Biofuels under attack as world food prices soar

PARIS (AFP) - Hailed until only months ago as a silver bullet in the fight against global warming, biofuels are now accused of snatching food out of the mouths of the poor.

Billions have been poured into developing sugar- and grain-based ethanol and biodiesel to help wean rich economies from their addiction to carbon-belching fossil fuels, the overwhelming source of man-made global warming.

Heading the rush are the United States, Brazil and Canada, which are eagerly transforming corn, wheat, soy beans and sugar cane into cleaner-burning fuel, and the European Union (EU) is to launch its own ambitious programme.

But as soaring prices for staples bring more of the planet's most vulnerable people face-to-face with starvation, the image of biofuels has suddenly changed from climate saviour to a horribly misguided experiment.

On Friday, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said biofuels "posed a real moral problem" and called for a moratorium on using food crops to power cars, trucks and buses.

The vital problem of global warming "has to be balanced with the fact that there are people who are going to starve to death," said Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

"Producing biofuels is a crime against humanity," the UN's special rapporteur for the right to food, Jean Ziegler of Switzerland, said earlier.

Biofuels may still be in their infancy but they are growing rapidly, with annual production leaping by double-digit percentages.

In a speech on Wednesday that set down a target for reducing US carbon emissions, George W. Bush pointed to legislation requiring US producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons (136 billion litres) of renewable fuel by 2020.

In 2007, 20 percent of grain -- 81 million tonnes -- produced in the United States was used to make ethanol, according to US think tank the Earth Policy Institute, which predicts that the percentage will jump to nearly a quarter this year.

"We are looking at a five-fold increase in renewable fuel," Bush's top climate change advisor, Jim Connaughton, said in Paris on Thursday at a meeting of the world's major greenhouse-gas polluters.

But more than half of that legislatively-mandated production would come from "second-generation" biofuels made from non-food sources such as switchgrass and wood byproducts, he said.

The EU's and the Brazilian delegates in Paris contested the link between biofuels and the world food crisis.

"This is highly exaggerated," Sergio Serra, Brazil's ambassador for climate change, told AFP.

"There is no real relation of cause and effect between the expansion of the production of biofuels and the raising of food prices. At least it is not happening in Brazil."

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said experts would report back by the end of May on how to guarantee that Europe's planned biofuel boost would not impinge on the environment or the poor.

"There are a lot of concerns about social impacts, rising food prices and environment issues, and for all those reasons we want to insist on sustainability criteria in our legislation," he said.

Defenders of biofuels say food shortfalls have multiple causes, including a growing appetite for meat among the burgeoning middle class in China and India.

On average, it takes more than four kilos (eight pounds) of grain to produce one kilo (two pounds) of pork, and two kilos (four pounds) of grain to yield a kilo (two pounds) of beef.

Climate change may well be a contributing factor.

Some scientists fear rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns may be worsening water scarcity in key agriculture areas such Australia's wheat belt, and rice-growing deltas may be hit by saline intrusion from rising seas.

In addition, the surging cost of oil has had an indirect impact on many poor people, adding to the pinch caused by rising food prices.

That the EU goofballs for you, finding moral dilemmas where there is none. They're just unhappy because they don't have the weather or the space to grow their own biofuel base-crops so they want to scuttle everyone's programs.

I don't think grain-based biofuels are a good idea -- and not because I care about the world's poorest people, but because diverting our grains from the international food chain will eventually hurt our national bottom line. Making biofuels from non-grain products, though, is a super idea...the technology will come along to use wood chips, waste leaves & grass clippings - even Kelp...and while those sources are being developed, we need to drill, drill, drill everywhere in our country so we can use our own oil & gas.

Brazil was able to convert to biofuels 30-odd years ago because they had no petroleum infrastructure to speak of and they have vast tropical regions where sugarcane grows lush & cheap. 

Whatever we do, our government must not kow-tow to any EU demand. 

Any nation stupid enough to burn it's own food supply has a big problem.

It's known locally as stupid leaders!

Brazil was able to convert to biofuels 30-odd years ago because they had no petroleum infrastructure to speak of and they have vast tropical regions where sugarcane grows lush & cheap. 

I'm understanding that the rain forests in Brazil are being cut back to provide more room to grow grain now.  And why is GWB now jumping on the ethanol bandwagon when it is beginning to look like it's a very bad idea?

Yes, drill, drill, drill!  And build some nuclear power plants and more refineries while we're at it.

FireWing...hey, brother...long time no talk...hope you're well.

Absolutely go nuclear -- in big numbers with pre-fabricated structures like the French do, instead of letting the Eco-Nazis force us into 137 one-off, ultra-expensive plants.

I remember reading somewhere -- I think it was Science Digest -- that the rain forest is pretty much intact...has decreased only about 10% or less since 1970...I'll go to GoogleEarth and look at comparative satellite photos...If my memory is right then most of this 'save the rain forest' stuff is mostly Eco-Nazi propaganda...but I do know that in southern Brazil, near Puerto Allegro (my favorite city in all of Brazil) terrain similar to the Argentine Pampas is being plowed & planted in sugar, Milo, sorghum for the first time and displacing Brazilian beef...  

