Stop Biofuel Lunacy: Effects on Global Food Crisis

[esbo]

So, you've given up entirely on being rational? Good to know.

No I am just replying to your irrational view of the issue.
When people are staving your arhuement that they are not really starving is not going to go down too well.

It must be obvious to even the least intelligent of people that burning food in your fuel
take will push up food prices.
If you cannot accept that then this is utterly pointless.
It must also be obvious that by putting biodiesel in your tank you are effictively making
youself a murderer.
More biofuel= more deaths.
That is what is boils down to.

 

[wolram]

Would you be happy if they chose to improve themselves by blowing your brains out and robbing you?
Because believe me that is what I would do if I were in their position.
What goes around comes around.

If they could afford guns and bullets they could afford to feed them self's, may be you think it is right to support people that just live and rely almost totally on food aid, that is your right, i think it is an ever increasing problem, and without some sort of population control there will be mass deaths from starvation, not from world food shortages but world food costs.

 

[kmarinas86]

Is is just me, or are people who were against U.S. crop subsidization (because they put third-world farmers at disadvantage) are finally getting what they wanted?

 

[esbo]

If they could afford guns and bullets they could afford to feed them self's, may be you think it is right to support people that just live and rely almost totally on food aid, that is your right, i think it is an ever increasing problem, and without some sort of population control there will be mass deaths from starvation, not from world food shortages but world food costs.

Buying a gun will get you more food in the long term than buying food.

You are wrong to assume that these people just rely on food aid or 'just live'.
Their wages cannot afford food prices inflated by biofuel.
If there are mass deaths it won't just be the poor who will die and the unrest will
spread.
"Let them eat cake" might seem like a good idea to some, but unfortunately for them
they usually end up headless.

 

[wolram]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...food-aid-scheme-runs-out-of-money-800220.html

Some facts, Biofuel is Not the main problem.
And a lot of food aid goes to people who do not work as in producing some thing.

 

[Nabeshin]

It must also be obvious that by putting biodiesel in your tank you are effictively making
youself a murderer.
More biofuel= more deaths.
That is what is boils down to.

Oh come on. Take a step back and realize how ridiculous what you're saying is. Here's a counter-point:
Less biofuel=more conflict over oil=more deaths in the middle east.

Now if you could quit responding emotionally to any point someone makes that is contrary to your ideas (i.e calling them a murderer) then perhaps we can have a discussion.

 

[Hurkyl]

No I am just replying to your irrational view of the issue.

Huh? I haven't even said anything about my view on the issue. I did, however, make a reasoned challenge one of your ridiculously exaggerated claims -- that is the exact opposite of what it would mean for my post to be irrational.

When people are staving your arhuement that they are not really starving is not going to go down too well.

If you want to argue with a figment of your imagination, then you shouldn't do it on the forum. If you want to have a rational discussion with real people, then you need to respond to what they actually say.

(My apologies if someone really did make that claim -- I didn't notice it)

 

[esbo]

Oh come on. Take a step back and realize how ridiculous what you're saying is. Here's a counter-point:
Less biofuel=more conflict over oil=more deaths in the middle east.

Now if you could quit responding emotionally to any point someone makes that is contrary to your ideas (i.e calling them a murderer) then perhaps we can have a discussion.

No you are wrong. Totally wrong.
As food prices increase there is more civil unrest in places like Iraq.
High food prices increase civil unrest and is a recruiting sargent for terrists and the like
which disrupt fossil oil supplies pushing prices even higher.
You are into a vicious circle here.
If you would quit beinig pompous and listen to what I am saying you might be able to see what the problem is.
You are the one who is being emotional I am being factual.
Biofuel is a murderous policy, there is no doubt about that.
Telling someone who is facing starvation to quit being emotion is about as stupid as it gets.

 

[esbo]

Some facts, Biofuel is Not the main problem.
And a lot of food aid goes to people who do not work as in producing some thing.

There are not many real facts in that link.
"not because of a crisis caused by famine or war but because of market conditions"
is all it says it does not say that biofuel is the cause of the 'market conditions.

I can't post the link but it is (or was on the link you posted)
"The Big Question: Why are food prices rising so fast, and who are the beneficiaries?"

"Finally, cereals which had been used for food in the past are being diverted into the production of biofuels, such as ethanol. Biofuels were blamed for a huge rise in maize prices earlier this year, which led to unrest in Mexico after the price of tortillas more than tripled over six months."

