The energy-food dilemma for utilizing biofuels in low-income communities amidst the Russian–Ukrainian conflict

Abstract

The Russian–Ukraine war has had and will continue to impact global energy and food security; this will increase the pressure on low-income communities due to rising food costs, as some food was used for energy (i.e. cooking oil). In addition to that, rising energy demand, fuel price increases, the need for energy security, climate change, and means of lowering greenhouse gas emissions are significant considerations in all ethical discussions, particularly when considering the human right to food; there is a tension between the usage of land and availability of water and the human need for fuel, such as biofuel. Although biofuels have the potential to alleviate energy difficulties, producing and consuming such fuels raises social, economic, technological, environmental, and ethical concerns due to ethical aspects such as Rights, Duty, Virtue, Utilitarianism, and Sustainability. Furthermore, all participants bear an ethical responsibility to ensure that biofuels are produced and used appropriately, taking into account citizens’ rights to nourishment, well-being, and employment, the environmental sustainability of such fuels, as well as their capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the equitable distribution of such fuels’ costs and benefits. Using human food to produce biofuels has raised several issues since it may jeopardize the human right to enough sustenance for healthy living. In contrast, current biofuel production and use do not meet environmental sustainability requirements.

Introduction

In addition to significant human casualties and property destruction, Russia's aggressive invasion of Ukraine has caused energy and food supply concerns, exacerbating the vulnerabilities of the food system, which was already weakened by climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Fears of a worldwide food crisis equivalent to or even worse than the 2007–2008 crises have increased, worsening the effects on security, migration, and political instability. The supply shock generated by disruptions in Ukrainian exports and record prices for oil and critical commodities drove several nations to implement export curbs, driving market shocks and speculative activity, and resulting in an unstable global food supply. While there was no embargo on Ukrainian exports, the ongoing war in the region created significant problems with export capabilities. The embargo, in fact, was on Russia, which affected trade with that country. Russia has increasingly employed food scarcity fears as a new weapon in its hybrid conflict as the battle continues. Since February 2022, food security has been at the top of the international political agenda. The international community's response, which included a United Nations–Turkey-brokered agreement to enable supplies from Black Sea ports, has alleviated fears of a major global food crisis. Nonetheless, several food-importing and food-assistance-reliant nations remain highly susceptible to food prices and currency volatility.

New sources of energy, including wind, solar, and biofuels that can lessen reliance on existing fossil fuels are in high demand as a result of the growing energy demand, rising fuel prices, risks to energy security, the changing climate, and calls for solutions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) levels. Recent emphasis has focused on producing biofuels due to their promise as a sustainable energy source.

Energy consumption is a crucial aspect of human growth, with repercussions for all members of society. Energy consumption encompasses variable degrees of supply and consumption in distinct regions, countries, communities, and economic sectors. Unfortunately, it can be challenging to locate vital energy sources, particularly in underdeveloped nations. Moreover, if energy is not used sustainably, several issues might occur. The UN Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) supports the sustainability of energy supply and consumption and mandates that all members of society have access to relatively affordable and dependable contemporary energy sources. It is also tied to other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and is crucial in tackling climate change's harmful effects (McCollum et al.).

Food security comprises four essential characteristics: availability, access, consumption, and consistency in availability, access, and consumption (United Nations System High Level Task Force on Global Food Security. Food and Nutrition Security: Comprehensive framework for action). Although these four factors are still crucial, they lack characteristics such as agency and sustainability, highlighted as vital for modifying food systems in the direction required to accomplish the SDGs (HLPE, 2020). According to the data, war and violence are the most prominent worldwide drivers of food insecurity (FAO; IF, UNICEF W, 2017). One hundred thirty-nine million people in 24 countries and territories were in crisis or faced extreme food insecurity in 2021 due to conflict and instability (Jagtap et al., 2022). On 24 February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale military assault on Ukraine, resulting in civilian deaths, injuries, and the destruction of critical infrastructure. The United States, Europe, and several other Western nations (including Canada and Australia) have adopted broader sanctions targeting exports and persons, banks, businesses, and key state-owned enterprises. The most severe effects of the conflict are the deaths and the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, resulting from many besieged and displaced people. Concurrently, the conflict has caused an enormous blow to commodity markets, notably food, and energy, altering global trade, production, and consumption patterns to keep prices at historically high levels until the end of 2024, jeopardizing global food security.

