Poor Countries Blame Western Biofuels For High Food Prices

Western countries are feeling political and moral heat from poor countries over their use of biofuels.

The New York Times reports:

The idea of turning farms into fuel plants seemed, for a time, like one of the answers to high global oil prices and supply worries. That strategy seemed to reach a high point last year when Congress mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.

But now a reaction is building against policies in the United States and Europe to promote ethanol and similar fuels, with political leaders from poor countries contending that these fuels are driving up food prices and starving poor people. Biofuels are fast becoming a new flash point in global diplomacy, putting pressure on Western politicians to reconsider their policies, even as they argue that biofuels are only one factor in the seemingly inexorable rise in food prices.

In some countries, the higher prices are leading to riots, political instability and growing worries about feeding the poorest people. Food riots contributed to the dismissal of Haiti's prime minister last week, and leaders in some other countries are nervously trying to calm anxious consumers.

The Telegraph emphatically adds:

-- The UN says it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol. That is enough to feed a child for a year. Last week, the UN predicted "massacres" unless the biofuel policy is halted.

-- Hedge funds played their part in the violent rise in spot prices early this year. To that extent they can be held responsible for the death of African and Asian children. Tougher margin rules on the commodity exchanges might have stopped the racket. Capitalism must police itself, or be policed.

--New technology may open the way for the use of non-edible grain stalks to make ethanol, but for now the only biofuel crop that genuinely pays its way is sugar cane ($35). Sugar is carbohydrate: ideal for fuel. Grains contain proteins made of nitrogen: useless for fuel, but vital for people.

Comments

[noneIn2008]

Summer 2006 article in the UK Times foreshadowed events of today:
"the U.K. faces soaring food prices, a shortage of staple foods and declining public health if the country's government forges ahead with plans to promote the use of biofuels. "
"some Asian countries set aside their crops to produce biodiesel. Jope believes this price increase will have knock-on effects on food, and eventually, pubic health"
"could be causing deforestation in South America and Asia, where rain forests are felled to clear land for crops used to produce ethanol."
"Superficially, it looks politically altruistic for a politician to say we are going to replace dwindling reserves of fossil fuels with renewable biofuels. We are now seeing the prospect of very material deforestation,"
" debate could emerge as huge areas of land are needed to grow the crops necessary for biofuels, adding that the energy industry used land in a "terribly inefficient" way.

[ceasenake]

That's why Al Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize. If you want to save the world you've got to starve a bunch of the people, so that those left can live in giant mansions.

[cognate]

It takes more energy to produce biofuel than this fuel itself gives. The net loss is made up by government subsidies and costlier food all over the world.

Just another brilliant idea from the folks that brought us the war in Iraq and are readying to attack Iran.

[Photofarm]

Sorry, your post is wrong, there is a net gain in energy. It also seems those against bio fuels seem to forget that the by-products are fed to livestock.

The real problem is that we had some weather problems in wheat producing areas, and low prices took out the incentive to keep acres in production.

It is really hard for people to believe, but ethanol has actually lowered the price of food in the United States. The price of energy has 3 times the effect on food prices than the price of wheat or corn.

[WIpatriot]

Generally speaking, hasn't the price of food in the US gone UP? Are you saying that the price of energy has no impact on the commodity?? Or are you saying that if the price of oil was constant, the production of corn ethanol would lower food prices???

Yeah, it's really hard for me to believe.

[ceasenake]

Here's an article from 1998 when Al Gore boasted of saving corn ethanol.

http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/10/al-gore-saved-ethanol.html

Thanks Al for starving the children of the third world.

Same for you Brazil.

Anyone remember when Brazil was being held up as the model of a country fighting back against the evil oil industry by producing fuel from sugar? I do.

[WIpatriot]

Lemme see, you wanna feed the starving children sugar?? Zat right?

Who cares, as long as you can blame algore, clinton or da liberals?

[Podewumun]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[doschi]

Let's all say it together now.....

HY-DRO-GEN.

How fucking hard is this?

[MetalCanuck]

NOOO Electric cars, they are 8 times more efficient with electricity than cars are with gas. So even if you use coal power its far less. Its much cheaper and its 100 year old tech we can do NOW.

[noneIn2008]

You have been badly mislead. Where do you get the hydrogen? How much power does it take to produce hydrogen?

[Photofarm]

cognate,

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. You need to get your history facts straight. Ethanol has been around a long time. Serious studies and plant construction started in the late 1970's and early 1980's when Democrat Jimmy Carter was in office and people were waiting in lines to buy gas. The studies at the time were about break even if you used all the fuel to grow the crop of corn in the calculation. Since that time, several things have happened. One is that less fuel is used to produce a bushel of corn, mainly from higher yields. Second is corn with higher percentage of starch is being grown, which produces more ethanol per bushel. Third, better yeast has been developed to help produce more ethanol per bushel of corn.