So it is clear from that report that biofuels *are* the main problem. They *tripled* the price of maize.
A lot of newspapers are reluctant to report the true cause, maybe because their governments are the ones responsible for the switch to biofuel.
They seem to be desperate to cover up this fact and are coming up with lame excuses such as the expansion of Chineese middle classes, but any fool would know that the Chineese middle class does not triple overnight. Changes such as that are gradual and the market would be able to cater for them.
What the market cannot cater for is huge swathes of the food supply suddenly being bought up by countries such as the USA and fed into gas tanks.
The USA has efectively declared war on these countries by buying up their food supply
to burn in their SUV's on their Summer vacation, a criminal act in my opinion.
It looks like another one of Bushes great ideas.

 

[esbo]

Huh? I haven't even said anything about my view on the issue. I did, however, make a reasoned challenge one of your ridiculously exaggerated claims -- that is the exact opposite of what it would mean for my post to be irrational.



If you want to argue with a figment of your imagination, then you shouldn't do it on the forum. If you want to have a rational discussion with real people, then you need to respond to what they actually say.

(My apologies if someone really did make that claim -- I didn't notice it)

Unfortunately it is not really possible to have an argument if you choose to miss the point.
I am saying the biofuels are pushing up fuel prices are you denying that is the case.

This is what you said.

"The world supply of food is far greater than what the current human population eats, and the capacity for food production is far greater than what is actually supplied."

Care to explain that?
If the world supply is greater than what we eat why are we producing more than what we
eat? And if there is a surplus of food, why are prices so high why have they doubled and trippled in a very short time scale.
The same goes for food production capacity, if that is so great why are prices sky-rocketing?

 

[Hurkyl]

but any fool would know that the Chineese middle class does not triple overnight.

Any "fool" can dismiss an idea without a second thought -- but it takes a reasoned mind to consider it first.

Exercise: come up with some hypothetical examples of how the Chinese could increase their food consumption over a short time scale, without a change in population.

If you cannot even come up with one example, then I posit you really have no business arguing so passionately -- passion can sometimes be a good thing, but it can also be exceedingly harmful to one's self when passion supplants reason.

(Note that I am not asserting that the Chinese are the primary cause, or even any sort of contributing factor -- I'm simply harshly criticizing the fact that you would automatically dismiss the possibility without giving it any consideration. i.e. that you're being irrational)

 

[Hurkyl]

Unfortunately it is not really possible to have an argument if you choose to miss the point.

Nor is it possible to have a reasoned argumeent with someone who resorts to emotional fallacies and hyperbole.

I am saying the biofuels are pushing up fuel prices are you denying that is the case.

If you want to have an argument with a figment of your imagination, then don't do it in this forum. If you want to have a discussion with me, or anyone else, then you had better start responding to what we actually say, rather than making stuff up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have merged this thread with another one on this topic, so if there are any discontinuities in the discussion, that is likely the reason.

 

[esbo]

Any "fool" can dismiss an idea without a second thought -- but it takes a reasoned mind to consider it first.

Exercise: come up with some hypothetical examples of how the Chinese could increase their food consumption over a short time scale, without a change in population.

If you cannot even come up with one example, then I posit you really have no business arguing so passionately -- passion can sometimes be a good thing, but it can also be exceedingly harmful to one's self when passion supplants reason.

(Note that I am not asserting that the Chinese are the primary cause, or even any sort of contributing factor -- I'm simply harshly criticizing the fact that you would automatically dismiss the possibility without giving it any consideration. i.e. that you're being irrational)

Again you are just missing the point, the Chineese are not going to increase their
food consumption dramatically because changes in a nations food consumption tend to
change gradually.
Has there been a step change in China demographic profile? No.
Chinas GDP has been growing at about 9% so maybe they can consume 9% more food
They can certaintly afford to consume 9% more food, maybe they consumed 10% more food, but it is equally likely that that produced 9% more food afterall if GDP increased
9% is would be fairly remarkable if there was no increase in their food production.
It might have increased more than that.


"There are 1.3 billion people in China and they are now eating twice as much meat as they did in 1990. The demand for more meat is staggering but so too is the increase in grain production to feed extra livestock. Two studies being released today indicate the days of cheap food are coming to an end, with a range of factors conspiring to transform food production and markets on a global scale."

So a doubling in meat consumtion in 18 years that equates to 4% growth per annum
and I will bet you a pound to a penny that there has been a similar growth in food production. Indeed that is what it says "The demand for more meat is staggering but so too is the increase in grain production to feed extra livestock."