Indeed, the fight is raising enormous anxiety about global food security in the context of globalized agricultural markets and a conflict between two of the world's most prominent players in the food and fertilizer industries. Russia and Ukraine are vital producers and exporters of essential agricultural commodities, minerals, fertilizers, and energy in a region where exportable resources are usually concentrated in a few nations (Guenette et al.). This concentration may make these markets more susceptible to volatility and shocks. Due to the COVID-19 virus interrupting supply chains, rising global demand, drought, and poor harvests in South America the previous year, food prices were already high. The combination of these factors increases food prices. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine will exacerbate these problems.

Four months into the fight, the consequences are evident: The exports of Ukraine have ceased, future harvests are unknown, and the cost of global agricultural commodities has risen, threatening millions with starvation and poverty. In addition, price increases and trade disruptions may increase the prevalence of malnutrition by restricting access to humanitarian aid to prevent and treat acute malnutrition (Welsh, 2022). The World Food Program (WFP) expects the number of people suffering from acute hunger to rise by 47 million from the pre-war baseline of 276 million. By 2022, 323 million people may be food insecure (Husain et al.). According to estimates by the World Bank, an increase of one percentage point in food prices leads an additional ten million people into extreme poverty. If food costs remain stable for one year, the number of people living in poverty might rise by almost 100 million (World Bank, 2022).

As a confrontation between two major agricultural powers, the Russia–Ukraine war has grave socio-economic ramifications that are now felt internationally and may increase, particularly for global food security. If the violence persists, the food crisis will deteriorate, providing a challenge for many nations, particularly those that rely on food imports, such as those in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) area. In addition, the war took place at a horrible moment for global food markets since food prices were already high owing to supply chain disruptions caused by the COVID-19 epidemic, rising global demand, and poor harvests in certain nations. To comprehend the consequences on global food security, it is vital to comprehend how conflict affects the worldwide market pricing and availability of food and fertilizer (Ben Hassen and El Bilali).

Biofuel is a fuel created rapidly from biomass, as opposed to the prolonged natural processes required to develop fossil fuels such as oil. Biofuel can be derived from plants, agricultural, household, or industrial biowaste. Biofuel's capacity to mitigate climate change varies significantly, with emission levels equivalent to fossil fuels in specific scenarios and harmful emissions in others. However, they may also be utilized for heating and generating power. Biofuels (and bioenergy in general) are considered renewable sources of energy. Bioethanol and biodiesel are the two most popular kinds of biofuels. The United States is the leading producer of bioethanol, but the European Union is the leading producer of biodiesel. The annual energy content of worldwide bioethanol and biodiesel production is 2.2 and 1.8 EJ, respectively (Hribernik and Kegl, 2009).

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has had far-reaching effects on various sectors, including food and energy. The conflict began in 2014 and has resulted in disruptions to food and energy supplies, economic instability, and changes to agricultural production patterns. The conflict has also led to displacement, food shortages, and diet changes for the affected populations. This research paper aims to examine the impact of the Russian–Ukrainian conflict on food and energy and to understand how this conflict has affected the food and energy sectors in Ukraine and the surrounding regions. The main consequences of the conflict can be listed as follows; disruptions to food and energy supplies: The conflict has disrupted trade routes, leading to food and energy shortages in the affected regions. For example, food imports and exports have been impacted, causing food prices to rise and food security to decline.

Similarly, energy supplies have been affected by disruptions to oil and gas pipelines, leading to reduced energy supplies and higher energy costs. Economic instability: The conflict has resulted in economic instability, leading to a decline in GDP, inflation, and reduced purchasing power for the affected populations. This, in turn, has contributed to food and energy insecurity, as people have less money to buy food and energy. Changes to agricultural production patterns: The conflict has also affected agricultural production, leading to changes in crop patterns, land use, and yields. This has directly impacted food security, as reduced agricultural production has led to food shortages and diet changes for the affected populations.