Farm Subsidies in 80's and 90's kept over production of grains possible, and actually lowered the price of food. If you look at percentage of income, the cost of food dropped dramatically during this time, and all people did was buy more toys.

Now that production is coming closer to demand, and weather can cause some problems food prices are going higher to encourage more production. More production will occur, but it will take a couple years for that to happen, and prices to level off again.

[BlueBoomer]

Since, as I understand it, sugar beets are also a source of what it takes to make ethynol, why aren't they being looked at harder vs. corn, since I don't think that they are as weather sensitive, as hard to harvest, as common in other applications (like feed)...AND the remaining beet-greens are a nutrient rich food-source that could be put to good use.

Anybody, out there?...Am I the only one wondering about this?

[Photofarm]

You are pretty much wrong on all counts. Corn is easier to raise, distillers grain ( after ethanol is taken out ) is fed back to cattle, cutting down on corn fed to cattle.

A very small part of the corn crop is actually food grade or sweet corn that humans eat. I think it is less than 5%, and is raised under contract with growers.

[Mike169]

I wish they'd just blame Iowa.

[WIpatriot]

I do. But only partially.

[Rule Of Law]

Wow, what a fact-less article. Congress mandate blah blah blah. What's the real deal here? How much additional ethanol was produced in America last year, strictly from American corn, over the previous year? What kind of corn was used and what would it have gone into had it not been turned into ethanol? I want tonnage of corn and I want gallons of fuel figures! Without that, everyone here is pretty much blowing co2.

Oh, but wait--isn't that the point of "news" articles like this one. My bad.

[Podewumun]

LOL This article was rather thin, wasn't it?
I'm with you, Rule Of Law. Give me hard numbers. They don't lie.

[Rule Of Law]

LOL too, because my wife, bless her, is a math head/science geek without whom our children would still be counting on their hands and toes if left to me. She can make numbers do the most amazing things! But we do agree, and If I want to hear lies and distortions and manufactured gabble meant only to inflame my already overworked sense of fair play, I'll just drift on over to the Democratic Cage Fight Page and cheer on one of the gladiators the MSM has left for us to get behind!

Fact is, Patriot is dead on about switch grass, and it will work just as well with any cellulosic debris, though the science is not quite there yet for releasing the energy contained in it. My money would be on sugar beets--they can grow up to the size of Karl Roves head!

[MrJoyboy]

You can look at it like this: When you fill your SUV with biofuel, you'll be burning someone's child.

[edva]

Biofuel production is a defensible practice. The raising of animals for meat is a MUCH bigger culprit,
and also tremendously destructive to the environment, along with being reprehensibly cruel.
Why are we so reluctant to face this truth? Is the eating of meat worth its cost to us, the environment, and most of all, the animals we so callously allow to suffer? Disgraceful gluttons!

[skahimself]

Ok hippie.

While I agree with you that animal feed, methane, and factory farms ARE huge culprits when it comes to pollution and CO2 levels, you comepletely lose me on the "animals suffer" grounds.

Animals, despite what PETA tells you, are not smart, interesting, beautiful, unique, intelligent creatures. Lets take cows for example - they are nothing more than dumb as fuck, eating, regurgitating, crapping pieces of T-Bone.

They are nothing more than several hundred lbs of dinner.

What do you think hurts worse? Getting torn apart by a pack of wolves, coyotes, or mountain lions or a bolt gun to the dome? Where's your cow love then? Nowhere. Thats where. Because you think its part of the natural order. Well so is the homo sapien who can use a computer to map a cows near non-existent thought patterns taking an ax, hacking of the cows head, and drinking beer from its still bloody skull!

You want to talk about waste of resources vs caloric input thats one thing - and its a very valid argument, but the minute you bring the "would you shoot Bambi's mother" sentiment into the equation you sound like a pussy and an idiot.

[Podewumun]

You've got some serious issues. Seek help, Bundy.

[ceasenake]

If nobody ate meat, chickens, cattle, most pigs, and most ducks would become extict within 10 years. If there wasn't a profit in it nobody would feed, breed or shelter any of these animals.

There would be billions less animals in the world if they became useless as food.

[vershynin]

Rest from the policy of http://persik.at.ua/
Rest from the policy of http://persik.at.ua/
Rest from the policy of http://persik.at.ua/

[WIpatriot]

How does THIS get thru the proofies while my mildly acerbic comments do not?

[Rule Of Law]

Don't know--but I can see why the Russkies fought so hard to keep that Iron Curtain up!

[loki]

I think the big reason for food cost is fuel cost. farming is not cheap, and fuel cost will be high this year. Then you have processing, transportation, and so on. Each require energy. Whether is electricity to dry th e grains and or process it into food products, or its transported by truck, barge , boat, aircraft, it takes energy. And in this country most energy is oil based. Also, they know they can get away with raising prices as even if energy cost isnt a big factor, people will believe it is.