So anyone who associates the recent dramatic changes in food prices to China, quite frankly is living in cloud cuckoo land, or quite simply lying through their teeth to cover up
the real resason.

It is *blindly obvious* that the incease in food prices has gone hand in hand with the increase in biofuel productio nwhich has taken off recently.

Biofuels are the "new kid on the block" and production has soared, it just politically inconvienient to admit it, far easier to fill up your SUV and blame it on China.

And even if China is consuming more food you can imagine how devastation the massive explosion in biofuel will have on food supplies. Increse in demand for food accompanied by
as massive switch of agricultural land to biiofuel production.
And actually China is producing more biofuel too so their extra demand for food is caused
by biofuel.

It is misinformation by the press, smoke and mirrors to disguise the real problem.

There is no doubt about that. It is so obvious.

 

[esbo]

Nor is it possible to have a reasoned argumeent with someone who resorts to emotional fallacies and hyperbole.



If you want to have an argument with a figment of your imagination, then don't do it in this forum. If you want to have a discussion with me, or anyone else, then you had better start responding to what we actually say, rather than making stuff up.

Unfortunately as you refuse to answer any point driectly, I have to resort to having an argument with a figment of my imagination.
You miss the point and take it off onto a largly irrelevant side issue.

 

[Hurkyl]

Unfortunately as you refuse to answer any point driectly, I have to resort to having an argument with a figment of my imagination.

Then don't have that argument in this forum.

You miss the point and take it off onto a largly irrelevant side issue.

If you didn't want to defend your assertions regarding side issues, then you shouldn't have asserted them.

If you stick to facts and reasoned arguments, and this thread might be interesting. If you attempt other methods of persuasion, then I'm going to challenge them.

 

[wolram]

This is a couple of years old but i doubt if the situation is much different, the costs may be
but not the inter change.

http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/programs/commodity/information/tm10.pdf

 

[esbo]

I have a problem with with the first statement that global warming would reduce the amount of land available for food production. an increase in temperature would move the "growth line further north and south. while the middle would of course suffer, the major food producing areas of the world would now be extended. Canada for instance is now producing grain further north than in the past. Is there a source you could site varifying your statement?
Of course there has been no "global" warming in nearly a decade. the slight rise in temperature reported (if it is true) in the Northern Hemisphere has been more than off set by the steady decline of the Southern Hemisphere.

The far more dangerous possibility is that we are actually entering a global cooling period. As a atmospheric chemist I work with has said...CO2 is not a cause of warming and never has been. CO2 increases have always followed temperature, by as much as hundreds of years, CO2 is not chemical able to raise the temperature by more than a fraction of the natural forcing we have. And of course when the highest concentrations know of this benificial gas occurred we were in the depth of an ice age.

When we quite the foolish thinking of CO2 forced climate we will once again observe that the Sun is what controls the climate, and it has shown all the signs of a impending minimum. With solar activity at a 200 year low (similar to the little ice age) we need to put our limited resources toward preparing for an extended cool period.
All that said I agree 100% with your point that bio-fuel will create a worse situation than the problem it attempts to solve. It is a case of the pols saying we have to do do something to appease the people, and as usuall they are doing the wrong thing.

Another point I must make is that it is too simplistic to blame the U.S. and SUV's for starvation. Who sets the prices for oil? certainly not the United States. And insofar as starving the world, the United States has for many years been the greatest supplier of food aid to other countries, in fact many years supplying more free food and technology than the rest of the world combined. As I said it is the simplistic knee jerk reaction to blame the U.S. When much more obvious reasons abound.

I think if you look at the facts the USA is a net importer of food, so it is consuming the worlds food (both in bellies and gas tanks), largely on borrowed money.
So if you are indeed giving food and technology away it is probably not really yours in the first place (sorry could not resist that one).

And oh Mr Gates can I have my free copy of window VISTA please??

On second thoughts I won't bother - I have read the reviews

 

[esbo]

Then don't have that argument in this forum.


If you didn't want to defend your assertions regarding side issues, then you shouldn't have asserted them.

If you stick to facts and reasoned arguments, and this thread might be interesting. If you attempt other methods of persuasion, then I'm going to challenge them.

Well then try challanging some of the *facts* I have posted, or just agree that they are correct.

 

[Evo]

I think if you look at the facts the USA is a net importer of food, so it is consuming the worlds food (both in bellies and gas tanks), largely on borrowed money.

Please post the studies that document your statement that the US is a net importer of food. No more posts until you provide this information.