Food shortages: The conflict has disrupted trade routes, leading to food shortages in the affected regions. This has contributed to food insecurity as people struggle to access adequate food. The conflict has also affected agricultural production, leading to changes in crop patterns, land use, and yields. This has directly impacted food security, as reduced agricultural production has led to food shortages and diet changes for the affected populations. Displacement: The conflict has displaced millions, leading to further food insecurity as people struggle to access necessities, including food. Displaced populations are often forced to rely on humanitarian aid, which can be limited in quantity and quality. Changes in diets: The conflict has led to diets for the affected populations as people struggle to access adequate food. For example, people may be forced to reduce their caloric intake, eat less nutritious foods, or skip meals. This can lead to malnutrition and other health problems.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has significantly impacted food security in Ukraine and the surrounding regions. Food shortages, displacement, and diet changes have contributed to food insecurity for the affected populations. Efforts must be made to address food insecurity and improve food security in the affected regions.

The conflict has significantly impacted supply, as Ukraine and Russia are responsible for almost 60% of the world's sunflower oil output; sunflower oil accounts for around 20% of the value and 44% of the market in terms of volume in UK retailers. It is considered to be one of the “big four” vegetable oils, coming in fourth place after palm, soya bean, and rapeseed in that sequence (oil that is marketed as “vegetable oil” is a mixture of oils extracted from a variety of seeds) (Sunflower shortage: Why cooking oil has become so expensive, 2022).

Biofuels make up around 15% of the total vegetable oil demand globally. The employment of this method, which is becoming increasingly prevalent as nations work to lessen their reliance on fossil fuels, has traditionally been held responsible for driving up the cost of food. “We are burning a heck of much food,” said Ariel Brunner, head of EU strategy at BirdLife International, an environmental non-governmental organization, in a recent interview with New Scientist. He said that governments could make changes like this since the market for biofuels was solely driven by subsidies. It may be possible to lessen the impact of the loss of sunflower oil produced in Russia and Ukraine by rerouting crops away from gasoline tanks. This would contribute to the reduction of food prices, which is a step that would assist people with lower incomes the most. According to Lewis, between 50% and 60% of the rapeseed that is farmed in Europe and 60% of the palm oil imported into the region are turned into biodiesel. “Over the past twenty years, the demand for biodiesel has spurred production,” he adds. “However, there is always going to be a crisis point when you get the fight over fuel vs. food.” He stated that in light of the current predicament, there was a case to be made for temporarily halting edible oils in biodiesel production. This would have a significant effect on the availability of the food business and relieve some of the pressures that are currently being felt (Krystal, 2021).

Directly using waste vegetable oil (WVO) as a fuel source is a desirable option for reducing fossil fuel consumption and enhancing sustainability. WVO may cause severe harm to sewers and wastewater treatment facilities if not disposed of appropriately. In addition, it may have significant environmental consequences if WVO enters natural biodiversity, such as the subsoil, aquifers, or rivers. In recent years, WVO has mostly been repurposed for the manufacture of biodiesel, which is financially favorable due to the existing constraints on tax allowances. However, biodiesel manufacturing needs sophisticated physical–chemical procedures, whereas direct use of WVO requires only mechanical treatment. Utilizing WVO directly in energy conversion systems reduces the energy, environmental, and economic impacts compared to biodiesel production. Using WVO directly as a fuel reduces harmful emissions over its entire lifetime; in fact, CO₂ emitted during combustion may be partially absorbed by oil-producing plants (Albatayneh, 2022; Albatayneh et al., 2020a; Tashtoush et al., 2007).

First-generation biofuels (conventional biofuels) are obtained from sugar, corn, starch, and vegetable matter. These biofuels include bioalcohols, biodiesel, vegetable oil, bioethers, biogas, syngas, and solid biofuels. In contrast, second-generation biofuels such as algal fuel, 2,5-dimethylfuran, ethanol, biohydrogen, Fischer–Tropsch diesel, BioDME cellulosic, and bioethanol are currently undergoing study and development.

Transportability: being a liquid, biodiesel may be transported without trouble.

Storability: less storage space is required.

Greater energy content: a large amount of energy may be stored in a small volume (biodiesel contains approximately 37 MJ/kg of energy) (Demirbas, 2007).

It is compatible with existing technology; biodiesel may be used directly in diesel engines with few or no modifications.

