Should we eat diesel and drive on corn fuel?
World Food Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% — far more than previously estimated — according to a confidential World Bank report leaked from an internationally-respected economist at a global financial institution by the Guardian of Great Britain.
The report starkly contradicts the U.S. government’s claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. The report will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.
President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that the Guardian reports: “Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases.
The report argues that production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways:
It has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel. Farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production. It has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher.
This topic was discussed in this week’s No Agenda.
Using food to power SUVs is the dumbest thing ever.
“leaked from an internationally-respected economist at a global financial institution” – well, not really.
Folks at the WSJ did their homework and Donald Mitchell, late of Iowa and Michigan, is the agricultural economist who wrote the draft working paper which was submitted to his peers and editors at the World Bank as one of a number of analyses for their annual report.
They rejected his several conclusions and felt that 20% or so was a more accurate reflection of an effect still prompted mostly by the same sort of speculators involved in driving up oil prices.
And that’s what they actually published.
http://tinyurl.com/5h585q
Mitchell has noted public embarrassment over his draft being called a “secret report”.
I belive that biofuels are certianly NOT the solution to increasing energy demands, I highly doubt that there are enough biofules in produciton to warrant 75% increase in food costs. This is just another example of corporations raising prices to increase profits when there is no underlying need to do so and hurting those with the least resources the most.
The “It’s George Bush’s Fault” posts can now commence…
[edit: duplicate]
There’s a WSJ blog post from Keith Johnson (a long-time WSJ writer) on the same article:
http://tinyurl.com/5vmsgs
If you use food to run machinery the cost of food will go up, DUH!
Shrub never believes anything he doesn’t want to believe.
However there is no way to know exactly how much the cost of food has gone up due to this. It is also true that the cost of fuel would be higher without the biofuels.
It is a much needed boost to agrabusiness. Third world farmers have major issues few of which are caused by better prices for their crops.
I wrote this September 28, 2007:
The talk this morning is the increase in prices at the grocery. The thought in my mind is the burning of corn for fuel. That will drive up the price of corn as farmers grow the grain for ethanol. Using organic matter for fuel is a waste of our only product that produces food and that is the soil. Without organic decay our planet will lose the food necessary to grow healthy trees and plants.
I was reminded by a newscast yesterday that said that those folks with swimming pools were wasting water. I thought to myself that is absurd. Those pools in every back yard heat up and water goes into the sky creating a water cycle where there at one time was not one. Placing organic matter in any soil and creating a pool of water to evaporate helps the area keep moisture near the surface of the planet in that area. Two good examples of that are Israel and Las Vegas; those are places where the planets environment has changed for the better because man has brought in water. You loose water when you burn organic matter, you gain by holding water in human beings, large and small water reservoirs (water tanks, lakes and pools), trees, plants and in organic soil.
Better economy over there means more meat eaters. Meat needs more feed. Chinas growth was possible because vegetarians require 1 acre per year while meat eaters require 100 acres per.
Bio-fuel is just a kick in the face when you’re already down.
#6 However there is no way to know exactly how much the cost of food has gone up due to this. It is also true that the cost of fuel would be higher without the biofuels.
I agree with this. Its more likely a matter of degree with biofuels contributing to the problem but not the sole cause.
Biofuels seemed like a good idea at the time, but with food growing land getting scarcer, it may not be so anymore. Perhaps its time to really start looking into alternative fuels and methods of propulsion for vehicles.
On a lighter note lets save the corn for the cows, I love my BBQ. Wait doesn’t that run on propane…damn.
#9 On a lighter note lets save the corn for the cows, I love my BBQ. Wait doesn’t that run on propane…damn.
No REAL BBQ has no propane involved with the cooking process.
I suppose that a reasonable conclusion to all of this is government and environmentalism is a marriage made in hell.
Perhaps a new amendment is in order – the separation of nature and state.
#10: No REAL BBQ has no propane involved with the cooking process.
True enough. I needed a fuel derived from oil in order to make my (maybe not so funny) joke to work. Charcoal would not be as funny. I really use charcoal myself.
#10 “On a lighter note lets save the corn for the cows, I love my BBQ.”
Hallelujah brother. And let’s not feed beef byproducts to those cows either. I like my Alberta range fed beef. 😉
#10 GigG said,
“No REAL BBQ has no propane involved with the cooking process.”
That is a commonly misheld fallacy! Propane is the ideal fuel to cook with at a BBQ. It gives a clean, even heat and leaves no charcoal taste residue. I have been working in the propane and propane accessory industry for many years now and can vouch for the goodness of propane.
Hank Hill
ur grillin. not bbqn.
As long as there is still hunger in the world, it makes no sense morally or politically to burn food for fuel.
I agree with your there, but I must admit there are times I acidently left things on the stove so long that they might as well be used as fuel, charcoal anyone, ha, ha.
#16 As long as there is still hunger in the world, it makes no sense morally or politically to burn food for fuel
I agree with your there, but I must admit there are times I acidently left things on the stove so long that they might as well be used as fuel, charcoal anyone, ha, ha.
Wait, so converting corn into fuel is driving up prices for non corn based food? How does that follow. Here in the US almost all corn production is federally subsidized to keep the price of corn down, it’s why almost all our beverages have corn syrup instead of sugar. Also, the US over produces food, to the point that if all the grains we produce entered the market the price would drop so precipitously the cost to produce would be two to three time the market value. To counteract this the US destroys tons of grains yearly. Not only that the US pays many farmers not to grow crops on their farmlands as a way to keep the price of produce from falling too far.
This last year is one of the few years since the seventies that American farmers made a profit that wasn’t from government subsidy. Mostly due to the addition of bio-fuels to the market. Granted, countries like the UK and Germany, which have limited land with which to farm, using that land to produce bio-fuels does not make sense. But in the US, Oregon alone has twice the area of England and 1/20th the population. It makes little sense for us not to pursue this as a viable energy source. Granted, it probably won’t replace everything we use oil for in the US, but if it can replace even as much as 1/10th of our oil consumption it will be worth the effort.
Umm,
1. the USA supplies 1/3 of the worlds food, at a CUT COST..they cant afford WHAT WE PAY.
2. mountain ranges, and terraced Farming..for some reason we havnt used the Chinese methods…We can grow Switch grass to use a fuel, accross more LAND then is available NOW..
3. do you know that over 1/3 of the USA is under BLM land management??
Back on der farm we got the perfect solushun. Feed the corn to dem cows, then connect a hose to its butt and collect the methane gas. Not only do yer get a nice roast when Elsie croaks, you also get to run your tractors too.
Just as I predicted years ago on this blog.
You guys support keeping the poor poor and hungry, but appease them with free song downloads and wifi.
This whole argument is completely bogus and an effort to derail biofuels by the oil companies and other whiners. 90% of the corn grown in the U.S. is field corn (Dent Corn), “the most important commercial corn grown in the United States” according to Kansas State University, and the only use for it is for animal feed or industrial products, not human consumption. There are 4 basic types of corn: dent, flint, sweet, and popcorn. Only the sweet and popcorn varieties are grown for human consumption
Simple solution to everything: Eat the Poor
#23 Then what kind of corn is used for the making of masa and tortillas and pozole? It sure looks like “field corn” to me.
To make pozole, you need to soak the corn for about a day. AFAIR, you also need to put wood ash in the soaking water, else the corn will still be too hard. That’s “field corn” to me.
I think that the Mexico increases, which began soon after Pres. Bush reserved part of the crop for biofuel, tell the story perfectly.