 

[esbo]

Please post the studies that document your statement that the US is a net importer of food. No more posts until you provide this information.

Oh dear that threw me
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/exports111204.cfm

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/May07SpecialIssue/Findings/Fruit.htm

But I have a better idea:-

Please post the studies that document your statement that the US is a net exporter of food. No more posts until you provide this information.

Oh and before you waste your time:-

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/food-crisis/2008/02/25/

"The United States is now a net importer of food"

Looks like I have my pass to post more


And don't forget this one:-
http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/5_trade_deficit.htm
"At $2.5 trillion, the U.S. is one of the world’s largest food producers. However, it is a net importer of food, exporting only $59 billion and importing $68 billion."

I must say I find it the hight of arrogance for you suggest my claims are unfounded
when you provide no evidence to prove otherwise.

Still, par for the course I guess.

Futhermore I would go as far as to suggest that a lot of that 'food' is not being used for
food at all, but for biofuel, unless of course you have evidence to disprove that.

i mean all that food must be going somewhere, apart from into the their fat bloated bodies, surely?

 

[esbo]

Of course the reason why you are under the illisuion that the USA is a net importor of food is because, well the USA would rather keep that quite, not good for the President if the US and the rest of the world realize that Bush is the worst president since sliced bread.
For similar reasons it would like to give you the impression that biofuels are not responsible for rocketing food prices.
Afterall why tell the truth when you can lie through your teeth and continue with disasterous policies, afterall nobody might spot you are a useless liar.
However I will, because I am neither.

 

[Evo]

Sorry you're wrong.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/cu...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED231702

One of a series on topics of concern to the U.S. media, this guide is intended to provide journalists with concise, authoritative background information on the U.S. role in the world food situation. Today the United States is the world's greatest exporter of food. The produce of one out of every three acres goes abroad, more than half of it to developing countries. Provided and discussed are tables and charts showing agricultural exports by U.S. region and their percentage share of gross farm sales for selected years; percentage share of agricultural exports by states of region (1980); regional share of agricultural exports by commodities (1980); and the contribution of agricultural exports to employment and farm sale, and state rankings as exporters of agricultural products (1977). The guide discusses debates over the descriptions of the world food situations and variations in prescription--what the well-fed West should do about those hungry millions; also examined are questions that most world food experts agree are crucial. Agricultural research projects of land grant universities are cited as being one of the handiest sources of information on world food issues for the working journalist. The guide concludes with listings of reference materials and resource persons. (RM)

 

[esbo]

Sorry you're wrong.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/cu...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED231702

One of a series on topics of concern to the U.S. media, this guide is intended to provide journalists with concise, authoritative background information on the U.S. role in the world food situation. Today the United States is the world's greatest exporter of food. The produce of one out of every three acres goes abroad, more than half of it to developing countries. Provided and discussed are tables and charts showing agricultural exports by U.S. region and their percentage share of gross farm sales for selected years; percentage share of agricultural exports by states of region (1980); regional share of agricultural exports by commodities (1980); and the contribution of agricultural exports to employment and farm sale, and state rankings as exporters of agricultural products (1977). The guide discusses debates over the descriptions of the world food situations and variations in prescription--what the well-fed West should do about those hungry millions; also examined are questions that most world food experts agree are crucial. Agricultural research projects of land grant universities are cited as being one of the handiest sources of information on world food issues for the working journalist. The guide concludes with listings of reference materials and resource persons. (RM)

OK maybe I was wrong
But do you have more recent figures than that?

 

[esbo]

This is a couple of years old but i doubt if the situation is much different, the costs may be
but not the inter change.

http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/programs/commodity/information/tm10.pdf

"The catch, however, is that the ethanol plants can afford to out-bid everyone else for tight corn supplies."

This is the problem, biofuel is pushing up world food costs, and the only options the people
who cannot afford those food price have is to die or go down fighting.
The second option don't look great until you look at the first, and it won't take long for
the fight to be taken to the aggressor.
It's very simple logic.
You have a recipcy for Armageddon here.

 

[Integral]

Please do not equate ethanol to biofuel. Ethanol is only ONE source of renewable fuels, and not a particularly good one. As other alternatives become available, and cheaper ethanol will go by the wayside. For the reasons you mention, and more it is simply not viable in the long term. But ethanol is not the ONLY biofuel, there are others (see some of the algae threads) which do not compete with food. To stop research in biofuels because of the problems with ethanol is simply stupid.