The “Food vs. fuel” debate is one of the primary issues with the use of biofuels. Regarding biofuels of the first generation, sugar cane, corn, and vegetable oil may be used for both food and biofuel production. Therefore, an increase in demand for these crops for biofuel production will result in an increase in global food prices and the reallocation of extra land and water to biofuel production.

Although biofuel offers a potential solution to the global energy problem, its production and usage face several social, ethical, technological, and environmental problems.

Methodology

This research will analyze ethical problems like rights, responsibility, virtue, utilitarianism, sustainability, and GHG emissions.

The research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative techniques to comprehensively understand the energy–food dilemma regarding biofuel use in low-income communities during the Russian–Ukrainian conflict. This methodology permits triangulation and strengthens the validity of the findings. This research's methodology focuses on rights, responsibility, virtue ethics, utilitarianism, sustainability, and glasshouse gas emissions to analyze ethical problems associated with biofuel utilization in low-income communities during the Russian–Ukrainian conflict. The research strategy addresses these ethical considerations using a combination of ethical frameworks, data analysis, and case studies.

The research begins by constructing an ethical framework to analyze the complex ethical issues associated with biofuel use. The most important ethical frameworks include the following:

Rights: This framework investigates the implications of biofuel production, distribution, and consumption on human rights in low-income communities. It investigates whether biofuel policies and practices respect the rights of individuals to nutritional security, access to clean energy, and protection from environmental impacts.

Responsibility: The responsibility framework evaluates the obligations of various stakeholders, such as governments, corporations, and international organizations, in ensuring equitable access to biofuels and mitigating potential adverse effects on vulnerable communities.

Virtue ethics: Virtue ethics emphasizes individuals’ and societies’ moral and ethical virtues. This framework assesses whether biofuel policies encourage virtues such as justice, empathy, and environmental stewardship.

Utilitarianism evaluates the well-being and pleasure of individuals as a whole. This framework evaluates biofuel use's net social benefits and costs in low-income communities, considering energy security and food availability.

Sustainability: The sustainability framework investigates the environmental, social, and economic effects of biofuel production and consumption over a long period. It determines whether biofuel practices are sustainable and beneficial to present and future generations.

Case studies: The research includes case studies of particular low-income communities impacted by the Russian–Ukrainian conflict. These case studies provide real-world context and illustrate how diverse socioeconomic contexts manifest ethical considerations.

Integral to the research is applying established ethical frameworks to the gathered data and case studies. In the context of biofuel utilization in low-income communities during the conflict, the research evaluates the ethical issues about rights, responsibility, virtue, utilitarianism, sustainability, and glasshouse gas emissions through a comprehensive analysis.

By integrating ethical frameworks, data analysis, and case studies, this study seeks to provide a nuanced comprehension of biofuel use's ethical challenges and impact on vulnerable communities. The findings contribute to the ongoing conversation about sustainable energy practices and ethical decision-making amid geopolitical crises.

The research acknowledges certain limitations, such as the possibility of data collection bias, difficulty accessing remote communities, and the dynamic nature of the conflict's effect on the energy–food dilemma. Through stringent methodology and triangulation of data, attempts were made to overcome these limitations.

This research provides a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the energy–food dilemma and the use of biofuels in low-income communities during the Russian–Ukrainian conflict by employing a mixed-methods approach. Integrating qualitative and quantitative data enriches the findings and enhances the study's contribution to sustainable energy and social equity.

Humanity's need for the right to work, excellent health, and sufficient food led to the biofuel industry's ethical responsibilities. The duties for generating biofuel economically without negatively impacting the environment, economy, citizens, or humanity were investigated. A moral imperative ensures that the costs and benefits of producing and consuming biofuels are equitably divided. Utilitarianism refers to maximizing population happiness, yet, food price hikes would lower the happiness of a significant portion of the population. The environmental sustainability of these fuels, their capacity to cut GHG emissions, and the distribution of their costs and benefits are fair. Various ethical concerns have emerged concerning the production and use of biofuel, including rights, duties, virtue, utilitarianism, sustainable development, and GHGs.

Utilitarianism is the belief that acts should enhance the happiness of the most significant number of people. As a result of social, economic, environmental, and technical concerns related to the production and use of biofuels, however, only a minority of people will experience happiness due to the production of biofuels. Unfortunately, this minority has a more significant influence than those most negatively affected by biofuel production. Generally speaking, utilitarianism refers to maximizing population happiness; nonetheless, food price increases will reduce the enjoyment of many inhabitants.