As I said, biofuels are a bad idea only if we're diverting export crop production to biofuels...these fuels will be a real boon to our domestic fuel supplies once the non-grain processes are worked out on a mass production scale. I think GW is behind it to give the biofuels industry a push...someone has to...I can't figure out some of his policies or what drives them, but on the whole he's been more on-track than even his father was -- and he's light years ahead of the degenerate sandwiched between the two Bushes... 

As I said, biofuels are a bad idea only if we're diverting export crop production to biofuels...

of course, and I think we and seeing the beginning of the conquence now.

Well, the devalue of American dollar is also a factor, but farmer all over the world are using the crops to make fuel instead of food, but the demand of food is the same, so the food price is skyrocketing.

Here, we may just pay a few buck more, but in poor country, it's like killing people, literally.

I am against this policy right from the beginning. Use bio waste to make fuel is one thing, use food source is another.

KM...you care about the failed world because?

The question remains, 'what do we owe to nations that have rejected modernity and cling to failed, feudal governmental, economic & cultural systems'? How is the responsibility of farmers in the middle of the United States to feed people whose own leaders are determined to keep those people down -- and who jack-up the price of food stocks to their own people?

yeah, this world is failed, but in the mean time, still got to give people basic needs.

I mean, most people don't need a home theater system or the newest BMW or a vacation in other countries a few times each year. They just want to buy food for a reasonble price to feel their family. I think it is not too much to ask.

For the skyrocketing food price these days, it just add extra burden to to working and lower class. Like my mom is endlessly complaining the price is almost doubled. 

I may be picking a nit here, but you said (presumptive 'we') 'still got to give people basic needs.'

Two points: do you believe the presumptive 'we' have to give people basic needs? If so, what's your rationale for 'giving' anyone anything? Am I to conclude from your comment that we in the US owe life and livelihood to those who are either unwilling or incapable of feeding themselves? ...and if they can't feed themselves are we responsible for feeding the families they can't afford?

Second point: you're absolutely right that people don't need home theaters & international travel...is it not reasonable then that consumers need to set priorities for using their finite supplies of currency? Not to put too fine a point on it, but in this country even our allegedly poor live better than the average EU citizen -- in every regard...more personal space in their homes than working-class Europeans -- and half of those whose incomes are below the poverty level own their home; a much higher percentage than in Europe; color TV (more than half of our public assistance recipients have two color TVs),  95% of our 'poor' not only have a land line phone but they have cellular service...the list goes on.

If food were to become scarce or the prices were to continue to rise, is it not incumbent upon the individual to re-prioritize how his/her money is allocated?

Obviously, I'm speaking about the American condition...most of the failed states where the hungriest people live are nearly cashless societies, so buying food is always a problem...what is our obligation to alleviate their hunger when their own leaders won't?

To claim, as the EU exo-socialists claim that diverting crops to biofuels is a moral abomination when they are not net food providers to even their former colonies is an outrageous insult to American farmers and the American food production industry because the presumption is that 'we' somehow 'owe' a living to people for whom we have no legal or ethical responsibility.

Your thoughts, please. 

hey, easy there, I am just trying to have a casuel discussion here, don't need to get the nerve up.

I don't know about all the politics, socialism, democracy or whatever, and I am not a political scientist, I am just talking about as basic as daily lifes. My family is relatively a bit better off already, but others who are even more deperate with less money is really the needy group and crying for help.

yes, we are to provide ourselves, but it is also the gov's job to not let the situation to get out of hand.

Is to have basic need a luxary already?

Wait till your local store charge you double for the same thing, you may start to experience this whole mess. 

KM...I'm not picking on you, pal...just trying to be a devil's advocate against knee-jerk altruism.

I could be wrong, but you come across as an idealistic young person...there's certainly nothing wrong with idealism and I wish I were young again . There's nothing wrong with being young and inexperienced. 

This is not a criticism, but your English seems almost broken...are you a recent immigrant? If so, congratulations!...You've grabbed the brass ring, pal. Clearly, you have opinions and you speak them...excellent! Now, let me encourage you to read, take classes, talk to wise people who know about politics, government, socialism, capitalism, literature and poetry...whatever you fancy...learn all you can, hear as many different voices as you possibly can and then apply those lessons to building a scholarly life...The chief scholar at the Buddhist temple I attend is also an auto plant assembly line worker...scholars are national treasures...you're obviously bright...and you're caring...channel those wonderful traits into a life of learning and doing.

If I presumed incorrectly, I beg your forgiveness. I look forward to continuing our dialog. 

Oh no, not the beef!  Seriously, displacing cattle for biofuel is not a good thing imo,being a steak lover and all.  And even if they aren't digging into the rain forest yet, they probably will be in the near future what with the world demand for oil and fuel increasing like it is.

As for the EU ever telling us what we should or shouldn't do about anything is totally obnoxious.  But I'm not for using our land to grow crops for fuel if it means severely curtailing grazing land or fields for feed and grain or food.  And I don't believe in government subsidies either. 

