by Joanne Ivancic (Advanced Biofuels USA)  I’ve taken to adding “fun” to the quartet sung by many when speaking of the uses served by our crop land and forests:  food, feed, fiber and fuel.  The song began as a duet (food vs. fuel) and moved to a trio when people realized that much of that corn “food” was for protein-producing animals (hogs, beef, chickens; milk cows, lambs, goats, etc.), not humans.   As people continued to think about it, they realized that land is not only used for fuel, food and feed, but also for fibers such as clothes, paper, compostable utensils, carry-out boxes and construction materials.

Upon further consideration, it is clear that some land is also used just to grow things that result in “fun.”  Think wine and beer to start, with due consideration for hard liquor made from rye, corn, potatoes, etc.  You can move on to popcorn, cheese doodles (although I expect those are really petroleum products) and tobacco products.   And don’t forget all the land and fish dedicated to producing food for household pets.

Now, some of those “fun” products may have healthful benefits just as essential as those derived from grains, fruits and vegetables.  I’m thinking of the health benefits of wine and beer, here; and the mental health benefits of well-fed pets.  A sustainability analysis of their environmental, social and economic effects inevitably would include these benefits.

And when looking at making decisions about sustainable land use changes, we should not forget the most devastating land use changes of all—turning agriculture and forest lands into strip mines, shale oil mines, oil and gas extraction facilities, landfills, power plants, homes, roads and other places of business.

If we value incorporating assessment of “sustainability” into an analysis of the life-cycle of grain, grass or woody biomass sold for fuel production; should we not also value assessing the “sustainability” of other uses of land?  The Renewable Fuel Standard (version 2.0) takes great strides in factoring in extraordinary life cycle evaluations of biofuels from “seed-to-wheel,” even reflecting the possible effect that growing one crop in one country has on the land use decisions in another.  But what about these other uses of our currently agricultural (food, feed, fiber, fuel and fun) lands?

If we believe that using land for energy crops requires a sustainability analysis that includes effects of direct and indirect land use change; certainly, other land use changes should endure similar scrutiny.  It just stands to reason that when a house, road, apartment, industrial park, power plant, commercial or office building or mine goes on that land, an analogous assessment should be made with analogous consequences.

Then we’ll have to find even another word that starts with “f” to add to our land use conversation—unless we can include all those in “fun.”