“Biofuel production and development should not compromise fundamental human rights” (Pols and Spahn, 2014). Right to adequate food: As a result of the increasing need for fresh water and food caused by the development of biofuels, ethical arguments have emerged over the human right to have these needs addressed. The growing demand for crops used to produce biofuels and the increased competition among market rivals (producers of biofuels and consumers of food) have caused food prices to rise, thereby posing difficulties for the inhabitants of multiple nations in terms of having sufficient funds to purchase food. As the price of biofuels rises, participants in the agricultural sector will be incentivized and compelled to plant biofuel crops rather than their regular crops, as the higher demand and prices might yield more profits. Consequently, there would be an increase in the cost of biofuel crops and diverse foods. Even meat products will experience price rises as crops, once used as livestock feed, are redirected to biofuel production.

In the previous year, virtually all regions have seen severe food price rises (2009). For instance, retail prices rose by 18% in China, 17% in Sri Lanka, and around 10% in Latin America and Russia. Zimbabwe's rise exceeded 25% and was the most of all countries. Due to price rises, inflation rates for nearly all staple goods reached double digits the prior year. In many nations, the price of dairy products climbed by about 200% compared to the previous year. In February, maize prices reached a 10-year high, while wheat prices increased by 50%, rice prices by 16%, and chicken prices by over 10% (Kingsbury, 2007). Increased food costs in impoverished nations can have serious repercussions, including hunger and malnutrition.

Health benefits: As the price of fuel rises, so does the profitability of producing biofuel; however, as the price of fuel continues to rise, this causes a parallel increase in the price of food, which poses significant risks as particularly vulnerable citizens are impacted by changing market prices; an increase to $200 per barrel of oil could expose people to famine and malnutrition due to a lack of funds to purchase food. Planting crops solely to produce biofuel will encourage the use of a greater quantity of chemicals to increase yields, which can harm the environment due to the possibility of chemical leakage into underground water sources, ecosystems, the atmosphere, and land, which can harm human health. The consequences will be even more severe if humans consume the crops.

Freedom to work: On the other hand, it has been claimed that higher agricultural output, land utilization, and water can expand employment prospects associated with biofuel production. Although this is a compelling ethical argument, job possibilities may be generated by substituting biofuels for conventional fuels. On the other side, others say that growing more crops and utilizing more land and water would produce more employment in the biofuel industry, which is a robust ethical argument for job creation. However, there are methods to use biofuel and create more employment than traditional biofuels, including the use of second-generation biofuel and waste oil to manufacture biofuel, which leads to the ethical responsibilities of biofuel production.

Virtues: The expenses and benefits of biofuels must be allocated relatively (Chan and Harris, 2015). Countries have an ethical obligation to guarantee that the costs and benefits of biofuel production and use are fairly distributed. Most individuals affected by biofuels do not consume energy intensely, and they frequently pay the highest price for ethanol generated in more developed nations. It is also an ethical obligation to guarantee that vulnerable people continue to have enough access to vital foods and that the development and usage of biofuels do not negatively impact their health.

Duties: Countries have an ethical responsibility to create new biofuels (second-generation biofuels) that can be manufactured on a commercial scale with no harm to the environment, economy, the country's residents, and humanity as a whole, as they are:

Reducing competition in food production reduces the danger of inflation-driven food price increases.

Existing employment will be retained, and new ones will be generated, primarily if farming spreads to lands now utilized for agricultural purposes (with reduced quality). Does not need to be at the same level as that needed by first-generation biofuel crops as fewer resources are required (water, land, and workers).

Competition with food production can be minimized, which lowers the risk of food price hikes caused by inflation.

Large volumes can be produced with minimal resources, offering investors significant economic benefits.

Highly advantageous to residents as the quality of land required for growing second and third-generation biofuel crops. Countries have an ethical obligation to develop new biofuels (second-generation biofuels) that can be produced on a commercial scale without causing harm to the environment, economy, residents, or humanity as a whole.

Highly favorable to residents since the quality of land necessary for producing second and third-generation biofuel crops is not as high as that required for first-generation biofuel crops because fewer resources are needed (water, land, and workers).

