the system. It will improve the water quality, make the service more efficient and ultimately make everyone better off because the free market rules all, they say. Hogwash. If it were a competitive market they might have a case in an economics class, but this is water and a monopoly does not make the world a better place. Efficiency and quality are interesting points, but the government already has very high standards for water quality and the efficiency might come at a cost of very high rates. Not to say pricing water is necessarily evil, but something tells me a monopoly would take it too far.

But back to the actual proposal. What they should do is set up the utility, keep it completely city-owned, pay the private firm a management fee to keep them happy if they continue to be involved but revenue control will remain in the hands of the city where its answerable to the public and not shareholders.

Oh, and if cost is such a problem, didn't the federal government fork out a couple tens of billions of dollars for things like this?

Desalination: The San Diego Way…

Proposed desalination plants on the coast of California.

Southern California is being plagued with water shortages. Already an incredibly populous region, population growth is placing more pressure and stress on the region’s water supply. San Diego County in particular (population 3 million), which virtually imports all of its fresh water, faces a tricky natural resource quagmire that leaves all of its residents worrisome about future fresh water supply. With the rising cost of importing water along with the infeasibility of actually meeting water demand (due to increasing population), San Diego has started a massive desalination project. The county figures that taking advantage of its geographic proximity to the ocean would be beneficial for obtaining lots of water- of course it has to be desalinated first.

The project is called the Carlsbad Desalination Project and will be the nation’s biggest plant by 2011. Its purpose is to supply water for the drought-prone county of San Diego. You are probably wondering what the numbers are like: Costs $300 million and is being built by Poseidon Resources Inc. of Stamford, Connecticut. It will produce ~50 million gallons of drinking water each day which is enough to supply 112,000 households in the San Diego County area.

Progress on desalination around the world has hitherto proven to be controversial. Here is my analysis on the Carlsbad Desalination Plant:
Firstly, the plant would be a state driven natural resource management solution and therefore be more locally controlled. This means that once the various water agencies collect the water from the plant, it will be easier to allocate it to the users (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural). Mainly because water agencies will be closer to the supplier and can help set more rigid standards for allocation purposes which inherently fosters a conservation ethic.

Importing water from upstate can be complicated because water agencies continue to fight over what constitutes “reasonable allocation”. The County currently imports its water at a cost of $526 per acre-foot (1 acre foot equals 1,233,481 litres). Desalinated water would cost $900 per acre foot. A bit more expensive but again, it is more local. Quantity fluctuations and allocation disputes always accompany imported water as reported by water managers in the area.

Importing water also requires an abundance of trucks for transportation. As discovered in the energy usage of bottled water, it takes a lot of energy to move water whether it is bottled or tanked. Smog levels are egregiously bad in the county already, and more carbon emissions in the air would simply exacerbate air quality. Minimizing imported water would help a little bit with climate change stabilization in Southern California.

More on energy: between 60 and 75 gallons of water would be generated per kilo watt-hour, this translates into 4,700 to 5,400 kWh per acre-feet. Water imports from the Colorado River require 2,000 kWh per acre-foot for water delivery and water from the state water project consumes 3,000 kWh per acre-foot to deliver water to Southern California. Therefore, it is more energy intensive to desalinate water but San Diego could be powering its main plant with energy from wind turbines and solar power as an option.

While I believe that water conservation is the most important consideration for any densely populated region, technological projects can provide some relief. A desalination plant in San Diego County, though highly criticized, will set a precedent for other cities to learn from. San Diego has regulations on lawn watering, water metering and water withdrawals that are indispensable for conserving water. Desalination should also face some sort of legislative requirement in terms of how much can be allocated to the users. Moreover, the county should be very strict about how desalinated water is used.

Key message: Water shortages are going to continue to plague the region and if the merits of desalination will help mitigate these shortages, then it is a solution worth pursuing.

Green Cities: Bundanoon-The Australian town that banned bottled water...

Well, it looks as though someone has finally conquered the industry and managed to ban the bottled stuff in a municipality.

Last week, the small Australian town of Bundanoon voted nearly unanimously to ban the sale of bottled water in its stores. This legislation is thought to be the first of its kind in the world. Up until now, the most notable bans of bottled water were within public buildings, including several Canadian cities.

Banning bottled water in public buildings appears to be quite a tough battle in Canada. At this point it's the most attainable jurisdiction for public bodies to enact such a ban. But banning within an entire municipality is a whole other ball game. Not only are government-owned buildings prohibited from selling it, more importantly, privately-owned businesses are prohibited from doing it as well.