No offense, but I don't like people presume stuffs, as the presumption is often wrong in some point (people are not as good as they think when try to guess who the person is like), but they still try to be smart and think they presumed correctly, that's where the prejudice begins. This is from what I observed. Here is a useful tip I often give to people: don't ever presume anything, you can be deadly wrong and don't know it.

As for me, I don't presume anything, nor I care if the guy's first language is English or where is he from, or he is black or white. I reply according to the person's points. A guy with perfect English but with no point is meaningless.

Anyway. I don't know if I am am idealist, I only know that my mom (also with many other moms and dads) is contantly screaming about the rising food price that trying to break her wallet when her income is not high.

Rich middle class and up families may not care about pay a few bucks more in supermarkets, but it certainly put a lot of pressure in poorer families.

And how about the following?

http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/19557/Crude-oil-replacement-sea-water-/

Anyone care to give their opinion?  Research appears to be proceeding by credible scientists.

Firewing says:

I'm understanding that the rain forests in Brazil are being cut back to provide more room to grow grain now. And why is GWB now jumping on the ethanol bandwagon when it is beginning to look like it's a very bad idea?

Yes, drill, drill, drill! And build some nuclear power plants and more refineries while we're at it.

_____________________________________________________________

I agree with you, FW. We have major oil fields in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, North Dakota that no one seems to be interested in developing, even though the Canadian fields at Athabasca are the same type of oil, and they have built an underground refinery to process it for about $10/bbl and they are now in a production mode.

The cutting back of the rain forests, I believe, is a big part of the global warming issue as wind patterns have been changed worldwide through massive timber cutting and land clearing worldwide. Moreover, the rain forest contains many undiscovered plants that are possible disease cures - one of them being a tree that was discovered over 10 years ago that has cancer curing properties. This has not been allowed to be developed because it falls into the heading of natural cures and the pharmaceutical industry would not be able to reap the enormous profits therefrom. (I will try to find the name of this tree for you. How many people could have been cured since it was discovered?)

Given the choice, I believe I would rather eat my corn and sugar than drive on it. Old prophecies have stated that there will be plenty of money at the "end times" but no food to buy.

Seems like the goal is to be Scroogelike and greedy and "reduce the surplus population" doesn't it?

And yes, my grocery bill is nearing double what it was, also. 

EE...Mr. Kanzius certainly has a good idea and the beginning of a useful technology. I remember seeing the video and at the time the news report was shot, more energy was needed to produce the reaction than was generated...perhaps it will work in a large-scale operation. But what Kanzius demonstrates is that we're not solely dependant upon the big companies for our energy future...individual innovation will again be our salvation.

Speaking of which, I saw a video on Saturday of another privateer who has developed a low-voltage hydrolysis process for separating hydrogen from water...the process was originally designed for welding -- a cool flame that goes plasmatic on contact with almost anything, then the guy adapted the system to power a 1994 Ford Escort gasoline-hyrdrogen hybrid that would produce something like 400 miles per gallon of water -- with water as the exhaust product when running on hydrogen only...apparently, the system releases more energy than is required to cause the reaction...

I hope I have my facts straight, but the important thing to me is that so long as capitalism exists there will be people who are willing to invent things...but if the Leftocrats have their way, there will be zero incentive to do the hard work invention requires and we'll be up a creek without paddle, boat or even any place to go.  

Could it be possible that Jesus Christ in his wisdom picked oil as our energy solution? Look at how much we have and have discovered and there is more likelyhood that it renews itself continuously.

Liberal solutions ALWAYS produce the opposite of the stated intent - or worse.

FireWing & Mz...I'm not giving up my beef either...they get my beef when they take it out of my cold, dead mouth .

FW...you're totally so right about the EuroGeeks telling us anything. Because of my job in Kabul I had to spend a lot of time working with the EU diplomatic delegation and with the senior NATO European officers. IMHO, most of their top brass wouldn't make a pimple on any US NCO's butt and their 'diplomats' are buffoons...arrogant, rude, condescending -- all without justification. And the EU economy is a bigger mess than ours is or will be even at the worst of a recession...they're losers.

I went on GoogleEarth after I posted last night...the Brazilian & Andean rain forest has been cut-back a little more than I remembered but it's still largely intact. But Thailand, Cambodia & Maylasia have done real damage in their rain forests & hardwood forests...I stayed up longer than I should have doing follow-up reading...the most rapacious of the forest killers are the Japanese...the Nips regard their home islands as sacred land and treat it very gently, but their foreign enterprise companies feel free to rape & plunder everyone else's land...Still, according to Google, there are more active deciduous forests in the world today than at any time in the past 2,000 years...in North America, we have more than three times the forested land than existed when C. Columbus arrived here 500 years ago...forest patterns here are different from the natural patterns but our trees are highly active atmosphere processors...that's good news!

Mz...from what I read last night, you're dead-on right about natural medicines and such yet to be discovered in rain forests -- and other places. Food prices are up, to be sure...but double?