Existing jobs will be maintained, and new opportunities will be created, particularly if farming expands to lands used for agricultural purposes (with reduced quality).

Environmentally sustainable: Avoid killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Aesop, 6th century BC (Groarke) embodies the concept of sustainability. It refers to “Meeting existing demands without jeopardizing future generations’ ability to fulfill their own needs” (UN Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Most engineers’ code of ethics says that they are responsible for creating a sustainable future, safeguarding the environment, and promoting the development and use of biofuels in a sustainable manner (Brundtland, 1987).

Results and discussions

Due to the ability of biofuels to reduce carbon emissions and dependency on fossil fuels, businesses worldwide are focusing more on them. Soy, corn, sugar cane, and palm are among the many crops exploited as biofuels on a global scale (oil). In the United States, corn-based ethanol is the most often utilized biofuel. Fossil fuels are so-called because their creation requires thousands of years and involves the subterranean breakdown of animals and plants. In contrast, the manufacturing of biofuels utilizes currently available crops. According to National Geographic, biofuels have existed for as long as vehicles, and automakers such as Ford initially wanted to build their early models to operate on ethanol. However, biofuels have been disregarded mainly due to the discovery of vast petroleum reserves and the economic benefits of petroleum.

One of the advantages of biofuels is that they produce less CO₂ than fossil fuels. It is argued that CO₂ emissions are mitigated when these crops are replanted. The amount of CO₂ emitted by the combustion of gasoline is absorbed by the crops that will be cultivated to create biofuels.

Biofuels have both sound and adverse effects on economic, environmental, and social sustainability (Azapagic et al., 2004). Positively, there is currently a greater emphasis on biofuels, which have the potential to reduce GHG emissions, improve energy security, and support rural development. On the other hand, increased biofuel production can increase food prices, which could lead to an increase in GHG emissions as a result of direct and indirect land use change resulting from the production of biofuel feedstocks and threaten the sustainability of the land, forests, water resources, and biodiversity (United Nations Environment Programme. GEO Section. UNEP year book, 2009). Using first-generation feedstocks like maize has generated significant debate, primarily due to rivalry with food production and whether agricultural land should be reallocated for biofuel production. As the demand for agricultural goods develops, there is an increasing danger of forest clearing and changes in the usage of land with substantial biodiversity value, as well as the use of fresh water, pesticides, and fertilizers, which can have detrimental environmental effects. It is conceivable to overcome some of the issues using second-generation feedstocks; however, within the current economic climate, whether these second-generation biofuels are economically sustainable, primarily due to the decline in oil prices (Daystar et al., 2015; Roy and Dutta, 2013; Stephenson et al., 2010). In addition, third-generation (algal) biofuels might solve the issues of food competition and land usage since microalgae can be grown on the ground incapable of sustaining crops, as well as in wastewater, salt, or brackish water, and their development is rapid. Nevertheless, the production of biofuels from microalgae needs much energy and is presently not economically viable (Passell et al., 2013).

Several life cycle assessment (LCA) researchers have focused on the potential for biofuels to reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by developing estimations of their potential effects on climate change. Nonetheless, their findings are usually contradictory, as the estimations vary considerably. Even though several review articles have addressed the LCA of biofuels, they have often mainly focused on specific criteria, such as geography, feedstock, or kind of biofuel. For example, Shonnard et al. (2015) analyzed LCA research on biofuels that focused on the Americas. Morales et al. (2015) and Roy et al. (2012) focused on LCA studies of lignocellulosic bioethanol, whereas Menten (2013) focused on developed biofuels. Sieverding et al. (2015) evaluated research on soya bean-based biodiesel, whereas van Eijck et al. (2014) investigated challenges related to Jatropha-based biodiesel production.

According to a recent study published in Transport & Environment, Europe consumes enough rapeseed and sunflower oil daily to fill 19 million one-liter bottles. Consequently, food prices have skyrocketed, and grocery shelves are bare due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The governments should put more effort into making food instead of fuel and stop using crop-based biofuels immediately (Food vs fuel: Europe Burns 19 million bottles of sunflower and rapeseed oil every day in Cars, 2022).

Crop production for biofuels: Biofuels derived from non-food crops, particularly second-generation biofuels, may be produced economically without harming the environment, economy, communities, or humanity.