 

[vanesch]

But ethanol is not the ONLY biofuel, there are others (see some of the algae threads) which do not compete with food. To stop research in biofuels because of the problems with ethanol is simply stupid.

I have to say that I am no expert in these things at all, and I would agree with you that research in biofuels (as research in about anything) is always a good idea. However, but I don't know in how much this is the cause for the current food price rises, it is not unthinkable that massive *state subventions* for trading food crops for biofuel crops WILL put the food market in competition with the skewed (by subventions) biofuel market, and will as such give rise to strong rises in food prices (but, again, I don't know if *this* price rise has anything to do with it).

We have witnessed similar problems in the past, when food growth is put in competition with a more lucrative market. We've seen this with tobacco, we've seen this with cotton, we've seen it with cocaine. Each time that food growth has to compete for farmer land and farmer activity with more lucrative crops, we get a regional food crisis. Because usually the "rich customer" is not local.

 

[vanesch]

This is the problem, biofuel is pushing up world food costs, and the only options the people
who cannot afford those food price have is to die or go down fighting.

I propose that they drink the ethanol...

 

[Hurkyl]

But do you have more recent figures than that?

I do. And a more detailed breakdown of your figures.

From here (from a link on this page, I observe that in 2007, the U.S. exported 84,228 million dollars worth of "food, feeds, and beverages", while importing only 81,686 million dollars worth. (Exhibit 6)

Notably (from Exhibits 7 and 8), over Jan-Feb 2008, the U.S. exported 4,941 million dollars worth of corn, rice, and wheat (and a few hundred million in other grains), and imported 0 dollars worth of major grains. (except for whatever's included in that 624 million dollars worth of 'feedstuff and foodgrains')


The grains look the same in the 2004 annual data too: 13,342 million dollars worth of exports for corn, rice, and wheat (and a billion or so worth of other misc grains), and no imported grains (except for what's masked by 'feedstuff and foodgrains', and maybe in 'other foods')

The trade deficit in 2004 is due to the massive importing of fish and shellfish, with wine (and related), meat, and 'other foods' being distant secondary contributors. (little more than half the seafood spending)



P.S. I've noticed that, since my previous post, you've made opening statements for starting at least five new side topics (u.s. debt, windows vista, obesity, Bush, armageddon) -- do you really intend to open these topics for discussion, or do you withdraw your comments?

 

[wolram]

About China

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=40915

 

[Evo]

But do you have more recent figures than that?

This gives some interesting stats on grain export, including corn and soy, it's from March 5th, 2008. This is some interesting information that relates to this thread.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3629

 

[esbo]

I do. And a more detailed breakdown of your figures.

From here (from a link on this page, I observe that in 2007, the U.S. exported 84,228 million dollars worth of "food, feeds, and beverages", while importing only 81,686 million dollars worth. (Exhibit 6)

Notably (from Exhibits 7 and 8), over Jan-Feb 2008, the U.S. exported 4,941 million dollars worth of corn, rice, and wheat (and a few hundred million in other grains), and imported 0 dollars worth of major grains. (except for whatever's included in that 624 million dollars worth of 'feedstuff and foodgrains')


The grains look the same in the 2004 annual data too: 13,342 million dollars worth of exports for corn, rice, and wheat (and a billion or so worth of other misc grains), and no imported grains (except for what's masked by 'feedstuff and foodgrains', and maybe in 'other foods')

The trade deficit in 2004 is due to the massive importing of fish and shellfish, with wine (and related), meat, and 'other foods' being distant secondary contributors. (little more than half the seafood spending)

Seems to be at odds with the several figures I posted, also I believe you figures exclude
biofuels, if seem food used as biofuels is not included.
Also the figures are quite close and were probably effected by the falling dollar making exports easier and imports harder.

 

[esbo]

P.S. I've noticed that, since my previous post, you've made opening statements for starting at least five new side topics (u.s. debt, windows vista, obesity, Bush, armageddon) -- do you really intend to open these topics for discussion, or do you withdraw your comments?

I just posted as per normal. I don't consider them 'opening statements', for what it is worth, nor side topics in particular, just a slection of words contained in my posts.
If I intended to withdraw them it is most unlikely I would have posted them in the first place.

 

[Hurkyl]

Seems to be at odds with the several figures I posted,

How so?

If I intended to withdraw them it is most unlikely I would have posted them in the first place.

So, you don't find it at all hypocrticial for you to make lots of comments on side topics and complain when others respond to those comments?

 

[esbo]

How so?

The ones I posted showed the US was a net importor or food.