For many businesses, in Canada at least, such an idea would hit a giant wall laced with barbed wire and laser cannons. After all, bottled water is one of the most popular and profitable products sellers can dish out. And since the health authorities haven't found anything that would pose significant danger to humans--other studies contradict that thinking--the businesses don't feel they'd have much reason to ban bottled water.

But the shopkeepers in Bundanoon felt quite differently. They voted unanimously for the ban, citing environmental concerns and the attempt by a bottling company to pump water from one of the town's groundwater reservoirs back to its bottling facility in Sydney. Undoubtedly, the bottled water would be sold back to the town's residents. It's not particularly surprising that something like that might bother people.

The lone voices of opposition during the vote came from (unsurprisingly) a representative from the bottled water industry and one resident who was concerned that tourists wouldn't have anything to drink. Instead, the town proposes to build additional water fountains and supply re-usable canisters labeled "Bundy on Tap".

It's true that this town might be in a unique position. It is very small (approximately 2,500 people live there), Australia is suffering from a very significant drought so any available water supplies probably shouldn't be touched by the bottled water industry, and it was subject to an 'invasion' by a bottling company. But this type of thing has to start somewhere.

Soon enough other municipalities will start to realize that they are not all that different from Bundanoon. Freshwater supplies are expected to dwindle in the coming decades, even in water-rich Canada, and bottled water companies will start to take from riskier sources of water. That is, sources that entire towns or cities rely on (some do this already).

The ban has already picked up some steam in Australia. The premier of New South Wales (the province Bundanoon is located in) is in full support of the ban and has banned bottled water in all public facilities. Hopefully, such a ban can be applied to a larger area.

This ban is a huge step. On its own, it won't do too much, but it will undoubtedly pick up momentum and start spreading to other areas. Perhaps it'll stay in Australia for awhile, but inevitably such a thing will migrate to the rest of the world. But don't be surprised to see the bottled water industry fire up its marketing arsenal for what will probably be the fight of its life.

The Troubling Resource Curse…

In Human Geography, there is a whole subject area that examines natural resources and armed conflict. In March, I wrote a paper for my Environment and Development class titled “is internal conflict an inevitable consequence of the resource curse?” looking at the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. After researching this region for a couple of months, I came to discover many troubling facts. The resource curse has exacerbated conflict and political turmoil, formed an even more rapacious central government and has led to abject poverty.

The resource curse is a highly significant concept in Environmental Resource Studies. We learn that managing resources is a critical part of the political economy. Canada, despite its challenges with the staples trap, has progressively got better with its resource management albeit no where near perfect.

Countries with an abundant amount of natural resources have a lot of natural capital available to them. This is usually advantageous for international trade and energy self-sufficiency. But the dark side of this is what we call the resource curse or the paradox of the plenty which is when counrties with a lot of natural resources tend to have slower economic growth and worse development (and more corruption) than countries with fewer natural resources. Nigeria in particular has become completely reliant on oil for its major export- profitable in the short-term, economically and socially devastating in the long run.

To paint a picture for you, the resource curse has damaged virtually all sectors in the Niger Delta with the exception of the booming oil industry. Manufacturing and agriculture have become less appealing for workers because there is more money available to them in the extraction of oil. At least, that is what they are told.

With the curse in play, the government can surreptitiously create pools of oil wealth from its exports and not actually report how much money they have. This skews the picture and allows the government to be mendacious to its workers who are not paid the true cost of their labour. Not all of this money is passed down to the workers of the Delta and then inequality and oppression ensue. It’s totally disastrous. According to Collier and other West African scholars, the resource curse has created a whole underground economy in the Delta.

Weapons are being purchased along with drugs, and insurrections are coming about-all products of the resource curse and hence internal conflict. This is a serious environment and development issue of our time, natural resources are all well and good, but they are highly dangerous as well.

Key message: Anyone interested in this topic, I would recommend you read Philippe Le Billon and Paul Collier.

Innovative progress on ethanol...

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about the numerous disadvantages associated with corn-based ethanol. In short, I mentioned how the US has been irrationally excited about corn-based ethanol production as an alternative fuel source. Corn prices have increased as a result of this massive diversion of corn being used for fuel versus food. Anyway, this blog entry courtesy of the NY Times discusses the possibility of energy cane. For instance, using orange peels as an ethanol source. This blog suggests that energy cane has more fiber than syrup and grows taller than sugar cane. Which means you can yield more energy from the plant. Again, unlike corn which is an essential high value crop in which millions rely on for food, energy cane or cellulosic ethanol is manufactured from woody plant matter (cellulose) from sources such as grasses, trees, rapeseed, switchgrass and agricultural waste. These things do not necessarily affect international food prices and consequently do not affect food inflation. Check out the blog here.