Oil recycling: Instead of using fresh food products to produce biofuel, waste materials such as WVO and waste animal fat (WAF) can be used as a case study to outline the benefits of this strategy. Large volumes of WAF and WVO can be obtained from domestic markets, including oil products past their use-by date and food outlet waste, especially if a method is developed to efficiently collect the WAF and WVO, which will reduce the demand on humans for the production of biodiesel. WVO and WAF can be disposed of (recycled) rather than dumped. Food inflation can be lowered due to decreased demand for items used to produce biofuel.

Global warming: Throughout the production and usage lifespan, biofuels should contribute to reducing GHG emissions through the effective extraction of biofuel from crops and the efficient and responsible use of biofuel. Biofuels are compatible with the internal combustion engines of most automobiles, which is a substantial extra advantage. This implies that the switch to these fuels may be accomplished with minimum infrastructural modifications (in comparison to electric vehicles). Indeed, biofuels provide environmental advantages and practical use when seen in this manner. However, as the process is explored in greater depth, the actual image becomes more contentious. First, because plants absorb CO₂ through photosynthesis, they are essential in the fight against the threat of global warming resulting from human activity. Second, fertile land used for food would not be repurposed for biofuel due to the increasing need for food. Consequently, a larger quantity of land is necessary to cultivate fuel crops.

In addition, the area must be cultivable for biofuel crops to flourish. This might be land on which plants or trees are already growing or non-arable ground made arable (necessitating funding and effort). Destruction of forests such as those in Borneo to cultivate biofuel crops might ultimately result in releasing massive quantities of CO₂ into the atmosphere. This will destroy a vital carbon sink for human survival and release significant quantities of carbon held inside plants as CO₂, which will outweigh the amount of carbon saved by biofuels. The process of compensating for the consequent loss might take decades.

Even though biofuels are often seen as “green,” this is very dubious. In contrast, making previously unusable land eligible for biofuel cultivation helps ease environmental problems. On the other hand, it is questionable how many viable alternatives are available to do this on the current acreage. Furthermore, it may be argued that utilizing such property for agricultural uses would be better due to the rising population's greater desire for food. Another disadvantage of biofuels is that the energy required for production (to plant, grow, and process) exceeds the energy produced.

During the Russian–Ukrainian conflict, the research findings disclose a complex landscape of challenges and strategies for addressing the energy–food dilemma for utilizing biofuels in low-income communities;

Conflict's effect on biofuel supply: The ongoing Russian–Ukrainian conflict has disrupted biofuel supply channels, making it difficult for low-income communities to obtain affordable and dependable biofuels. This has worsened the energy–food conundrum, as communities that rely heavily on biofuels now confront uncertainties in energy access and food security.

Ethical considerations: The ethical analysis emphasizes a number of dilemmas about rights, responsibility, virtue, utilitarianism, sustainability, and GHG emissions. Biofuels can provide a potential solution for energy security in conflict-affected regions, but their use must be weighed against environmental sustainability, social equity, and potential human rights ramifications.

The significance of renewable energy sources such as wind, hydropower, and solar energy in achieving the long-term goals of a zero-emission economy is demonstrated by the research. Investing in innovative solutions, including smart grid systems, digitization, and energy-efficient technologies, can facilitate the transition to a more sustainable energy future.

Energy crisis and fossil fuels: The energy crisis caused by the conflict has prompted some European nations to extend the lifespan of coal-fired power plants and reopen decommissioned plants, thereby increasing coal consumption. This short-term strategy undermines international efforts to reduce GHG emissions and combat climate change.

Policymakers confront a significant challenge in balancing the short-term imperative of energy security, which has led to an increased reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, and the long-term requirement for sustainable and low-carbon energy sources. To ensure the continuity of energy supplies while moving towards a zero-emissions economy, it is essential to strike the appropriate balance.

Policy consequences: The research findings emphasize the need for a comprehensive and consistent energy policy in the European Union. Addressing the energy–food conundrum and transitioning to sustainable energy sources necessitates coordinated efforts, international cooperation, and ethically congruent innovative policy measures.

Engagement and empowerment in the community: Low-income communities endure the brunt of the energy-food conundrum and must be actively involved in energy source and policy decision-making processes. Empowering these communities to partake in the transition to renewable energy can result in outcomes that are more inclusive and sustainable.