[loki]

Considering ethanol fuels actually decrease fuel economy by as much as 30% ( depending on amount mixed with gas) Straight ethanol can be a decrease as much as 50%, I dont see the big rush to decrease the food supply, to get lower gas mileage? Sure, it might ease the load of oil usage, but its going to cost us much more with lower gas mileage and higher food prices. And do you really think now that people have accepted paying over $3 a gallon that ethanol will lower that price? Not a chance. Maybe if we didnt drive everywhere and started using public transport, bikes, walking, even car pooling, gas prices would fall a little. But corporations have an idea now of just how much we are willing to pay to keep things as they are, and they know we have not come close to the breaking point either. Im guessing at close to $5 a gallon, people MIGHT start to slow down. But the prices will never go back down now. Not that we have accepted this.

[Podewumun]

Carpooling used to be the norm when most of the people in a town were shift workers in the same factory. Not anymore. Recently my husband, a retired plumber, applied for a job at one of the big box hardware stores. You should have seen the topsy-turvy schedule they wanted to put him on. And it changed from week to week! Now that our manufacturing base is for all intents and purposes KAPUT, service sector jobs like those in retail are about all that's left. But their blatant stupidity when it comes to setting up regular schedules for their employees makes carpooling impossible!

[Kman2]

I wonder how many people who complain about food being used for fuels are driving 18 mpg SUV's?
There is no way ethanol in itself all of a sudden drove prices up so fast. Part of it (as pointed out by The Telegraph above) are the new investors in commodities. These investors went from tech stocks in 2000 to housing (now crashing). Now it's commodities. It's not just food, many commodities have had huge price jumps, such as metals. Don't forget oil!! The high price of a barrel of oil or a pound of copper can't be blamed on US farmers.

[Podewumun]

True. The hedge fund piggies will be the death of us all.

[wagadog]

It's April. I'm planting a garden.

[WIpatriot]

It's April. Here in the frozen tundra, we can start seedlings pretty soon.

[Podewumun]

Thank goodness for hotboxes!

[Rule Of Law]

Patriot, haven't forgotten you--have tired everyway to make that address work, expect something today, hopefully. Loved your site btw, my buddy and I resto'd his '69 Camaro RS/SS 396.All I can say is OEM is the only way to go.

[Trueheart]

WHY THE PRICE OF PEAK OIL IS FAMINE
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard International Business Editor
in UK Telegraph, September 2008

Tough stuff

[tjlogic]

Not just biofuels... Look at everything we eat. It all has corn in it! We're CORNIVORES - corn syrup, corn starch, high fructose corn syrup, cornmeal. It's everywhere. Biofuels aren't great, but they aren't the only problem. We need to diversify our food - not get our sugar, starch, and vegetable sources all from corn!

[Podewumun]

You're absolutely right about that, tjlogic.
And it's not just us. The world's food supply is being taken over by greedy corporations like ADM, Cargdill and Monsanto, and they're not going to stop until they OWN the patent rights to every last seed on the planet.

[loki]

monsanto was also huge in patenting animal and human genes until the gov finally made them slow down on that due to public pressures. They still patent genes, just not as much as they did before, and they are very quiet about it. I know a couple bio engineers at Monsanto and it goes on every single day there. Companies like them, and others in th bio industry really want to some day own the genes of every person. That way when the day comes that they can grow an organ, they own not only that organ, but your genetic code they used to create it. They would basically own you.

[kentay305]

very good statement. they use more corn syrup in foods than they do regular cane sugar. and what about switchgrass which south america is using instead of corn. more folks would farm lands if the pay was higher. thats like when they talk about mexicans doing jobs other folks wont do...the problem is that we wont do those for those TERRIBLE WAGES...thats the difference..

i went off point but good comment tj

[loki]

Thank ADM for that. Archer Daniels Midland has done more to make our country corn based than any other industry in the world. Since the 1960's ADM has wooed and bribed everyone from local mayors to every president of the US. They were the reason corn Syrup is used and not sugar. They even had policy, laws and regulations re-written to make corn syrup less costly and more government subsidized than any of the sugars. Just a great example of how corporate controlled government is not good for the country. They are only interested in what is good for the bottom line.

[Sumocat]

It doesn't stop there. Farm animals are fed heavy amounts of corn, something they wouldn't ordinarily eat. Unless a piece of meat is labeled "grass-fed", the animal likely consumed a lot of cheap cornmeal.

[loki]

I think you will find that "grass fed" is about like " Organic" Sometimes its just a label and the product is mass produced just like the Unlabeled products. I know they are not suppose to, but I have seen it happen more than a few times here in the midwest. It goes under the classification or " who is going to know if you dont tell"

[Podewumun]

Could there be a connection between the amount of high-fructose corn syrup "hidden" in our diets and the diabetes epidemic in this country? Something to think about.

[WIpatriot]

Good thing you didn't say 'coincidence' because you know what I think about coincidences.