The research identifies knowledge deficits regarding the influence of the Russian–Ukrainian conflict on the energy market and the actions taken by the European Union and other countries. To delve deeper into these facets and to inform more effective policy responses, additional scientific research is required. This article examines the multifaceted nature of the energy–food dilemma for utilizing biofuels in low-income communities in the context of the Russian–Ukrainian conflict. To address the challenges posed by the energy crisis and climate change, it is essential to take a comprehensive approach that prioritizes long-term sustainability, community engagement, and ethical decision-making. The research contributes important insights into the fields of energy management and sustainable development and calls for ongoing efforts to navigate the complexities of energy security and climate change in a world that is swiftly changing.

There are various aspects of sustainable development, energy efficiency, and climate change mitigation in the context of building thermal performance and renewable energy utilization. One paper critically reviews the recycling of composite waste through pyrolysis for sustainable development, addressing waste management challenges. Another highlights the significance of sky temperature in assessing building thermal performance, emphasizing energy-efficient design. Meanwhile, a study compares temperature-based and energy-based approaches to evaluate building thermal performance, exploring discrepancies in peak temperature times. The importance of adaptive thermal comfort practices and structure retrofits for indoor thermal comfort sustainability is discussed in one paper. Additionally, case studies from Jordan evaluate the coupling of PV systems with air conditioning and solar cooling systems for electricity production and climate change mitigation. Finally, an alternative simulation approach investigates wind effects on building thermal performance, offering valuable insights into energy-efficient building design strategies. Together, these research works contribute to the ongoing discussions on sustainable development, energy efficiency, and climate change resilience in the built environment (Abdallah et al., 2021; Albatayneh et al., 2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2020a, 2021; Monna et al., 2022).

Climate change and the efforts of national governments and corporations to decarbonize the economy and industry are discussed in a study. Despite these efforts, the energy crisis caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine is anticipated to increase coal consumption in the European Union, leading to the prioritization of short-term energy security over renewable energy. To accomplish the long-term objectives of decarbonization and a zero-emission economy, energy companies continue to invest in innovative solutions, such as renewable energies and smart grid systems. The article presents two opposing directions for the energy market, one centered on renewable sources and the other on fossil fuels, emphasizing the dilemma policymakers face when attempting to balance energy security and climate change concerns. The objective of this study is to contribute to scholarly discussions regarding the impact of the Russian–Ukrainian conflict on the energy market and the actions taken by the European Union and other nations. In the context of decarbonization, climate change, and the energy crisis, it offers insights into enterprise development strategies (Borowski, 2022).

Conclusions

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has had and will continue to impact global energy and food security; as a result, low-income populations will be put under additional strain due to increased food prices since some food was diverted to bioenergy production. Even if there is no general agreement on addressing the problems associated with biofuels, the most effective strategy should include the following elements: Biofuel consumption and production should consider people's rights to food, health care, and work. The production of biofuels ought to be ecologically responsible and ought to cut emissions of GHGs. The problem of biofuels should be solved by fairly dividing up the expenses and the advantages of using biofuels as a fuel source. The production of biofuels shall not infringe upon the fundamental civil liberties of persons (such as the availability of enough food and water, health needs, employment rights, and land entitlements). Biofuels must be produced in an environmentally responsible manner. The use of biofuels should contribute to achieving a net reduction in GHG emissions while avoiding exacerbating problems connected to global climate change. The production of biofuels should be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the principles of fair trade and should acknowledge the rights of persons to just results (such as rights related to labor and intellectual property). Assuming that the fundamental principles are achieved and that the use of biofuels has the potential to significantly contribute toward mitigating the severe threat posed by climate change, some crucial aspects must be taken into consideration. As a result, it is now obligatory to produce various biofuels in their varied forms.

Legislators should establish laws to ban biofuel corporations from using high-quality land to safeguard the environment and preserve natural resources. In addition, they need to promote research and development of second-generation biofuels, as well as efforts to improve energy efficiency. Legislation must be created to guarantee the human right to receive food, and this protection should extend across international borders. Finally, it is possible to manufacture biofuel from WVO and WAF. In this scenario, crops not intended for human use will be utilized, and first-generation biofuel will be replaced by second-generation biofuel.